The elements of moral philosophy•••j a m e s r a c h e

The Elements of
Moral Philosophy
•••
J a m e s R a c h e l s
Seventh Edition by
S t u a r t R a c h e l s
Firmly established as the standard text for undergraduate
courses in ethics, James Rachels and Stuart Rachels’ Te
Elements of Moral Philosophy
introduces readers to major moral concepts and theories through
eloquent
explanations and compelling, thought-provoking discussions.
New in the Seventh Edition:
• More detail to the claim that our concept of death has
changed over the
last fifty years in Chapter 1
• Broadened dialogue on monogamy in Chapter 2
• Expanded discussion of homosexuality in Chapter 3
• Updated account of Classical Utilitarianism that explains
what “equal
consideration” is at the beginning of Chapter 8
• Explanation for why the debate between Retributivists and
Utilitarians

may hinge on the debate over free will in Chapter 10
• Completely revised subsection on honesty in Chapter 12
Please visit www.mhhe.com/RachelsEMP for more information
on the
seventh edition.
Te Elements of Moral Philosophy can be complemented by
James Rachels
and Stuart Rachels’ successful companion reader, Te Right Ting
to Do,
Sixth Edition (0-07-803823-5).•••
On the Cover:
Aleksandr Rodchenko
Non-Objective Painting no. 80 (Black on Black). 1918.
R
a
c
h
e
ls
|
R
a
c
h
e
ls
T

he E
lem
ents of M
oral P
hilosophy
Seventh E
dition
M
D
D
A
L
IM
#1170980 11/9/11 C
Y
A
N
M
A
G
Y
E
L
O

B
L
K
Confirming Pages
T he Elements of
Moral Philosophy
SEVENTH EDITION
James Rachels
Editions 5–7 by
Stuart Rachels
rac38243_fm_i-xii.indd irac38243_fm_i-xii.indd i 10/27/11
7:07 PM10/27/11 7:07 PM
Confirming Pages
THE ELEMENTS OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY, SEVENTH
EDITION
Published by McGraw-Hill, a business unit of The McGraw-Hill
Companies, Inc., 1221 Avenue
of the Americas, New York, NY 10020. Copyright © 2012 by
The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

All rights reserved. Previous editions © 2010, 2007, and 2003.
Printed in the United States of
America. No part of this publication may be reproduced or
distributed in any form or by any
means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the
prior written consent of The
McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., including, but not limited to, in
any network or other electronic
storage or transmission, or broadcast for distance learning.
Some ancillaries, including electronic and print components,
may not be available
to customers outside the United States.
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 DOC/ DOC 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
ISBN 978-0-07-803824-2
MHID 0-07-803824-3
Vice President & Editor-in-Chief: Michael Ryan
Vice President & Director of Specialized Publishing: Janice M.
Roerig-Blong
Sponsoring Editor: Jessica Cannavo
Marketing Coordinator: Angela R. FitzPatrick
Project Manager: Jolynn Kilburg
Design Coordinator: Margarite Reynolds
Buyer: Louis Swaim
Media Project Manager: Sridevi Palani

Compositor: Laserwords Private Limited
Typeface: 11/12 New Baskerville
Printer: R. R. Donnelley
Cover painting: Aleksandr Rodchenko. (Russian, 1891–1956).
Non-Objective Painting no. 80
(Black on Black). 1918. Oil on canvas, 32 1/4 3 31 1/4” (81.9 3
79.4 cm). Gift of the artist,
through Jay Leyda. The Museum of Modern Art, New York.
Digital Image © 2006 The Museum
of Modern Art/Licensed by Scala/Art Resource, NY. ©
Alexander Rodchenko/RAO, Moscow/
VAGA, New York
All credits appearing on page or at the end of the book are
considered to be an extension of the
copyright page.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Rachels, Stuart, 1969–
The elements of moral philosophy/James Rachels.—7th ed. by
Stuart Rachels.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-07-803824-2 (alk. paper)

1. Ethics—Textbooks. I. Rachels, James, 1941–2003.
Elements of moral philosophy. II. Title.
BJ1012.R29 2013
170—dc23 2011042104
www.mhhe.com
rac38243_fm_i-xii.indd iirac38243_fm_i-xii.indd ii 10/27/11
7:07 PM10/27/11 7:07 PM
Confirming Pages
iii
About the Authors
James Rachels (1941–2003) wrote The End of Life: Euthanasia
and Morality (1986), Created from Animals: The Moral
Implications
of Darwinism (1990), Can Ethics Provide Answers? And Other
Essays
in Moral Philosophy (1997), Problems from Philosophy (first
edi-
tion, 2005), and The Legacy of Socrates: Essays in Moral
Philosophy
(2007). His website is www.jamesrachels.org.
Stuart Rachels is Associate Professor of Philosophy at the
University of Alabama. He has revised several of James
Rachels’
books, including Problems from Philosophy (third edition,
2012)

and The Right Thing to Do (sixth edition, 2012), which is the
com-
panion anthology to this book. Stuart won the United States
Chess Championship in 1989, at the age of 20, and today he is a
Bronze Life Master at bridge. His website is www.jamesrachels.
org/stuart.
rac38243_fm_i-xii.indd iiirac38243_fm_i-xii.indd iii
10/27/11 7:07 PM10/27/11 7:07 PM
Confirming Pages
rac38243_fm_i-xii.indd ivrac38243_fm_i-xii.indd iv
10/27/11 7:07 PM10/27/11 7:07 PM
Confirming Pages
v
Contents
Preface ix
About the Seventh Edition xi
1. WHAT IS MORALITY? 1
1.1. The Problem of Definition 1
1.2. First Example: Baby Theresa 1
1.3. Second Example: Jodie and Mary 5
1.4. Third Example: Tracy Latimer 7
1.5. Reason and Impartiality 10

1.6. The Minimum Conception of Morality 13
2. THE CHALLENGE OF CULTURAL RELATIVISM 14
2.1. Different Cultures Have Different Moral Codes 14
2.2. Cultural Relativism 16
2.3. The Cultural Differences Argument 17
2.4. What Follows from Cultural Relativism 19
2.5. Why There Is Less Disagreement Than It Seems 21
2.6. Some Values Are Shared by All Cultures 23
2.7. Judging a Cultural Practice to Be Undesirable 24
2.8. Back to the Five Claims 26
2.9. What We Can Learn from Cultural Relativism 29
rac38243_fm_i-xii.indd vrac38243_fm_i-xii.indd v 10/27/11
7:07 PM10/27/11 7:07 PM
Shahlo Djabbarova
Shahlo Djabbarova
Confirming Pages
vi CONTENTS
3. SUBJECTIVISM IN ETHICS 32
3.1. The Basic Idea of Ethical Subjectivism 32
3.2. The Evolution of the Theory 33
3.3. The First Stage: Simple Subjectivism 34
3.4. The Second Stage: Emotivism 36
3.5. The Role of Reason in Ethics 39
3.6. Are There Proofs in Ethics? 41
3.7. The Question of Homosexuality 44

