Review of the Concepts of Ethics and Morals in Light of SDG 8

Abstract

This piece of research presents the concepts of Ethics and Morals in relation to the achievement of Sustainable Development Goal targets 8.5 and 8.8 of the 2030 Agenda. Specifically, this work develops an explanation for some possible conflicts generated by the challenges of an ethical and moral nature in the implementation of business policies oriented toward economic sustainability. To this end, first, a reflection of the basic concepts is provided. Second, these two concepts are polemically pitted against each other. Finally, some solutions are suggested as a synthesis of a dialectical process. Additionally, throughout this study, both terms are presented in accordance with the idea of sustainability from a socio-economic and political context, which are generated by the ideological system of their culture.

1. Introduction

The scenario presented by the achievement of the set of targets grouped under the umbrella of the eighth Sustainable Development Goal is undoubtedly a constituent part of the best of all possible worlds. The promotion of full employment and decent work, together with the safeguarding of labor rights and a safe working environment, should be prioritized by the lines of political action in order to face the consolidation of a scenario that, albeit desirable, has the appearance of a utopia if what is to be achieved is an absolute situation of sustained economic growth with decent and fair work.

With the aim of implementing this ambitious goal, the various working groups that have been developing the 2030 Agenda strategy have concluded a series of targets as an international reference horizon for those who are particularly involved in a process of development that affects the whole world. In this paper, we will focus on the goals strictly related to the consolidation of an employment rate, a rate that should be as symmetrical as possible to the volume of the working-age population as well as reflect the attainment of decent jobs. These are as follows: “full employment and decent work”—target 8.5; and “labor rights and promote safe and secure working environments”—target 8.8 [1].

Reflection on these issues requires dealing with a series of concepts that reach beyond the limits of Economics and Sociology since these sciences fundamentally study work in terms of production and labor. However, for the purpose of this research, we need to focus on other values, such as decent working conditions, dignity, and justice. It is up to Philosophy to define these concepts, establish their limits, and, consequently, their relations. In this way, it is essential to remember the distinction between concepts and ideas. In order to achieve this, we will resort to systematic thinking, trying to approach the problems that arise from the coordinates of Philosophical Materialism.

2. Theoretical Framework

As Gustavo Bueno has said publicly on more than one occasion, “to think—truly—is always to think against someone” [2]. In the case in point, we will argue against the nebulae produced by the current sophistry, which deals with Ethics in an undefined way, as if a person who is confronted with the study of Ethics were perfectly aware of what Ethics is a priori. In fact, there is a notorious recent confusion between Ethics and Morals, which leads to confusing their problems and possible solutions, as well as their political intersections, especially in the business sphere, and what is worse is that this confusion is also present in international relations. Therefore, following a descending gradation, we will define the above-mentioned signifiers as follows:

2.1. Concepts and Ideas

García Sierra’s definition of “concept” and “ideas” will help us later with the differentiation between “concept” and “idea”.

We reserve the term “concept” to designate the objective constructions that delimit a phenomenal field from the operative interventions that take place on the field in order to determine more or less complex figures or finite units susceptible of being put in connection with other units of the same category.

(Translation from Spanish into English by the author) [3]

As for “ideas”, García Sierra states that they are “units that establish some kind of relationship between concepts belonging to different categorical fields.” (Translation from Spanish into English by the author) [3].

Applying this reasoning, we understand that ideas arise from concepts, which are the result of the objectification of phenomena—perceptible manifestations of reality—by means of their delimitation (definition). These concept definitions are constructed on the basis of existing data in the field in which they are presented.

Generally, we could understand these constructions as a generation of knowledge or scientific production, either from speculation (theory) or from application (practice). On the basis of what has been stated, ideas will concatenate concepts into systems of thought. These concepts belong to closed scientific fields in order to account for their connections, which are impossible to understand from positive findings. Therefore, we conclude that Philosophy is second-degree knowledge, and the “ethical judgments” must presuppose the problems generated by practice, be they of a political, scientific, or technical nature [4]. This would be the root of Ethics and Morals, but what would be their direction?

