Acid Reflux Disease More Condition_symptoms

Globalization and ethical trade (by Professor Jean-Yves Naudet)

GLOBALIZATION AND THE ETHICS OF TRADE

By Jean-Yves NAUDET

Professor at the Université Paul Cézanne (Aix-Marseille III)

Centre Director Research in business ethics

(Reprinted in "Moral report on the money in the world in 2002"

published by the Association for Financial Economics)

The trial focused on the critical globalization movement is often placed on the map ethical globalization increase inequality, deplete natural resources at the expense of future generations would keep the third world in poverty, destroy the environment, exacerbate social problems. All these observations are largely on a moral and often result in a conviction of the principle even with globalization or at least its current arrangements.

A more balanced judgments on globalization should not lose sight of these ethical considerations. But for the economist, this decision may be brought only by returning to the base of what globalization: a generalization of the exchange, a phenomenon which, it is natural. Not since the source and whether the exchange that globalization only makes it universal is ethical in principle, globalization will be. This takes nothing away from problems or scandals that may come with globalization, but it prevents criticize in principle, by considering itself as immoral.

We observed previously that there is an ambiguity in the critical anti-globalization, which includes two diametrically opposed: one considers that globalization destroys the third world, preventing its development, increasing global inequality, and So globalization is against the third world, to its detriment, the second on the contrary think that globalization is ruining the country rich, invading by unfair competition from low wages and poor social conditions, ruining businesses in developed countries , threaten their agriculture by the invasion of cheap goods and destroying jobs. Both criticisms are contradictory and there is at least two types of arguments in the current anti-globalization.

exchange, a positive sum game

In both cases, the starting point is a zero sum game, with a winner (the poor countries or rich country, according to cases) and a loser. That actually would make globalization immoral, because the exchange would be well. Now there is a contradiction on what exchange. It is in all cases it is free and voluntary, a positive sum game, a source of wealth creation. There are two winners in the exchange (both partners) which makes the ethical superiority. This comes from the subjective value of traded goods: the value is assessed by each co-exchangers differently. Whoever sells attaches more value to what they are buying only what separates it (otherwise it would not do) and who buys in turn gives more to this than what it buys it sells, otherwise it would not: motivation is a free exchange that everyone is benefiting. So there is a net gain that benefits both parties and the exchange may be uneven since each derives subjective satisfactions, of which there is no objective measure: it will depend on the use that we will do good purchased. It is these differences of opinion which in fact cause the exchange.

More fundamentally, the exchange is based on a fundamental ethical principle: that of two free wills who meet in a contract, also negotiated freely, exchange their properties and legitimate themselves obtained by creating a work or another exchange. The exchange is thus based on a moral principle, that of freedom of consent and one is never obliged to accept an exchange, at least if you are, as globally, in a general climate of competition: there is monopoly in the trade can be constrained.

EXCHANGE AND BURST OF KNOWLEDGE

To understand the ethical nature of trade, we must go back to its source, which is due to the bursting of knowledge and information. None of us, no company, no country, no person can know everything and that's why we practice the division of labor, specialization that allows for the qualities and knowledge of others and to benefit more of our own information and qualities. The market, which relies on the exchange, is nothing but a vast system of information processing and we know that attempts at centralized processing of information through a mandatory planning, have all failed. Authors such as FA Hayek emphasized the role of ignorance in economic life. Unlike believed that neoclassical economists, we are not perfect information, but partial information. The prices are nothing other than a system of information processing. More generally, the division of labor and the resulting exchange is a way to acquire, in finished products, knowledge, know-how, skills, information from others. The exchange leads to progress for all, where again its ethical dimension, because it enhances the overall stock of knowledge that everyone can benefit. It is clear that generalized exchange globally, it increases the overall field of knowledge which everyone can benefit.

To these basic arguments in favor of trade as general as possible, we can add that the globalization of trade has other more ethical consequences applied this time.