4. DOES MORALITY DEPEND ON RELIGION? 49
4.1. The Presumed Connection between Morality and Religion
49
4.2. The Divine Command Theory 51
4.3. The Theory of Natural Law 54
4.4. Religion and Particular Moral Issues 58
5. ETHICAL EGOISM 64
5.1. Is There a Duty to Help the Starving? 64
5.2. Psychological Egoism 65
5.3. Three Arguments for Ethical Egoism 71
5.4. Three Arguments against Ethical Egoism 76
6. THE SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY 82
6.1. Hobbes’s Argument 82
6.2. The Prisoner’s Dilemma 85
6.3. Some Advantages of the Social Contract Theory 89
6.4. The Problem of Civil Disobedience 91
6.5. Difficulties for the Theory 94
7. THE UTILITARIAN APPROACH 98
7.1. The Revolution in Ethics 98
7.2. First Example: Euthanasia 99
7.3. Second Example: Marijuana 102
7.4. Third Example: Nonhuman Animals 105
rac38243_fm_i-xii.indd virac38243_fm_i-xii.indd vi
10/27/11 7:07 PM10/27/11 7:07 PM

Confirming Pages
CONTENTS vii
8. THE DEBATE OVER UTILITARIANISM 110
8.1. The Classical Version of the Theory 110
8.2. Is Pleasure All That Matters? 111
8.3. Are Consequences All That Matter? 112
8.4. Should We Be Equally Concerned for Everyone? 116
8.5. The Defense of Utilitarianism 117
8.6. Concluding Thoughts 123
9. A RE THERE ABSOLUTE MORAL RULES? 125
9.1. Harry Truman and Elizabeth Anscombe 125
9.2. The Categorical Imperative 128
9.3. Kant’s Arguments on Lying 130
9.4. Conflicts between Rules 132
9.5. Kant’s Insight 133
10. KANT AND RESPECT FOR PERSONS 136
10.1. Kant’s Core Ideas 136
10.2. Retribution and Utility in the Theory of Punishment 139
10.3. Kant’s Retributivism 141
11. FEMINISM AND THE ETHICS OF CARE 146
11.1. Do Women and Men Think Differently about Ethics? 146
11.2. Implications for Moral Judgment 152
11.3. Implications for Ethical Theory 155
12. VIRTUE ETHICS 157
12.1. The Ethics of Virtue and the Ethics of Right Action 157

12.2. The Virtues 159
12.3. Two Advantages of Virtue Ethics 167
12.4. Virtue and Conduct 169
12.5. The Problem of Incompleteness 170
12.6. Conclusion 171
rac38243_fm_i-xii.indd viirac38243_fm_i-xii.indd vii
10/27/11 7:07 PM10/27/11 7:07 PM
Shahlo Djabbarova
Shahlo Djabbarova
Confirming Pages
viii CONTENTS
13. WHAT WOULD A SATISFACTORY MORAL
THEORY BE LIKE? 173
13.1. Morality without Hubris 173
13.2. Treating People as They Deserve 175
13.3. A Variety of Motives 176
13.4. Multiple-Strategies Utilitarianism 177
13.5. The Moral Community 180
13.6. Justice and Fairness 181
13.7. Conclusion 183
Notes on Sources 184
Index 195
rac38243_fm_i-xii.indd viiirac38243_fm_i-xii.indd viii
10/27/11 7:07 PM10/27/11 7:07 PM

Confirming Pages
ix
P reface
Socrates, one of the first and best moral philosophers, said that
morality is about “no small matter, but how we ought to live.”
This book is an introduction to moral philosophy, conceived in
that broad sense.
In writing this book, I have been guided by the following
thought: Suppose that someone has never studied ethics but
wants to do so now. What are the first things he or she should
learn? This book is my answer to that question. I do not try to
cover every topic in the field, nor is my coverage of any par -
ticular topic complete. Instead, I try to discuss the ideas that a
newcomer should encounter first.
The chapters have been written so that they may be read
independently of one another—they are, in effect, separate
essays. Thus someone who is interested in Ethical Egoism could
go straight to Chapter 5 and find a self-contained introduction
to that theory. When read in order, however, the chapters tell
a more or less continuous story. The first presents a “minimum
conception” of what morality is; the middle chapters cover the
most important ethical theories; and the last chapter presents
my own view of what a satisfactory moral theory would be like.
The point of this book is not to provide a neat, unified
account of “the truth” about ethics. That would be a poor way
to introduce the subject. Philosophy is not like physics. In
physics, there is a large body of established truth that begin-

ners must patiently master. (Physics teachers rarely invite their
students to make up their own minds about the laws of ther-
modynamics.) There are, of course, unresolved controversies
in physics, but these take place against a background of broad
agreement. In philosophy, by contrast, everything is controver-
sial—or almost everything. Some of the fundamental issues are
still up for grabs. A good introduction will not try to hide that
somewhat embarrassing fact.
rac38243_fm_i-xii.indd ixrac38243_fm_i-xii.indd ix
10/27/11 7:07 PM10/27/11 7:07 PM
Confirming Pages
x PREFACE
You will find, then, a survey of contending ideas, theories,
and arguments. I find some of these proposals more appeal -
ing than others, and a philosopher who made different assess-
ments would no doubt write a different book. Thus, my own
views inevitably color the presentation. But I try to present the
contending ideas fairly, and when I pass judgment on an argu-
ment, I do my best to explain why. Philosophy, like morality
itself, is first and last an exercise in reason; we should embrace
the ideas that are best supported by the arguments. If this book
is successful, then the reader can begin to assess where the
weight of reason rests.
rac38243_fm_i-xii.indd xrac38243_fm_i-xii.indd x 10/27/11
7:07 PM10/27/11 7:07 PM
Confirming Pages

xi
About the Seventh Edition
The seventh edition includes no major changes, but many parts
of the book have been improved.
• In Chapter 1, “What Is Morality?” I added detail to the
claim that our concept of death has changed over the
last 50 years (section 1.2).
• In Chapter 2, “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism,”
I expanded the discussion of monogamy (section 2.9).
• In Chapter 3, “Subjectivism in Ethics,” I replaced the
Jerry Falwell quote with a Michele Bachmann quote (sec-
tion 3.1); I corrected some terminology about beliefs
and attitudes stemming from Charles L. Stevenson’s
work (section 3.4); and I expanded our discussion of
homosexuality (section 3.7).
• In Chapter 4, “Does Morality Depend on Religion?” I cor-
rected our account of the history of Catholic thought on
abortion. In previous editions, we erroneously said that the
alleged spotting of “homunculi” under primitive micro-
scopes had a profound effect on the Church’s position.
• In Chapter 5, “Ethical Egoism,” the Principle of Equal
Treatment has been reformulated to say: “We should
treat people in the same way unless there is a good rea-
son not to.”
• Chapter 6 is now called “The Social Contract Theory”
(rather than “The Idea of a Social Contract”).