2.2. Ethics and Morals

First of all, we should bear in mind that both ethical and moral norms are addressed to human operative subjects by reason of their standardized behavior not only in these ethical and moral fields but, practically, in any dimension of their social life, including work, family, play, etc. In contrast, the animal kingdom strictly conforms to behavioral routines that do not go beyond this behavioral category. In the case of humans, as rational animals, ethical and moral norms will be erected as a sort of victorious habit, which, by force of well-founded and socially accepted custom, will become laws of behavior [3].

From the perspective of “materialist Ethics”, as opposed to pure formalism, the object of the ethical norms (aimed at regulating actions toward other individuals or human groups) will be the only relevant matter. Therefore, materialistic Ethics does not consider the origin of ethical norms but their destination, which is the safeguarding of human existence [3]. Thus, we will not speak of actions emanating from the divine imperative or from the subjective conscience of a metaphysical or psychological nature, respectively. However, we will speak of norms strictly oriented toward the welfare of man. We will not treat Ethics from the perspective of human autonomy but as the capacity to subordinate oneself to a series of objective principles [5].

In light of the above, we will define “Ethics” as the set of rules that each person must observe to preserve the lives of other individuals. “Morals” will be, for its part, the set of rules aimed at preserving the cohesion of groups of individuals—family, company, nation, etc. [3,6]. This configuration is largely based on Spinoza’s conatus, or the inclination of all beings to persist in their existence. This conatus—accompanied by reason and not by passion—will generate active emotions, and among the greatest of these emotions, we will find the main ethical virtue—fortitude. Transformed into duty, it will be applied to oneself in the form of “firmness” and to others in the form of “generosity” [7]. These desires, and no others, are what any ethical structure must be built upon. When we associate Ethics with Spinoza, we reject positions postulating that Ethics pursues group cohesion, since that is what Morals do [8]. In fact, the rejected positions contribute to the confusion that currently exists between Ethics and Morals, a confusion that we are precisely trying to avoid during this dissertation.

2.3. Production, Work, and Sustainability

From a materialist perspective, in which the infrastructure of a culture is determined by its modes of production [9], we understand that it is through labor practices that the world is transformed [10], since only through work can goods and services (capable of satisfying the basic needs of society) be generated [11]. From this assumption, we infer that the modes of social organization, fundamentally political and economic, will be determined by the forms of labor and its products [11].

Given that work is the “foundation of human culture, since there are no beliefs, values or behaviors without a material framework” [12], we can state that work is the fundamental factor of adaptation to the environment. According to Harris, “the moral and intellectual aspects of human life” will emerge from work since such aspects are the result of economic organization at a structural level [13]. As a consequence of the exploitation of resources for human survival, both the environment and the operative subjects suffer attrition, and, hence, the problem of sustainability arises. This seems to point to the fact that consciousness arises as a consequence of matter.

Thus, in the field we are concerned with, we will understand “sustainability” as the political aptitude aimed at maintaining the production capacities of an economy over time in accordance with the ideological postulates of its culture in the face of the problems generated by the organization and techniques of work. This proposition sets out the generic characteristics of the idea of “sustainability” from a material and practical perspective of reality, as opposed to other idealistic postulates, such as the canonical definition coming from the Brundtland Report, centered on “our common future” [14]. All statements derived from the premises of the present study tend to speak of humanity as a homogeneous entity as follows: “we must spare no effort to free humanity […] from the threat of living on a planet irretrievably damaged by human activities and whose resources will never again be sufficient for its needs” [15].

Therefore, in our approach to sustainability, we have to consider that humanity does not function in a univocal way and that we should not even speak of “humanity” but of the Morals of different human groups distributed in societies determined by their cultural characteristics. Likewise, we should not speak of “a common future” in which full employment and labor rights are universally distributed across the globe. This is simply explained by the fact that the structural components of each society will be determined by its modes of production and reproduction, which are highly conditioned by its technological devices and access to resources, which are always limited on a general scale. Thus, it cannot be claimed that there is a common direction for all human beings beyond certain levels of international political collaboration for the maintenance of the environment and the biosphere. Given that livelihoods in the world are limited, the fullness of a welfare state will generally require the protection of certain interests on behalf of every group. Otherwise, whenever it is necessary to protect an interest, the goodness of some groups will come at the cost of the badness of others.