First, it is obvious that if the exchange is mutually beneficial, it also has positive consequences when he made between companies in countries of different levels of development for poor countries like rich countries.

For poor countries, allows the exchange to purchase goods needed for development, property that can not produce themselves (capital goods) and to find outlets for what they produce (exports). Globalization is a factor of development here and we know that trade is the best form of development assistance, much greater public support, often wasted. History shows that countries closed dug more into poverty and that development has benefited (from the South-East Mauritius) countries playing the game of the opening International. All countries, even the poorest, have assets to bring in terms of human capital and low cost of labor may give them an advantage offset lower productivity: Gradually development will improve wages and social protection.

For rich countries, we know that trade has supported economic activity and is a stabilizing economy and in the opposite direction can be clearly seen in 1929, for example, how isolationism has worsened conditions. Also must see the benefits for the producer (through exports), but also for the consumer ( through imports), which can get cheaper products: what is often presented as a danger to the contrary is a benefit in a consumer society: it enjoys comparative advantages of others and their efforts and productivity gains.

FREE TRADE LIBERALIZATION AND POLITICAL

Then it is true that economic openness does not always come with political openness and this is hindering the benefits of trade: countries who refuse fundamental freedoms derive less from trade than those who play the game democracy and human rights. But it is clear - it was clearly seen with Eastern Europe - or as close to us with Portugal, Spain and Greece - that the exchange of products is not without an exchange of ideas , men, information and values. In this sense, free trade may be a factor in political liberalization, which, again, gives it an ethical superiority. The exchange is typical of public companies and not closed and impersonal relationships. The generalization of trade mark a movement - accentuated by the fall of the Berlin Wall for companies freedoms, economic freedoms which form a part. There is an ethical respect for human rights and respect can, through the exchange, extend the economic sphere to the political sphere: it's what you can expect gradual participation in trade countries like China.

Certainly, opponents of globalization are concerned about risks to the ethics of domination by one country (the United States in this case) or group of countries (OECD for example) over others. It is true that the hegemony has no ethics. but it rests on a contradiction: we reason as if the exchange is made from state to state, government to government, between countries, as in a state trading. But the exchange is not unlike the 'current term, international, and it is between firms - even between people in our everyday purchases - and there is no substantive difference between an exchange between two entities in a country and an exchange between two companies in two countries different. The same principle is at stake and this is especially true that no product can be considered as 100% of a single country. The smallest has manufactured components, raw materials, subcontractors or services from numerous countries and the traceability of all would be very difficult to reconstruct, as the interpenetration of economies is already a fact.

GLOBALIZATION IS A FACT

Globalization is a fact is a reality. Like any human action, it has weaknesses, risks, limitations. But the principle can not be disputed, at least ethically. As to the practical level, even the fiercest opponents of globalization by using all instruments, all means, communicate via the internet using their laptop, take the plane and send faxes and use of all technologies that eliminate boundaries between people. In this sense everyone, even opponents of globalization, recognizing as a fact.

remains that globalization raises concerns because it conveys, like all human action, good and evil, the strengths and weaknesses of men and that it is in the real world, that of 'imperfect men, and not in an ideal world, one that would give perfect men. Among these concerns, one is more interesting than others, is the fear of cultural uniformity that would result from globalization and the preservation of national cultures and local course has an ethical dimension. In reality, globalization is acting here as any economic phenomenon: there is destruction and creation (as in "creative destruction"). And if some differences disappear, others appear.

But it reminds us that the more our economic vision is broad, across the planet now, it becomes essential for each root locally in traditions, in communities, in civil society. The globalization trend will be more "humanized" that we will realize that the economy is not the right man and that man has dimensions that are cultural or emotional, too, is develop, take root and serve as a counterweight to economic globalization. If globalization is the diversity of trade and products, it must also be accompanied by greater diversity, with a strong and vibrant civil society.