• In Chapter 8, “The Debate over Utilitarianism,” I refor -
mulated the account of Classical Utilitarianism that
opens the chapter. The new account explains what
“equal consideration” is. Also, I now mention the charge
that Utilitarianism would support “the tyranny of the
majority” in its trampling of individual rights (section
8.3). Finally, the first defense of Utilitarianism has
rac38243_fm_i-xii.indd xirac38243_fm_i-xii.indd xi
10/27/11 7:07 PM10/27/11 7:07 PM
Confirming Pages
xii ABOUT THE SEVENTH EDITION
been renamed “Contesting the Consequences” (from
“Denying That the Consequences Would Be Good”)
(section 8.5).
• At the end of Chapter 10, “Kant and Respect for Persons,”
I now explain why the debate between retributivists and
utilitarians may hinge on the debate over free will.
• Chapter 12 is now called “Virtue Ethics” (rather than
“The Ethics of Virtue”). I rewrote the subsection on
honesty (section 12.2).
Other changes are too small to mention.
For their help, I thank Keith Augustine, Thomas Avery, Luke
Barber, Matthew Brophy, Michael Huemer, Kaave Lajevardi,
Sean McAleer, Cayce Moore, Filimon Peonidis, Howard
Pospesel,
Brian Schimpf, Stephen J. Sullivan, Steve Sverdlik, and

McGraw-
Hill’s outstanding anonymous reviewers. My biggest debts are
to
my research assistant, Daniel Hollingshead; to my wife,
Professor
Heather Elliott; and to my mother, Carol Rachels, whose advice
again proved enormously helpful.
We all miss James Rachels, who was the sole author of this
book in its first four editions. To learn more about him, visit
www.jamesrachels.org.
Tell me your thoughts about the book: [email protected]
ua.edu.
—Stuart Rachels
rac38243_fm_i-xii.indd xiirac38243_fm_i-xii.indd xii
10/27/11 7:07 PM10/27/11 7:07 PM
Confirming Pages
1
CHAPTER 1
What Is Morality?
We are discussing no small matter, but how we ought to live.
Socrates, in Plato’s REPUBLIC (ca. 390 b.c.)
1.1. The Problem of Definition
Moral philosophy is the study of what morality is and what it
requires of us. As Socrates said, it’s about “how we ought to
live” —and why. It would be helpful if we could begin with a

simple, uncontroversial definition of what morality is, but that
turns out to be impossible. There are many rival theories, each
expounding a different conception of what it means to live
morally, and any definition that goes beyond Socrates’s simple
formulation is bound to offend at least one of them.
This should make us cautious, but it need not paralyze us.
In this chapter, I will describe the “minimum conception” of
morality. As the name suggests, the minimum conception is a
core that every moral theory should accept, at least as a starting
point. First, however, we will examine some moral controver-
sies having to do with handicapped children. Our discussion
will bring out the features of the minimum conception.
1.2. First Example: Baby Theresa
Theresa Ann Campo Pearson, an infant known to the public as
“Baby Theresa,” was born in Florida in 1992. Baby Theresa had
anencephaly, one of the worst genetic disorders. Anencephalic
infants are sometimes referred to as “babies without brains,”
but that is not quite accurate. Important parts of the brain—
the cerebrum and cerebellum—are missing, as is the top of the
skull. The brain stem, however, is still there, and so the baby
can still breathe and possess a heartbeat. In the United States,
rac38243_ch01_001-013.indd 1rac38243_ch01_001-013.indd
1 10/27/11 6:57 PM10/27/11 6:57 PM
Confirming Pages
2 THE ELEMENTS OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY
most cases of anencephaly are detected during pregnancy, and
the fetuses are usually aborted. Of those not aborted, half are
stillborn. About 350 are born alive each year, and they usually

die within days.
Baby Theresa’s story is remarkable only because her par -
ents made an unusual request. Knowing that their baby would
die soon and could never be conscious, Theresa’s parents vol -
unteered her organs for immediate transplant. They thought
her kidneys, liver, heart, lungs, and eyes should go to other
children who could benefit from them. Her physicians agreed.
Thousands of infants need transplants each year, and there are
never enough organs available. But Theresa’s organs were not
taken, because Florida law forbids the removal of organs until
the donor is dead. By the time Baby Theresa died, nine days
later, it was too late—her organs had deteriorated too much to
be harvested and transplanted.
Baby Theresa’s case was widely debated. Should she have
been killed so that her organs could have been used to save
other children? A number of professional “ethicists”—people
employed by universities, hospitals, and law schools, who get
paid to think about such things—were asked by the press to
comment. Most of them disagreed with the parents and phy-
sicians. Instead, they appealed to time-honored philosophical
principles to oppose taking the organs. “It just seems too hor -
rifying to use people as means to other people’s ends,” said one
such expert. Another explained: “It’s unethical to kill person
A to save person B.” And a third added: “What the parents
are really asking for is, Kill this dying baby so that its organs
may be used for someone else. Well, that’s really a horrendous
proposition.”
Is it horrendous? Opinions were divided. These ethicists
thought so, while the parents and doctors did not. But we are
interested in more than what people happen to think. We want
to know what’s true. Were the parents right or wrong to vol -
unteer their baby’s organs for transplant? To answer this ques -
tion, we have to ask what reasons, or arguments, can be given

on each side. What can be said to justify the parents’ request or
to justify opposing their request?
The Benefits Argument. The parents believed that Theresa’s
organs were doing her no good, because she was not conscious
2 10/27/11 6:57 PM10/27/11 6:57 PM
Confirming Pages
WHAT IS MORALITY? 3
and would die soon anyway. The other children, however, could
benefit from them. Thus, the parents seem to have reasoned:
If we can benefit someone without harming anyone else, we
ought to do
so. Transplanting the organs would benefit the other children
without
harming Baby Theresa. Therefore, we ought to transplant the
organs.
Is this correct? Not every argument is sound. In addition to
knowing what arguments can be given for a view, we also want
to
know whether those arguments are any good. Generally speak-
ing, an argument is sound if its assumptions are true and the
conclusion follows logically from them. In this case, we might
wonder about the assertion that Theresa wouldn’t be harmed.
After all, she would die, and isn’t being alive better than being
dead? But on reflection, it seems clear that, in these tragic cir -
cumstances, the parents were right. Being alive is a benefit only
if it enables you to carry on activities and have thoughts,
feelings,