When applying our definition of sustainability, we see that it is more compatible with the ideas of dignified and fair work for all than with the orthodox approach, which focuses primarily on meeting “the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” [16,17]. These conceptions usually tend to manifest an ecological reductionism marked by the debatable dichotomy of a selfish or altruistic human nature [18]. Precisely, this condition of satisfying present needs with subordination to a limit set by the needs to come does not take into account that the consideration of dignity and justice (in the implementation of labor and employment promotion policies) will vary substantially according to the different “emic” perspectives. Thus, from within each culture and system, it will be necessary to confront the conflicts generated by the clash of economic development models.

Such models will have to be useful in order to comply with the maxim of not exhausting resources in the future, and, nevertheless, they will also have to be useful in order to preserve certain levels of dignity and general justice while aiming to sustain the current welfare of citizens. Given that both terms of the proposition will be in conflict at times, the solution to the problem will be a political question and, as such, based on ideological doctrines. This is why we cannot claim a single model of sustainable development without recognizing an ethnocentric drive, nor can we reconcile the conservation of resources in accordance with current western social welfare parameters without recognizing that dignity, justice, and job fulfillment cannot be universal precepts. Not, at least, if we expect an evolution for the better—which is the very definition of development—rather than a standardization with lower limits.

Hence, we refuse to take for granted the ideas of decent, dignified, and fair work, as if they were innate notions of human knowledge, because we understand that truth is not determined by consensus and that it is illusory to postulate a system with political pretensions, ignoring that this system will have to be imposed by one means or another. In other words, even if the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolves several points on these issues, some countries, such as the Popular Republic of China, may reject them completely. Yet, we will not be able to ignore Asian opposition on purely demographic grounds. The agents of each culture, under the circumstances given by their historical development, will assimilate this knowledge differently. It can only be agreed that the positions defended will be particular and not universal and that they will have to be supported in the face of difficulties posed by doctrinal antagonisms. Thus, in order to be able to articulate a feasible proposal—not a utopian one—for sustainable development with the interweaving of labor rights, we will first have to define its starting points and accept that they are enunciated in the political categories of representative democracy.

2.4. Decency, Dignity, and Justice at Work

Regarding work as a determinant of sustainability, we can define “decency” as the individual or collective quality of conforming to the axiological pattern of a cultural structure. In the case of western societies, we will speak of those values that, from the worldview of the ideologies on the rise, place Christian-based cultures at the “pinnacle of progress” for their defense of Human Rights [19]. Thus, in this context, any attitude, practice, or situation in which the precepts of Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are observed will be worthy. Namely, “Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment” [20].

As for justice at work, it should be clarified that the idea of “justice” has constituent, integral, and determining parts [21]. As it relates to work and its development in business organizations, any action that tends to balance the parties will be just, on condition that it is motivated by transparency among individuals and groups within the system and is exercised in accordance with the political rules in force. Rules that, in general, will be aimed at preserving the rule of law and citizens’ freedoms [22], and only these types of actions will constitute justice for a company. In the same way, for fair conditions to occur, sufficiently mature, balanced, and capable operative subjects are required to act rationally in accordance with what has been said. Also, fair conditions occur if social groups and institutions promote such dynamics. These will be the integral parts of justice at work. Finally, for labor justice to materialize within a company, there must also be elements that determine it. Namely, the criteria of equality, legality, and rationality that articulate a model of action compared to other possible models “with which it can be contrasted” and, therefore, acquire “consistency and power” [22] (pp. 3–4).

3. Ethics, Morals, and Politics in Business

Having established the differences between “Ethics” and “Morals”, as well as defined “sustainability” and “justice”, it should be noted that in the field of work and, therefore, in the attempt to achieve SDG 8, objective conflicts may arise between “Ethics” and “Morals” if one seeks to implement “sustainability” based on notions of “justice”. As in any other field, in the world of business, problems must be solved with synderesis, and this will involve being critical and systematic. In turn, this disposition will be linked to the ability to plan everything that may affect others and to program all those issues that intervene in possible scenarios. That is, it will be absolutely necessary to proceed normatively [23].

Nevertheless, the norms designed to articulate a code under which a company can be governed correctly in the pursuit of SDG 8 can only be based on ethical and moral problems and, therefore, on their internal conflicts. Ethical and moral judgments can only appear in media res, and, therefore, the guidelines for evaluating critical facts will have to follow from such problematic contexts until custom, acceptance, and convention make these judgments crystallize into norms. That is to say, we cannot have an ethical structure and a priori Morals that function as a first cause or immobile motor for action in the company since both operate as “transcendental predicates” of human actions [23] (p. 268).