Moped Rentals In Downtown Chicago

Human society, construction or voluntary training catallactic? (By NMdF)

Human society, construction or voluntary training catallactic?

chains Rousseau's interest free Hayek

By

Nicolas Madelenat di Florio

From the Society of Literary History of France.

Research Associate

Centre for Research in Economic Ethics,

Université Paul Cézanne.

To Jean-Yves Naudet, because "intelligence is to understand the links where others would see nothing;

A C. because knowing the past is already prepare its future.

Paul Valery wondered, picking up a shell on the sand, if this "thing" was build or chance, or limestone sculpture, intention or mechanism? (Emile Brehier, History of Philosophy , preface by Jean-Francois Mattei, Quadriga, PUF.) And under questioning that seemed trivial happening, in the shadow of the diversity of opinion, a question: what guides the construction of social order?

I have selected here only two main approaches, and several reasons for this choice. The first, obvious, for Rousseau, is that the moment my work relate to these theses. The second, more difficult is that I might as well make the separation of two streams of ideological inspiration, with Rousseau, which finds its source based on the subject in the work of Descartes, I present the constructivist approach, with Hayek, a more anthropologically respectful of human nature.

For Rousseau, as a worthy successor to Descartes, is that what can be demonstrated. Thus mathematics, and almost alchemical formulas to explain how reason alone, conscious and demonstrable experience, enough to enclose the construction of the individual and society. This strange approach for which we would, as a person, only digital data governed by parameters pre-determined (just as my computer when I type the text that will be associated with the electrical pulse generated by the typing a character on the screen) is constructivism. Advocates this doctrine to say that the society of men will follow during its history, and more widely throughout its development, from the origins so (with the Social Contract Rousseau) a thread before the lead to its peak, the spring peoples version Enlightenment obscure to Rousseau. But I can not respond to these arguments. Indeed, they raise several errors and a major defect. By it, I believe we must begin. As I already explained in previous articles, ignores Rousseau voluntary early human groups, and passes the state of nature to society, through the drafting and signing of the famous, or smoky, Social Contract. He therefore based his entire thesis on the willingness of men to unite by law drafted and agreed. However, custom and usage, exist. They are an adaptation of the individual in his immediate environment and can be extracted from the intellectual habitus . We welcome all people we know when we happen to cross them. However, our law does not provide for punishment of stoning for who would not shake hands with his neighbor. So there is an initial lack of logic in the constructivist approach. Especially since, to stay on the example of the clenched hand, this practice is not widespread in all groups, nor among all peoples. It is therefore relative, has not always been practiced throughout French society, at all times. Constructivism should admit two things: first that the uses are not rational (why not shake hands and embrace, for example) and the second uses that are not universal (there are nations in Asia, for example, where physical contact is a sign of bad education). The constructivist equation is changed from a zero-sum to an illogical result, it is, just like the idea that individuals are grouped into society by the advent of a desire, spontaneous, and contractually anthropologically impossible. Added to this that the constructivist approach, excluding any decision, so freely, is unethical and can not be considered ethical. It also excludes any possibility of discovery, if everything is already written in some holy book hidden in the stars. However, philosophers should avoid, when they want to put forward ideas as coherent to be confused with fortune tellers.