and relations with other people—in other words, if it enables
you to have a life. Without such things, biological existence has
no value. Therefore, even though Theresa might remain alive
for a few more days, it would do her no good.
The Benefits Argument, therefore, provides a powerful
reason for transplanting the organs. What arguments exist on
the other side?
The Argument That We Should Not Use People as Means. The
ethicists who opposed the transplants offered two arguments.
The first was based on the idea that it is wrong to use people as
means to other people’s ends. Taking Theresa’s organs would be
using her to benefit the other children; therefore, it should not
be done.
Is this argument sound? The idea that we should not “use”
people is obviously appealing, but this is a vague notion that
needs to be clarified. What exactly does it mean? “Using peo-
ple” typically involves violating their autonomy—their ability
to
decide for themselves how to live their own lives, according to
their own desires and values. A person’s autonomy may be vio-
lated through manipulation, trickery, or deceit. For example,
I may pretend to be your friend, when I am only interested in
going out with your sister; or I may lie to you so you’ll give me
money; or I may try to convince you that you will enjoy going
to the movies, when I only want you to give me a ride. In each
case, I am manipulating you in order to get something for
3 10/27/11 6:57 PM10/27/11 6:57 PM
Confirming Pages

myself. Autonomy is also violated when people are forced to
do things against their will. This explains why “using people” is
wrong; it is wrong because it thwarts people’s autonomy.
Taking Baby Theresa’s organs, however, could not thwart
her autonomy, because she has no autonomy—she cannot
make decisions, she has no desires, and she cannot value any-
thing. Would taking her organs be “using her” in any other
morally significant sense? We would, of course, be using her
organs for someone else’s benefit. But we do that every time
we perform a transplant. We would also be using her organs
without her permission. Would that make it wrong? If we were
using them against her wishes, then that would be a reason for
objecting—it would violate her autonomy. But Baby Theresa
has no wishes.
When people are unable to make decisions for themselves,
and others must do it for them, there are two reasonable guide-
lines that might be adopted. First, we might ask, What would
be in their own best interests? If we apply this standard to Baby
Theresa, there would be no objection to taking her organs, for,
as we have already noted, her interests will not be affected. She
is not conscious, and she will die soon no matter what.
The second guideline appeals to the person’s own prefer-
ences: We might ask, If she could tell us what she wants, what
would
she say? This sort of thought is useful when we are dealing with
people who have preferences (or once had them) but cannot
express them—for example, a comatose patient who signed a
living will before slipping into the coma. But, sadly, Baby The-
resa has no preferences about anything, nor has she ever had
any. So we can get no guidance from her, even in our imagina-

tions. The upshot is that we are left to do what we think is best.
The Argument from the Wrongness of Killing. The ethicists
also appealed to the principle that it is wrong to kill one person
to save another. Taking Theresa’s organs would be killing her
to save others, they said; so, taking the organs would be wrong.
Is this argument sound? The prohibition against killing is
certainly among the most important moral rules. Nevertheless,
few people believe it is always wrong to kill—most people think
there are exceptions, such as killing in self-defense. The ques-
tion, then, is whether taking Baby Theresa’s organs should be
regarded as an exception to the rule. There are many reasons
4 10/27/11 6:57 PM10/27/11 6:57 PM
Confirming Pages
WHAT IS MORALITY? 5
to think so: Baby Theresa is not conscious; she will never have
a
life; she is going to die soon; and taking her organs would help
the other babies. Anyone who accepts this will regard the argu-
ment as flawed. Usually, it is wrong to kill one person to save
another, but not always.
There is another possibility. Perhaps we should regard
Baby Theresa as already dead. If this sounds crazy, bear in mind
that our conception of death has changed over the years. In
1967, the South African doctor Christiaan Barnard performed
the first heart transplant in human beings. This was an excit-
ing development; heart transplants could potentially save many

lives. It was not clear, however, whether any lives could be
saved
in the United States. Back then, American law understood
death as occurring when the heart stops beating. But once a
heart stops beating, it quickly degrades and becomes unsuit-
able for transplant. Thus, under American law, it was not clear
whether any hearts could be legally harvested for transplant.
So, American law changed. We now understand death as occur-
ring, not when the heart stops beating, but when the brain stops
functioning: “brain death” is our new end-of-life standard. This
solved the problem about transplants, because a brain-dead
patient can still have a healthy heart, suitable for transplant.
Anencephalics do not meet the technical requirements
for brain death as it is currently defined; but perhaps the defi -
nition should be revised to include them. After all, they lack
any hope for conscious life, because they have no cerebrum or
cerebellum. If the definition of brain death were reformulated
to include anencephalics, we would become accustomed to the
idea that these unfortunate infants are born dead, and so tak-
ing their organs would not involve killing them. The Argument
from the Wrongness of Killing would then be moot.
On the whole, then, the arguments in favor of transplant-
ing Baby Theresa’s organs seem stronger than the arguments
against it.
1.3. Second Example: Jodie and Mary
In August 2000, a young woman from Gozo, an island south of
Italy, discovered that she was carrying conjoined twins. Know -
ing that the health-care facilities on Gozo were inadequate to
deal with such a birth, she and her husband went to St. Mary’s
5 10/27/11 6:57 PM10/27/11 6:57 PM

Confirming Pages
Hospital in Manchester, England. The infants, known as Mary
and Jodie, were joined at the lower abdomen. Their spines were
fused, and they had one heart and one pair of lungs between
them. Jodie, the stronger one, was providing blood for her
sister.
No one knows how many sets of conjoined twins are born
each year, but the number has been estimated at 200. Most die
shortly after birth, but some do well. They grow to adulthood
and marry and have children themselves. But the outlook for
Mary and Jodie was grim. The doctors said that without inter-
vention the girls would die within six months. The only hope
was an operation to separate them. This would save Jodie, but
Mary would die immediately.
The parents, who were devout Catholics, refused permis-
sion for the operation on the grounds that it would hasten
Mary’s death. “We believe that nature should take its course,”
they said. “If it’s God’s will that both our children should not
survive, then so be it.” The hospital, hoping to save Jodie, peti -
tioned the courts for permission to perform the operation any-
way. The courts agreed, and the operation was performed. As
expected, Jodie lived and Mary died.
In thinking about this case, we should distinguish the
question of who should make the decision from the question of
what the decision should be. You might think, for example, that
the decision should be left to the parents, and so the courts
should not have intruded. But there remains the separate ques-
tion of what would be the wisest choice for the parents (or any-