Inconveniences and conflicts often arise from the work operations developed by individuals and the groups they belong to within the organization. The responsibility for solving these problems cannot fall on the individuals involved. In fact, even if ethical behavior and Morals are aligned on many occasions, on many other occasions they may diverge. This will occur whenever the persistence in being of the individual opposes the persistence in being of the group, or, conversely, when the persistence in being of the group opposes the persistence in being of the individual. In such cases, where an ethical action contravenes Morals or vice versa, politics must intervene as the only position from which authority can be exercised to force subjects to comply with the norms.

Only through policy will it be possible to guarantee the maintenance of employment or its creation and, consequently, labor rights, which can only occur within the employing institution. Politics fixes its horizon on the eutaxia of the firm and its capacity to persist in carrying out its social role of producing, marketing, and satisfying human needs and, therefore, employing workers. The political power within the firm will be the only one capable of undoing the divergences that become dystaxic for the firm and that, in such a way, weigh down any aspiration for fullness and labor welfare [24].

“The objective foundation of political eutaxia is, precisely, the norm deployed in plans and programs, which the social whole objectively imposes on the part that holds political power. When there is harmony between individuals, groups and organization, the result is eutaxic. When there is no harmony, the result is dystaxic behavior.”

(Translation from Spanish into English by the author) [23] (p. 283)

In short, if a company intends to achieve the ambitious goals of SDG 8 through its humble contribution, it must promote balance and transparency between parties and individuals on the basis of equality and reason under the rule of law. However, it will only be able to promote these values if it survives as an institution. Thus, its policies will have to take the side of the common good rather than the isolated private good of individuals. Otherwise, not only would it be acting immorally by allowing the company to decay, but it would also be unethical since the evil of the whole also affects its component parts. This corruption obviously means harming the individual interests of the workers. As we have stated, company policy must strive for proportion and correspondence, which are opposed to disorder and lack of organization.

4. Cases of Ethical and Moral Conflict in Light of SDG 8

Following the reflection above, we are presenting a series of problems arising from labor practices within the company. According to the already provided definitions of Ethics and Morals, and if we understand “company” in the abstract sense, some working practices are linked to conflicts between Ethics and Morals. With the aim of identifying these conflicts, we take SDG 8 targets 8.5 and 8.8 as cardinal points. Thus, as can be seen in

Table 1. Matrix of ethical and moral conflicts in the business environment.

Work Scenario	Motive	Consequence	Ethically Acceptable?	Morally Acceptable?	Involved Target
1. Automation process	Improving production efficiency [25]	Mandatory retirement	Not	Yes	8.5
2. Job amortization	Insufficient budget allocation [26]	Recruitment cancellation	Not	Yes	8.5
3. Strike	Social and ideological demand [27]	Production cancellation	Yes	Not	8.8
4. Negligence	Psychological distress [28]	Wage penalty	Not	Yes	8.8

Source: own elaboration.

, we start from situations that, prima facie and according to the previous definitions, seem to oppose, hinder, or suspend the promotion of employment and its maintenance under the criteria of security, justice, and dignity.

In the first scenario, a very common company practice arises, namely work process automation to increase efficiency as it results in a reduction in waiting times. A more efficient company means a more effective organization in achieving its economic objectives, and, therefore, automation is a desirable step. However, making certain jobs automated or even robotic can lead to the dismissal of personnel for purely practical reasons. If a company wishes to adapt its production, distribution, and commercial schemes to the parameters imposed by the present, it should not be stuck in outdated production mechanisms for the mere sake of preserving certain positions. It must face reality.

Whenever companies do not adapt to the demands of society and market dynamics, they will be doomed to disappear through phagocytosis by rival forces. Thus, a restructuring of a workforce motivated by necessary changes at the competitive level may result in involuntary contract terminations and mandatory retirements, even when the employees are personally opposed to it. In these cases, the injury to individual interests is buried by the company’s need for economic survival. That is, the company opts for the strength of the group over the individual while it consolidates its commercial position. Although the ethical implication is clearly unfavorable since it threatens the persistence of the individual in their position, the moral repercussion is clearly understandable and acceptable, provided that the eutaxia of the company depends on its capacity for technological transformation and adaptation.