For Hayek, the company pursues the principle of human development based on mechanisms catallactic. This term, key in the Work of the philosopher, beating heart of all his ideas, means that the individual is constantly interacting, and dynamic with other people as with the environment, the environment in which it operates. This formulation is then assigned to the approaches of the economy centered on free trade, which leads to a spontaneous order, the market or catallaxy. Hayek asks to see what is the origin of these rules that most people observe but few, if any, are able to formulate in words? (Friedrich August von Hayek, New essays in philosophy, political science, economics and history of ideas , Library classic freedom, belles lettres, in Errors of Constructivism . ) And quickly added that the expression common saying that man has "created" civilization may at first seem like a trivial commonplace. But once it starts to mean-as is often the case that the man was able because it is endowed with reason, its implications become questionable. The man had no reason before civilization. The two have evolved together. Just consider the language, which no one today would think it was "invented" by a rational being, to see that reason and civilization were developed during a mutual interaction constant .(...) We are too easily led to suppose that these phenomena, which are obviously the result of human action, must also have been designed by a human mind, in circumstances that created for the purposes they are used (...) (Friedrich August von Hayek, New essays in philosophy, political science, economics and history of ideas , Library Classic freedom, belles lettres, in Errors of Constructivism .) Hayek responds to this constructivist assumptions discussed further. Clarifying his thoughts, he will ask that success of an individual in achieving its immediate objectives depends not only on the conscious understanding of causal relations, but also to a large extent on its ability to act according rules that may be unable to express in words, but we can not containing rules that describe. All our skills, knowledge of language mastery of techniques or share games that we "know how" to accomplish without being able to say how we do it, are examples. (Friedrich August von Hayek, New essays in philosophy, political science, economics and history of ideas , Library classic freedom, belles lettres, in Errors of Constructivism . )

The leader of the Austrian school will then push to the limit of constructivist zealous by the rapid assimilation of their theories by an audience already inclined to recognize in any dumbing down in favor of a mass escape from responsibility. I have already explained, Rousseau likes to include the person in any information or be strangely becomes a cog swap. And Hayek added that the are rules we talking about are not as useful to those individuals who observe that those who (if they are generally observed) all make the group more effective because it gives them opportunities to act in an order office. (Friedrich August von Hayek, New essays in philosophy, political science, economics and history of ideas , Library classic freedom, belles lettres, in The errors of constructivism . ) Rousseau, of course, would never have accepted this approach the group as a mere adaptation catallactic for a better life for the whole community and formed. It is going against the social contract, and also throw down a few centuries of intellectual despotism. But Hayek confirmed and signed, arguing that this set includes those social rules of law, morality, custom, made all the values that govern a society. The term " values, "I continue to use in this context faute de mieux, is actually a bit misleading, because we tend to interpret it as referring to specific goals of individual action, whereas in areas that I am interested, they are primarily of rules that do not tell us positively what to do, but in most cases only what we should do. (Friedrich August von Hayek, New essays in philosophy, political science, economics and history of ideas , Classical Library of Liberty, the beautiful letters, in The errors of constructivism . )

In contrast to Rousseau, for Hayek, social order is a factual situation which must be distinguished from the lawfulness of individual conduct. It must be defined as a condition in which individuals are able, based on their respective special knowledge, develop expectations about the conduct of others, which are correct in making possible a successful mutual adjustment of their actions. If each person, when she sees another, was to kill or flee, it would certainly be a pattern of personal conduct, but it certainly does not lead to the formation of ordered groups. Some combinations of such rules can produce a very clear form of higher order, allowing them to expand at the expense of others. (Friedrich August von Hayek, New Essays in Philosophy, political science, economics and history of ideas , Classical Library of Liberty, the beautiful letters, in The errors of constructivism . )

It thus operates a farm of cleavage with the author of Social Contract for whom the law is to separate from the custom, of propriety and manners in general. At the same Rousseau a handful of my colleagues ascribe an imaginary friend, which would have given man, besides the order to sit at the negotiating table to unite in society, a whole set of code conventions social.