one else) to make. We will focus on that question: Would it be
right or wrong to separate the twins?
The Argument That We Should Save as Many as We Can. The
rationale for separating the twins is that we have a choice
between saving one infant or letting both die. Isn’t it plainly …
Since its inception, An Introduction to Business Ethics by
Joseph DesJardins has been a cuting-
edge resource for the business ethics course. DesJardins’ unique
multidisciplinary approach
offers critical analysis and integrates the perspective of
philosophy with management, law,
economics, and public policy, providing a clear, concise, yet
reasonably comprehensive
introductory survey of the ethical choices available to us in
business.
Highlights of the Fifh Edition:
• NEW! Discussion cases throughout focused on Goldman
Sachs, the LIBOR banking
scandal, Patagonia, and Chick-fil-A and same-sex marriage.
Additional revised and
updated cases include discussions on Walmart and briber y in
Mexico, Apple and
Foxconn in China, executive compensation, conflicts of interest
at Goldman Sachs,
and employee privacy.
• A revised discussion of ethical theory which de-
emphasizes philosophical jargon,
introduces ethics as involving frameworks and paterns of

reasoning rather than as
abstract “theories,” and expands discussion of ethical
principles, rights, and duties.
What Instructors are Saying about An Introduction to Business
Ethics:
“A great book, thorough and accessible.”– Jessica McManus,
Notre Dame University
“Provides all the major areas in Business Ethics . . . It is
clear, challenging, and comprehensive.”
– Andy Wible, Meskegon Community College
Visit www.mhhe.com/desjardins5e for a wealth of student and
instructor resources!
Fifth E
dition
A
n Introduction to B
usiness Ethics
D
esJardins
F i f t h E d i t io n
An Introduction to
Joseph DesJardins
Business Ethics
M

D
D
A
L
IM
1222303 01/05/13 C
Y
A
N
M
A
G
Y
E
L
O
B
L
A
C
K
TM

A N I N T R O D U C T I O N T O
B U S I N E S S
E T H I C S
F i f t h E d i t i o n
J o s e p h D e s J a r d i n s
C o l l e g e o f S t . B e n e d i c t / S t . J o h n ’ s U n i v e
r s i t y
des38324_fm_i-xiv.indd ides38324_fm_i-xiv.indd i 1/17/13
4:21 PM1/17/13 4:21 PM
TM
AN INTRODUCTION TO BUSINESS ETHICS, FIFTH
EDITION
Published by McGraw-Hill/Irwin, a business unit of The
McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 1221
Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY, 10020. Copyright ©
2014 by The McGraw-Hill Compa-
nies, Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of
America. Previous editions © 2011,
2009 and 2006. No part of this publication may be reproduced
or distributed in any form or by
any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without
the prior written consent of The

McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., including, but not limited to, in
any network or other electronic
storage or transmission, or broadcast for distance learning.
Some ancillaries, including electronic and print components,
may not be available to customers
outside the United States.
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 DOC/DOC 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3
ISBN 978-0-07-803832-7
MHID 0-07-803832-4
Senior Vice President, Products & Markets: Kurt L. Strand
Vice President, General Manager, Products & Markets:
Michael Ryan
Vice President, Content Production & Technology Services:
Kimberly Meriwether David
Managing Director: William Glass
Executive Director of Development: Lisa Pinto
Brand Manager : Laura Wilk
Managing Development Editor: Sara Jaeger
Marketing Specialist: Alexandra Schultz
Editorial Coordinator: Adina Lonn
Director, Content Production: Terri Schiesl
Project Manager: Erin Melloy
Buyer: Jennifer Pickel
Cover Designer: Studio Montage, St. Louis, MO
Cover Image: Getty Images/Digital Vision/RF
Media Project Manager: Sridevi Palani
Typeface: 10/12 Palatino

Compositor: MPS Limited
Printer: R.R. Donnlley
All credits appearing on page or at the end of the book are
considered to be an extension of the
copyright page.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
DesJardins, Joseph R.
An introduction to business ethics/Joseph DesJardins.—Fifth
edition.
pages cm
ISBN 978-0-07-803832-7 (alk. paper)
1. Business ethics. I. Title.
HF5387.D392 2014
174’.4—dc23
2012048757
www.mhhe.com
des38324_fm_i-xiv.indd iides38324_fm_i-xiv.indd ii 1/17/13
4:21 PM1/17/13 4:21 PM
iii

About the Author
Joe DesJardins is Vice Provost, as well as Professor in the
Department of Phi-losophy, at the College of St. Benedict and
St. John’s University in Minnesota.
His other books include Business Ethics: Decision Making for
Personal Integrity
and Social Responsibility (with Laura Hartman and Chris
MacDonald); Environ-
mental Ethics: An Introduction to Environmental Philosophy;
Environmental Ethics:
Concepts, Policy, and Theory; Contemporary Issues in Business
Ethics (co-editor with
John McCall); and Business, Ethics, and the Environment. He
is the former Execu-
tive Director of the Society for Business Ethics and has
published and lectured
extensively in the areas of business ethics, environmental
ethics, and sustain-
ability. He received his B.A. from Southern Connecticut State
University and
his M.A. and Ph.D. from the University of Notre Dame. He
previously taught
at Villanova University.
des38324_fm_i-xiv.indd iiides38324_fm_i-xiv.indd iii
1/17/13 4:21 PM1/17/13 4:21 PM
To Linda
des38324_fm_i-xiv.indd ivdes38324_fm_i-xiv.indd iv
1/17/13 4:21 PM1/17/13 4:21 PM

v
Contents
Preface x
Chapter One: Why Study Ethics? 1
Learning Objectives 1
Discussion Case: The LIBOR Scandal: Is It Ok If Everyone
Does It? 2
Discussion Questions 4
1.1 Why Study Business Ethics? 4
1.2 Values and Ethics: Doing Good and Doing Well 6
1.3 The Nature and Goals of Business Ethics 10
1.4 Business Ethics and the Law 12
1.5 Ethics and Ethos 13
1.6 Morality, Virtues, and Social Ethics 15
1.7 Ethical Perspectives: Managers and Other Stakeholders 16
1.8 A Model for Ethical Decision Making 17
Refl ections on the Chapter Discussion Case 18
Chapter Review Questions 19
Chapter Two: Ethical Theory and Business 20
Discussion Case: AIG Bonuses and Executive Salary Caps 21
2.1 Introduction 23
2.2 Ethical Relativism and Reasoning in Ethics 25
2.3 Modern Ethical Theory: Utilitarian Ethics 29
2.4 Challenges to Utilitarianism 33
2.5 Utilitarianism and Business Policy 35
2.6 Principle-Based Ethics 37
2.7 Virtue Ethics 41