As for the second scenario, a lack of liquidity or budgetary shortage resulting from various combinations of factors and contingencies makes it necessary to suggest the amortization or disappearance of certain jobs, without necessarily involving layoffs, but freezing the company’s hiring policy in certain areas of activity. Given that many companies are committed to promoting employment and equal access to work as part of their corporate social responsibility policies, we believe that this situation would have a negative impact on those workers who aspire to positions in the company, whether they are willing to work there or are involved in ongoing processes. The penalization of these processes or the cessation of the publication of vacancies of a certain professional profile would not be ethically acceptable from the emic position of the applicant for a position, but it would be morally advisable both from the emic point of view of the responsible agents of the company and from the etic perspective of any outside observer.

In the third possible scenario, ideological claims are expressed through socially legitimate action. Indeed, they are legitimate, as freedom is the consciousness of necessity [29]. As long as individuals know the nature of the situations that condition their lives, they will have a certain capacity for action in the present. Workers choose legal action instead of being dragged along by a succession of labor causes that might make them remain blind and defenseless [30]. In this way, if labor injustices are derived from certain social conditions, knowledge of them will ethically oblige the subject to act accordingly based on the doctrine that we have been defending. However, if the combination of the taken actions—collective stoppage of activity as a measure of social pressure—prevents a minimum rate of production that compromises not only the survival of the company but also the maintenance of social welfare generally accepted by a culture, the workers would be morally reprehensible insofar as they affect the unity and development of the group.

Finally, in the fourth scenario, we can see the most recurrent case. Workers’ professional malpractice may result in serious errors caused by inattention or a lack of diligence and care in the performance of their duties. In turn, these attitudes can find their explanation in complex personal circumstances that psychologically put a burden on the workers’ performance and the due fulfillment of their obligations. Severe negligence—especially if it is habitual—usually results in reprimands or retributive sanctions. Although such sanctions may even complicate the conditions affecting the employees’ performance and may also involve a detriment to their domestic economy, an organization cannot systematically assess all the exogenous elements that affect the conduct of its employees in a particular way. The company should not and cannot interfere in the private lives of its employees, which is their own responsibility as adults. Even if a company could help its workers in various ways, it is morally acceptable to impose a regulatory sanction in order to coercively maintain a just order, without prejudice to the fact that the suspension of wages, for example, weakens the financial health of the employee.

5. Conclusions

It follows from the foregoing review that a state of full employment under a regime of labor rights can only be achieved if there are institutions that guarantee its consolidation according to criteria of justice. In other words, it is only through the survival of employers’ organizations that work can be encouraged. This statement may seem obvious, yet it implies that some decisions taken within a company must be rigorously oriented toward its eutaxia.

Any company, through its governance policy, must favor competitiveness by producing goods or services whose value exceeds that of the aggregate of the factors of production. Otherwise, it will disappear along with all its employees. It should be noted that the collapse of a company means a reduction in national wealth [31]. In this sense, making decisions that erode the commercial and financial health of the company will operate against the common good. Consequently, if these decisions are knowingly made, serving private interests first, they may be considered morally unacceptable.

Corporate policy shall be responsible for standardizing and resolving actions leading to the company’s sustainability. To this end, it must take into consideration all kinds of ethical principles aimed at the well-being of its employees. Nevertheless, a company must also consider the impact of internal mechanisms on the collective order. In cases where Ethics and Morals collide, the policy must weigh decisions that favor a balance between the parties, generating, in the worst case, inevitable injustices of a relative and not absolute order [31].

Despite all that has been said, the materialization of SDG 8 could be qualified as utopian. Although it is not a place but a time—the year 2030—a fixed horizon [32], its aspiration encompasses a global transformation. By “world”, we should understand the whole of what exists, and, therefore, we refer to an initiative of universal aspiration. Such an initiative poses a determined social order capable of governing labor welfare, which will be necessarily submitted to a normative apparatus. Given that legal systems are specific to the State or to collaboration among states, in the best-case scenario, we can expect full employment and labor rights within the framework of supra-state entities founded on common principles. Any delimitation of the idea of full, dignified, and secure employment will exclude the others: omnis determinatio est negatio [33]. In this sense, when the ideological pattern of social welfare is that of democratic systems based on plethoric markets, any other political system involving alternative plans and programs will be left out.