The rules of community life, presented by Rousseau as a simple list inserted in the famous, and smoky, Social Contract , Hayek is quite clear. He asserts that these rules of conduct mainly negative (or prohibition) that make possible the formation of a social order are three different kinds, which I will detail now. These are: 1 of rules that are observed in practice but have never been formulated in words, if we talk about "sense of justice" or "sense of language" we refer to rules we can apply, but we do not know explicitly; 2 of rules which, although they have been formulated in words, merely express approximately what has long been generally observed in action; and 3 of rules that were deliberately introduced and which are therefore necessarily in the form of words arranged in sentences. (Friedrich August von Hayek, New essays in philosophy, political science, economics and history of ideas , Classical Library of Liberty, the beautiful letters, in The errors of constructivism . )

It is also interesting to note that Hayek also foresaw the advent of determinism and all its variations, explaining that c e type of "world knowledge" which is transmitted from generation to generation and will be largely non-point understanding of the causes and effects, but standards of conduct appropriate to the environment, which act as information on environment, although they say nothing about it. Like scientific theories, they are maintained because they are useful (...) (Friedrich August von Hayek, New essays on philosophy, science politics, economics and history of ideas , Classical Library of Liberty, the beautiful letters, in errors of Constructivism . ). And, years after the publication of his work, a man, a scholar, Rene Girard, would dare to wear high color of reason in presenting his theory of mimetic rivalry. Summarizes the new anthropology is as basic mechanism, the approach catallactic Hayek, coupled with a powerful and ubiquitous phenomenon in the construction of the individual, the mimicry. Hayek sees the advance in mimicking the basis of society, he adds that mimicry by a selection of utility rules, conventions and customs, the famous wisdom of time. The other two approaches, still practiced in our universities, are either Marxists (all based on the class struggle), or constructivist. Proof, if needed, that only the constant adaptation to our environment, our closest connection, coupled with an education just by understanding the past allows everyone to build solidly, beyond any abuse and, worse still, the natural tendency of men to destroy, to submit to slavery or their brother. And revolutionaries, anarchists, meditate on the fact that we must not succumb to the mistaken belief (or illusion) that we could replace it with an order type (social) different because it presupposes that any This knowledge can be concentrated in a central mind, or in a group of spirits of a usable size, (Friedrich August von Hayek, New tests philosophy, political science, economics and history of ideas , Classical Library of Liberty, the beautiful letters, in The errors of constructivism . ) that is a dictatorship.

Cover Letter For Culinary Student

The corporate ethics is not (by JY. Naudet)

The business ethics does not exist!

By Jean-Yves Naudet

Director, Center for Economic Research Ethics

For Nicolas Madelenat di Florio

who understood the importance of open dialogue between philosophers and economists

This paper is a brief development of vocabulary, which has important consequences on the approach to economic ethics. Many terms, apparently equivalent are used for what the Anglo-Saxons call "business ethics": business ethics, corporate ethics, business ethics, ethics in business, but also corporate social responsibility or corporate citizenship. The term "business ethics" is often used, and on which we focus our analysis poses a fundamental problem: a company can it be ethical?

What we said the philosopher to help us see clearly (cf. the first paper of this group: "From the ethics and morals, to end the confusion directions "by Nicolas Madelenat di Florio)? Let the key phrases: Ethics is "the universal rule," "objective," which "must guide the choice." It also unites virtue and consists of "all-weather track in his inner compass," which is so different than the Ethics. Finally, she "makes us human."

Under these conditions, that may mean the term "business ethics": Will it transform the company into a human being? The company does practice virtue? The company, as such, does she have a choice? Where is the "inner compass" of the company? These few sentences show that talk about business ethics is nonsense. The company, as an institution, even as the legal framework, or, as economists often refer to as "nexus of contracts" does not have an ethic. She does not practice virtue, it has not among its internal compass, it is not and will never become a human being.

Only men, beings endowed with reason, capable of making free decisions, able to exercise their responsibilities, have an ethic. The company, as such, has no ethics: there are no business ethics, it makes no sense, and the company is not an individual, is not a person. It is not, in itself, issues of moral acts, much less ethics. The company does not take a decision, do not think, does not act as an institution: only men in it, make decisions, after thinking, and act accordingly, with this compass What internal ethics.

course, every person who works in a company, decide and act, according to numerous criteria, including that which should be paramount, ethics. There is therefore an ethic of the contractor, who takes the ultimate decisions for the common good of the company, but there is also the ethical framework, the ethics of a worker or an employee The ethics of unionists, the ethics of a shareholder, an investor, customer, a provider, etc.. We can talk about ethics in business or the business, even if it would rather the ethics of men, each man in the company. But there are no business ethics, as such. We can see that its leaders, who take key decisions have been, or not, ethical behavior, but they are always men who decide and who are therefore responsible for the choices made ..