2.8 Summary and Review 44
des38324_fm_i-xiv.indd vdes38324_fm_i-xiv.indd v 1/17/13
4:21 PM1/17/13 4:21 PM
vi Contents
Chapter Three: Corporate Social Responsibility 48
Discussion Case: Walmart 49
3.1 Introduction 53
3.2 The Economic Model of Corporate Social Responsibility 53
3.3 Critical Assessment of the Economic Model:
The Utilitarian Defense 56
3.4 Critical Assessment of the Economic Model:
The Private Property Defense 61
3.5 The Philanthropic Model of Corporate Social Responsibility
64
3.6 Modifi ed Version of the Economic Model: The Moral
Minimum 65
3.7 The Stakeholder Model of Corporate Social Responsibility
67
3.8 Strategic Model of Corporate Social Responsibility:
Sustainability 71
3.9 Summary and Review 74

Chapter Four: Corporate Culture, Governance,
and Ethical Leadership 79
Discussion Case: Goldman Sachs’s “Toxic Culture” 80
4.1 Introduction 81
4.2 What is Corporate Culture? 82
4.3 Culture and Ethics 83
4.4 Ethical Leadership and Corporate Culture 86
4.5 Effective Leadership and Ethical Leadership 87
4.6 Building a Values-Based Corporate Culture 89
4.7 Mandating and Enforcing Ethical Culture:
The Federal Sentencing Guidelines 92
Chapter Five: The Meaning and Value of Work 97
Discussion Case: Social Enterprises and Social Entrepreneurs
98
5.1 Introduction 101
5.2 The Meanings of Work 102
5.3 The Value of Work 104
5.4 Conventional Views of Work 107
5.5 The Human Fulfi llment Model 109
des38324_fm_i-xiv.indd vides38324_fm_i-xiv.indd vi
1/17/13 4:21 PM1/17/13 4:21 PM
Shahlo Djabbarova

Contents vii
5.6 The Liberal Model of Work 112
5.7 Business’s Responsibility for Meaningful Work 114
Chapter Six: Moral Rights in the Workplace 119
Discussion Case: Electronic Privacy at Work 120
6.1 Introduction: Employee Rights 122
6.2 The Right to Work 123
6.3 Employment at Will 127
6.4 Due Process in the Workplace 129
6.5 Participation Rights 132
6.6 Employee Health and Safety 134
6.7 Privacy in the Workplace 139
Chapter Seven: Employee Responsibilities 145
Discussion Case: Confl icts of Interests in Subprime Mortgages
and at Goldman Sachs and Enron 146
7.2 The Narrow View of Employee Responsibilities:
Employees as Agents 152
7.3 Professional Ethics and the Gatekeeper Function 157

7.4 Managerial Responsibility and Confl icts of Interest 160
7.5 Trust and Loyalty in the Workplace 163
7.6 Responsibilities to Third Parties: Honesty,
Whistle-Blowing, and Insider Trading 165
Chapter Eight: Marketing Ethics: Product
Safety and Pricing 174
Discussion Case: Life-Cycle Responsibility for Products 175
8.1 Introduction: Marketing and Ethics 177
8.2 Ethical Issues in Marketing: An Overview 178
8.3 Ethical Responsibility for Products: From Caveat
Emptor to Negligence 181
des38324_fm_i-xiv.indd viides38324_fm_i-xiv.indd vii
1/17/13 4:21 PM1/17/13 4:21 PM
viii Contents
8.4 Strict Product Liability 185
8.5 Ethics and Pricing 187
Chapter Nine: Marketing Ethics:
Advertising and Target Marketing 194

Discussion Case: Predatory Lending: Subprime
Mortgages and Credit Cards 195
9.1 Introduction: Ethics of Sales, Advertising, and
Product Placement 197
9.2 Regulating Deceptive and Unfair Sales and Advertising 200
9.3 Marketing Ethics and Consumer Autonomy 203
9.4 Targeting the Vulnerable: Marketing and Sales 208
Chapter Ten: Business’s Environmental Responsibilities 216
Discussion Case: Sustainable Business 217
10.1 Corporate Social Responsibility and the Environment 219
10.2 Business’s Responsibility as Environmental Regulation
221
10.3 Business Ethics and Sustainable Economics 223
10.4 Business Ethics in the Age of Sustainable Development
227
10.5 The “Business Case” for Sustainability 230
Chapter Eleven: Diversity and Discrimination 234
Discussion Case: Chick-fi l-A and Same-Sex Marriage 235
11.1 Introduction: Diversity and Equality 237
11.2 Discrimination, Equal Opportunity, and Affi rmative
Action 238
11.3 Preferential Treatment in Employment 243

11.4 Arguments Against Preferential Hiring 247
11.5 Arguments in Support of Preferential Hiring 250
11.6 Sexual Harassment in the Workplace 253
des38324_fm_i-xiv.indd viiides38324_fm_i-xiv.indd viii
1/17/13 4:21 PM1/17/13 4:21 PM
Contents ix
Chapter Twelve: International Business and Globalization 261
Discussion Case: Business in a Global Setting 262
12.2 Ethical Relativism and Cross-Cultural Values 265
12.3 Cross-Cultural Values and International Rights 267
12.4 Globalization and International Business 269
12.5 Globalization and the Poor 271
12.6 “Race to the Bottom” 273
12.7 Democracy, Cultural Integrity, and Human Rights 275
Photo Credits 281
Index 283
des38324_fm_i-xiv.indd ixdes38324_fm_i-xiv.indd ix
1/17/13 4:21 PM1/17/13 4:21 PM

x
Preface to the
Fifth Edition
My overarching goal in the fi fth edition of this text remains
what it was for
the fi rst edition: “to provide a clear, concise, and reasonably
comprehensive
introductory survey of the ethical choices available to us in
business.” This
book arose from the challenges encountered in my own teaching
of business
ethics. Over the years I have taught business ethics in many
settings and with
many formats. I sometimes relied on an anthology of readings,
other times I
emphasized case studies. I taught business ethics as a lecture
course and in
a small seminar. Most recently, I taught business ethics
exclusively to under-
graduates in a liberal arts setting. It is diffi cult to imagine
another discipline
that is as multidisciplinary, taught in as many formats and as
many contexts,
by faculty with as many different backgrounds and with as many
different
aims, as business ethics.
Yet, although the students, format, pedagogy, and teaching
goals change,
the basic philosophical and conceptual structure for the fi eld
remains relatively
stable. There are a range of stakeholders with whom business
interacts: em-
ployees, customers, suppliers, governments, society. Each of

these relationships
creates ethical responsibilities, and every adult unavoidably will
interact with
business in several of these roles. A course in business ethics,
therefore, should
ask students to examine this range of responsibilities from the
perspective of
employee, customer, and citizen as well as from the perspective
of business
manager or executive. Students should consider such issues in
terms of both
the type of lives they themselves wish to lead and the type of
public policy for
governing business they are willing to support.
My hope was that this book could provide a basic framework
for examin-
ing the range of ethical issues that arise in a business context.
With this basic
framework provided, individual instructors would then be free
to develop
their courses in various ways. I have been grateful to learn that
this book is
being used in a wide variety of settings. Many people have
chosen to use it
as a supplement to the instructor ’s own lectures, an
anthologized collection
of readings, a series of case studies, or some combination of all
three. Others
have chosen to use this text to cover the ethics component of
another course
in such business-related disciplines as management, marketing,
account-
ing, human resources. The book also has been used to provide
coverage of

des38324_fm_i-xiv.indd xdes38324_fm_i-xiv.indd x 1/17/13
4:21 PM1/17/13 4:21 PM
Preface to the Fifth Edition xi
business-related topics in more general courses in applied or
professional eth-
ics. I take this variety of uses as evidence that the fi rst edition
was reasonably
successful in achieving its goals.
NEW TO THE FIFTH EDITION
The primary goal of this new edition is to update cases with
more contempo-
rary examples and to continue to revise the text for the sake of
clarity and ac-
cessibility for students. To those ends, readers will note the
following major
changes for the fi fth edition:
• Every chapter begins with a new, or revised and updated,
discussion case.
Highlights include new cases on Goldman Sachs, the LIBOR
banking
scandal, Patagonia, and Chick-fil-A and same-sex marriage.
Revised and
updated cases include new discussions on Walmart and bribery
in Mexico,
Apple and Foxconn in China, executive compensation, conflicts
of interest
at Goldman Sachs, and employee privacy.
• A revised discussion of ethical theory that deemphasizes

philosophical
jargon (readers will no longer see the word “deontological” for
example!).
The new discussion introduces ethics as involving frameworks
and pat-
terns of reasoning rather than as “theories” and substitutes a
discussion of
ethical principles, rights, and duties for the former section on
deontologi-
cal ethics.
As always, a new edition provides an opportunity to not only
update mate-
rial, but to present it in a more accessible style. It has been
gratifying to learn
that readers have found the book clearly written and accessible
to students un-
familiar with the fi eld. In continuing to strive for these goals, I
have rewritten
some sections, deleted some outdated cases and dated material,
and worked to
improve the clarity of the more philosophical sections.
Readers of previous editions will fi nd a familiar format. Each
chapter be-
gins with a discussion case developed from actual events. The
intent of these
cases is to raise questions and get students thinking and talking
about the ethi-
cal issues that will be introduced in the chapter. The text of
each chapter then
tries to do three things:
• Identify and explain the ethical issues involved;
• Direct students to an examination of these issues from the
points of view

of various stakeholders; and
• Lead students through some initial steps of a philosophical
analysis of
these issues.
The emphasis remains on encouraging student thinking,
reasoning, and de-
cision making rather than on providing answers or promoting a
specifi c set
of conclusions. To this end, a section on ethical decision
making at the end of
chapter 1 provides one model for decision making that might
prove useful
throughout the remainder of the text.
des38324_fm_i-xiv.indd xides38324_fm_i-xiv.indd xi
1/17/13 4:21 PM1/17/13 4:21 PM
xii Preface to the Fifth Edition
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
As with previous editions, my greatest debt in writing this
book is to those
scholars engaged in the academic research of business ethics. I
tried to acknowl-
edge their work whenever I relied on it in this text, but in case I
have missed
anyone, I hope this general acknowledgment can serve to repay
my debt to
the business ethics community. I also acknowledge three
members of that com-

munity who deserve special mention and thanks. My own work
in business
ethics has, for over 20 years, benefi ted from the friendships of
John McCall, Ron
Duska, and Laura Hartman. They will no doubt fi nd much in
this book that
sounds familiar. Twenty years of friendship and collaboration
tends to blur the
lines of authorship, but it is fair to say that I have l earned much
more from John,
Ron, and Laura than they from me.
Previous editions have also benefi ted from the advice of a
number of people
who read and commented on various chapters. In particular, I
would like to
thank Norman Bowie, Ernie Diedrich, Al Gini, Patrick Murphy,
Denis Arnold,
and Christopher Pynes.
I owe sincere thanks to the following teachers and scholars who
were
gracious enough to review previous editions of this book for
McGraw-Hill:
Dr. Edwin A. Coolbaugh—Johnson & Wales University; Jill
Dieterlie—Eastern
Michigan University; Glenn Moots—Northwood University;
Jane Hammang-
Buhl—Marygrove College; Ilona Motsif—Trinity College;
Bonnie Fremgen—
University of Notre Dame; Sheila Bradford—Tulsa Community
College;
Donald Skubik—California Baptist University; Sandra Powell—
Weber
State University; Gerald Williams—Seton Hall University;
Leslie Connell—

University of Central Florida; Brad K. Wilburn—Santa Clara
University;
Carlo Filice—SUNY, Genesco; Brian Barnes—University of
Louisville; Marvin
Brown—University of San Francisco; Patrice DiQuinzio —
Muhlenberg Col-
lege; Julian Friedland—Leeds School of Business, University of
Colorado at
Boulder; Derek S. Jeffreys—The University of Wisconsin,
Green Bay; Albert B.
Maggio Jr.—bicoastal-law.com; Andy Wible—Muskegon
Community College;
Christina L. Stamper—Western Michigan University; Charles R.
Fenner, Jr.—
State University of New York at Canton; Sandra Obilade—
Brescia University;
Lisa Marie Plantamura—Centenary College; James E. Welch—
Kentucky
Wesleyan College; Adis M. Vila—Dickinson College; Chester
Holloman—
Shorter College; Jan Jordan—Paris Junior College; Jon Adam
Matthews—
Central Carolina Community College; Bruce Alan Kibler—
University of
Wisconsin-Superior
The fifth edition benefited from the thorough and thoughtful
reviews
by:
• Carla Johnson, St. Cloud State University
• Martha Helland, University of Sioux Falls
• Jessica MacManus, Notre Dame
• David Levy, State University of New York—Geneseo
• Barbara Barresi, Capital University

des38324_fm_i-xiv.indd xiides38324_fm_i-xiv.indd xii
1/17/13 4:21 PM1/17/13 4:21 PM
Preface to the Fifth Edition xiii
• Kenneth Ferguson, East Carolina University
• Michael Shaffer, St. Cloud State University
• Wake Maki, University of North Carolina–Greensboro
• Andy Wible, Muskegon Community College
• Richard McGowan, Butler University
Joseph DesJardins
des38324_fm_i-xiv.indd xiiides38324_fm_i-xiv.indd xiii
1/17/13 4:21 PM1/17/13 4:21 PM
des38324_fm_i-xiv.indd xivdes38324_fm_i-xiv.indd xiv
1/17/13 4:21 PM1/17/13 4:21 PM
1
1 C H A P T E R
Why Study Ethics?
L E A R N I N G O B J E C T I V E S
After reading this chapter, you will be able to:
• Identify reasons why the study of ethics is important;