This question is central and we find that confusion at all levels. Thus we often speak the ethics of capitalism, the ethics of the economy but the system as such is not subject to moral acts. There is an ethic of the men who play an economic role in capitalism: the ethics of entrepreneurs, trade unionists, workers, savers, consumers, men of the State, etc.. and again he would put all these words in the singular. Even the term, fashionable and, it must be said, very convenient, "moralization of capitalism" also implies that the ambiguity between morality and ethics, is not quite correct because it would better to talk about the ethics of men who decide and act in the economic world, which make economic decisions, including but not limited to, the ethics of capitalism, of every capitalist, every business leader. Talking about business ethics is probably less correct, if we understand that term, as we do, such as ethics in economic matters concerning economic decisions and choices, each of us according to our level of responsibility .

Why this issue, apparently secondary, is so important, including in the debate of ideas? After all, these expressions have passed into everyday language. Because the confusion of words is the source of the confusion of ideas. If we talk about the ethics of an institution, as the company, this will quickly lead to the idea of collective responsibility, and therefore a denial of individual responsibility. It dilutes the responsibility and attributed the cause of all violations of basic morality, the excesses of all, (so rightly criticized these days, but if so incoherent on the logical level) to the company as such, and for the economy as a whole, the system, the "capitalism". Inverting the reality of things, we slide towards a holistic view of society, as found in Marxism or in many forms of sociology: the responsibility of the class, group, system: if everything goes wrong, it ' is the fault of capitalism.

The consequence of this shift is simple: change the system to find a satisfactory ethics. The myth of the "big night", the new social structures, new institutions, which will be to reign virtue everywhere. It's easy, because it is easier to change institutions claim that the behavior of each of us, but it is an illusion, for without just men, men without virtue, there will never be true ethics. Slide the responsibility of each man to that of the whole, whether the company or scheme in general, is to deny freedom of choice responsible for each of us in favor of widespread irresponsibility. We swim in the open Marxism in particular, since the mental and moral superstructure will change when we have changed the relations of production : Matter, material elements are first, the moral being merely a reflection, as every superstructure is only the reflection of the infrastructure. Then the notion of responsibility and freedom of choice, so anyone who disappears: when you walk into a totalitarian society is the logical outcome of this reasoning. To restore true freedom, must assert the primacy of man over the institutions or on techniques. And reaffirm that only men have an ethic, make choices with ethical implications. Responsibilities are always those individuals.

is a key point which has often been addressed by the "moral authority" as they say. The question was raised, for example, about an expression used by Pope John Paul II in his encyclical on development, "Sollicitudo Rei Socialis" of 1987: the term "structure of sin." This expression, religious connotation, seems remote from the subject (although John Paul II explicitly applies to economic issues, the theme of development), but if you think about it, sin is a theological term to talk about what is unethical, evil from the good. If sin is unethical, about structure of sin he evokes not a kind of collective responsibility or collective guilt due to the structures, institutions, thus denying personal responsibility, freedom of choice personal ethics, so all we have to say.

That's what John Paul II said "If the current situation to difficulties of various kinds, it is not amiss to speak of structures of sin which, as I shown in the Apostolic Exhortation and Reconciliatio paenitentia, are rooted in personal sin and thus always linked to concrete actions of people who create them, consolidate them and make them difficult to abolish. Thus, they grow stronger, spread, and become the source of other sins, and so influence people's behavior "(SRS § 36). That is already very enlightening: there may be situations coalition or coagulation of unethical behavior, which in turn induce other unethical behavior, but these attacks on ethics (These sins in the religious sense) are always connected "to the concrete acts of individuals."