• Explain the nature and meaning of business ethics;
• Explain the difference between ethical values and other
values;
• Clarify the difference between ethics and the law;
• Describe the distinction between ethics and ethos;
• Distinguish between personal morality, virtues, and social
ethics;
• Identify ethical issues within a case description.
des38324_ch01_001-019.indd 1des38324_ch01_001-019.indd
1 1/16/13 12:32 PM1/16/13 12:32 PM
2 Chapter 1
DISCUSSION CASE: The LIBOR Scandal: Is It Ok
If Everyone Does It?
On June 27, 2012, as part of a U.S. Department of Justice
Investigation, Barclays Bank admitted to manipulating and
reporting fraudulent inter-
est rates used in international fi nancial markets. Barclays, a
multinational fi nan-
cial services and banking fi rm headquartered in London, was fi
ned more than
$450 million dollars (U.S.) by both U.K. and U.S. regulators.
Evidence showed
that Barclays had regularly manipulated the LIBOR (London
InterBank Offered

Rate) since at least 2005, in order both to profi t from large
trades and to falsely
portray the bank as fi nancially stronger than it was.
The LIBOR is the rate at which major London banks report that
they are
able to borrow. This rate then serves as the benchmark at which
interest rates
are set for countless other loans, ranging from credit cards to
mortgages and
interbank loans. It also acts as a measure of market confi dence
in the bank; if a
bank must pay a higher rate to borrow than others do, then
markets must have
less confi dence in the institution’s fi nancial strength.
The LIBOR is established in a surprisingly simple manner.
Each morning
at 11 a.m. London time, members of the British Bankers
Association (BBA)
report to the fi nancial reporting fi rm of Thomson Reuters the
rates at which
they would expect to pay for loans from other banks. Discarding
the high-
est and lowest quartiles, Thomson Reuters then calculates a
daily average,
which becomes the daily LIBOR benchmark. Within an hour,
Thomson Re-
uters publicizes this average worldwide, along with all of the
individual
rates reported to them. This benchmark is then used to settle
short-term in-
terest rates as well as futures and options contracts. By one
estimate, the
LIBOR is used to set interest rates for global fi nancial
transactions worth

more than $500 trillion. The individual rates also provide an
indirect mea-
sure of the fi nancial health of each reporting institution—the
lower their
rates, the stronger their fi nancial position.
Evidence shows that as early as 2007, before the major fi
nancial collapse
of Lehman Brothers and the economic meltdown that followed,
regulators in
both the United States and the United Kingdom were aware of
allegations that
Barclays was underreporting their rates. In the early days of the
2008 fi nancial
collapse, the Wall Street Journal published a series of articles
questioning the in-
tegrity of LIBOR reporting and suggested that banks were
intentionally misre-
porting rates to strengthen public perception of their fi nancial
health. Timothy
Geithner, U.S. Secretary of Treasury under President Obama,
acknowledged
that in 2008 when he was chairman of the New York Federal
Reserve Bank, he
recommended that British regulators change the process for
setting the LIBOR.
In testimony to the U.S. Congress in July 2012, Geithner said
“We were aware
[in 2008] of the risks that the way this was designed created not
just the incen-
tive to underreport, but also the opportunity to underreport.”
Internal documents and e-mails showed that traders,
compliance of-
fi cers, and senior management at Barclays were aware of and
approved the

des38324_ch01_001-019.indd 2des38324_ch01_001-019.indd
2 1/16/13 12:32 PM1/16/13 12:32 PM
Why Study Ethics? 3
underreporting. An e-mail sent from a Barclays employee to his
supervisor in
2007 said: “My worry is that we are being seen to be
contributing patently false
rates. We are therefore being dishonest by defi nition and are at
risk of dam-
aging our reputation in the market and with the regulators. Can
we discuss
urgently please?”
Evidence also showed that Barclays employees were in regular
commu-
nication with traders who would explicitly ask that Barclays
report specific
higher or lower rates in order to benefit their trades. For
example, Deriva-
tive traders, who would stand to gain or lose millions of dollars
depend-
ing on the rate, would communicate directly with their Barclays
banking
contacts and request that certain rates be reported. The tone of
their com-
munication demonstrates the familiarity that existed between
these parties:
“Dude. I owe you big time! . . . I’m opening a bottle of
Bollinger,” wrote one
trader to his Barclays contact. “Pls set 3m libor as high as
possible today,”

wrote another. Yet another, “Dude, what’s up with ur guys . .
fix this . . .tell
him to get it up!
Investigations into the LIBOR scandal showed widespread
intentional
fraud among many individual employees and executives at
Barclays. But
from the earliest days of the scandal, allegations were being
made that other
banks were equally involved. While admitting guilt, Barclays
denied that they
were the only bank involved in misreporting data. In a recorded
interview,
one Barclays employee told investigators that “We did stick our
head above
the parapet last year, got it shot off, and put it back down again.
So, to the
extent that, um, the Libors have been understated, are we guilty
of being part
of the pack? You could say we are. . . . Um, so I would, I would
sort of express
us maybe as not clean clean, but clean in principle.” In a
conversation between
a senior executive at Barclays’ and a representative of the
British banking Ad-
ministration, which was reported by the U.S. investigation, the
Barclays em-
ployee defended the bank, saying “We’re clean, but we’re dirty-
clean, rather
than clean-clean.”
The BBA representative responded: “No one’s clean-clean.”
By the end of August 2012, the investigation had spread to
include allega-

tions of fraudulent LIBOR reporting by HSBC and royal bank of
Scotland, the
two other largest banks in the United Kingdom, as well as more
than a dozen
other international banks.
The scandal even spread to the British government. Barclays
CEO Bob
Diamond testifi ed that at the height of the fi nancial collapse in
fall 2008, he
received a call from Paul Tucker, deputy governor of the Bank
of England.
According to Diamond, Tucker called on behalf of “senior
Whitehall” fi gures
and put pressure on Mr. Diamond to lower his reported LIBOR
rates. The al-
legation is that the higher rates would undermine confi dence in
Barclays at a
time that fi nancial markets needed boosting, and it increased
the likelihood
that the British government would need to bail out Barclays as
it already had
done for other failing banks. Mr. Tucker claims that he was
misunderstood
by …

The elements of moral philosophy•••j a m e s r a c h e

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to The elements of moral philosophy•••j a m e s r a c h e

Similar to The elements of moral philosophy•••j a m e s r a c h e (20)

More from BHANU281672

More from BHANU281672 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The elements of moral philosophy•••j a m e s r a c h e