Like the concept, relatively new and complex, might lead to erroneous interpretations, due to the reading surface, sliding structures of sin to sin and thus collective personal responsibility towards one group or institutions such as John Paul II was careful to give notes (note 65) a long excerpt of the text and Reconciliatio paenitentia December 2, 1984, n.16, in which he was referring to above: "But when she talks about situations sin or when the condemns as social sins certain situations or collective behaviors of social groups more or less extended, or even the attitude of whole nations and blocs of nations, she knows and she proclaims that such cases of social sin are the result of the accumulation and concentration of many personal sins. This is very personal sins from those who cause or support evil or who exploit it (...) from those who seek refuge in the supposed impossibility of changing the world and also from those who sidestep effort and sacrifice required, producing specious reasons of a higher order. The real responsibility, then those people. A situation-and even an institution, a structure, society-not by itself subject of moral acts, so it can be, by itself, good or bad. "

This text, if one wants to overcome the obstacle may be to some readers to use theological terms, is particularly illuminating: the social sins (the opposite of Ethics name) are the accumulation of personal sins, ie, damage to ethics on the part of many men, but this concentration does not diminish the responsibility of everyone. The key sentence is this "the real responsibility, then those people." An institution (one can think of now), a company (we can think of an economic system like capitalism) is not, by themselves, about moral acts. There is therefore no business ethics or of damage to ethics on the part of the company. There may be many individual breaches of ethics in a company, which is what John Paul II called for the sins or social structures of sin, but he is just an accumulation in one place for individual violations, and counterclockwise for ethical behavior.

This allows, in conclusion, to clarify a key issue for economists, and especially the Austrian school, as Hayek explained, that of institutions. Institutions are at the heart of the whole economic process; they provide, by their existence, information (think of property, contract, company, currency, etc.). that channel behavior, hence the importance of economic analysis of institutions. These institutions, we have just seen, are not subject of moral acts, however, they are not identical or interchangeable and better institutions, which have generally been selected by men over time are those that conform to human nature, to natural law.

private property, for example, conforms to natural law and is merely an extension of the property on the fruit of his own work and the right to use freely, and then human nature is so constituted, as already expliquât Aristotle and later St. Thomas Aquinas, that we manage better what is our own, private property, to keep this example, is more consistent with the nature of man, in search of his own property, that property Collective, which everyone loses interest in management. So there are some institutions more suited than others to human nature and that allow human to be more creative, more innovative, more so in the service of others.

institutions are not subject to moral acts, not even good in themselves, but more or less consistent with what man adapted to his behavior and nature so there are institutions that allow human beings to exercise freedom and responsibility, stating what is possible or not (this is particularly clear for the property or contract, which indicate what is to one or to another, this is possible or not, etc..) and therefore that somehow, cause man a freedom more responsibly, and therefore an ethic. This does not mean they are subject to ethical acts, but they grow through the information they provide, at a performance better than another. Conversely, there are institutions such as collective ownership, or a social system of generalized assistantship, which prompts man to laziness, denial, loss of autonomy, a-riding, short to the detriment or let live off others, helping to create structures of sin. The choice of institutions is not indifferent, even in terms of ethical behavior of men.

But whatever the institutions, it is men who decide, not the structure, not the group, not class, not different packages, even if they exist, are men who ultimately decide the good or evil, therefore be ethical or not. It is therefore an ethic of every man, who, working together, can at most be an ethical company, or better ethics men of the company, but there are no business ethics as such, as an institution.

The philosopher has reason and reflection made by the economist: ethics makes us human, and can not concern only individuals, since nothing other than an individual can become human, and not a business. The men who work there, if they have ethical behavior, can at most give it a human face, the result of all the faces of those who run this company, but the company will never become a human being. There is therefore no business ethics, taken as a whole.