Throughout the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle discusses deliberation, choices, and results, specifically “means” and “ends.” For Aristotle, how one gets to a final result matters, not the actual result itself. The means to the ends are of utmost importance and are what require the most deliberation. The concept of deliberation and responsibility for the choices one makes (not necessarily the results of those choices) is a difficult, if not nearly alien, one for the modern day reader to comprehend. Yet it may be perhaps the most important of all points made by Aristotle throughout the Nicomachean Ethics. How, when so much of Aristotle’s teachings have survived and thrived through the ages, has this one failed to hold weight? Our success-at-any-price consumer-driven culture, our insistence on a “what’s in it for me” attitude towards good choices, is completely contrary to Aristotle’s view. In light of the Enron scandal (and others), it is imperative that our modern-day attitudes be reoriented towards Aristotle’s understanding of means and ends.
For Aristotle, ends is the desired result. This is truly no different today: we decide we want to acquire or achieve something, and, just as for Aristotle, the decision of what we want is fairly quick and simple. It does not require much deliberation, “we deliberate not about ends, but about means” (Rackman, 1112b1[11]). For example, an ancient Greek man or a modern day American may both desire wealth. The decision to become wealthy takes little energy…how to become wealthy is what requires extensive deliberation. For both ancient Greeks and modern Americans, would, of course, desire to achieve the end result of wealth with the least possible amount of time, and energy. For example, a “doctor does not deliberate whether he is to cure his patient,” he considers the “means of achieving it” (the cure) and then deliberates on and decides “which of these will attain it most easily and best” (1112b1[11], emphasis added). As a doctor will decide upon the least costly, least invasive and most potentially effective cure for a patient, so does one desiring wealth: one wants wealth as quickly as possible, with the least amount of effort. The difference for Aristotle versus modern-day Americans is the importance on good choices when deciding the means to the desired ends. How one becomes wealthy matters to Aristotle; nowadays, how is less important than the actual achievement of wealth.
The Enron scandal is a perfect example. Enron’s founder Kenneth Lay[1] and CEO Jeffrey Skilling[2] are currently being tried for conspiracy and fraud in the actions that eventually led to the bankruptcy of Enron. Lay and Skilling, amongst others, are believed to have falsely stated the strength of their company’s financial situation in order to achieve greater financial strength and higher stock valuation while knowing that “fraudulent activity gave the company an appearance of success” (MSNBC). It is alleged that they committed fraud to boost the stock price, in order to achieve greater financial gains for themselves at the expense of the company’s stockholders and pensioners.[3] As an example of Aristotle’s means and ends, the accused in the Enron trial decided that they wanted to become wealthy (actually, much wealthier than they already were) and that committing fraud, market manipulation, and other crimes was the “most easily and best” method to achieve their desired end (1112b1[11]). Aristotle would say that these Enron executives made “bad” choices; that the means they chose to achieve their ends were without virtue or goodness. A modern-day person would be far more likely to say they were stupid to get caught. Even as they stand trial, there are those who admire them for the wealth they achieved, the ways they “beat the system,” and for “getting away with it” for as long as they did. Should they be found guilty, they will retain much of their ill-gotten wealth (ends) and receive a light prison term fine (the proverbial slap on the wrist) while the stockholders and pensioners they profited from will regain none of their losses. Aristotle would be mortified.
One of the tactics Lay and Skilling’s lawyers are using is the defense of ignorance. In essence, their lawyers are claiming that Lay and Skilling were ignorant of the decisions their accountants and public relations departments were making, that even if they knew about the decisions they had all good faith that the decisions were legal and not fraudulent, that any positive statements they made about the company’s financial condition were accurate to the best of their knowledge, and that they cannot be held responsible for these decisions much less the negative outcome of those decisions.[4] Of course, the prosecution counters that as high-ranking company officials, it goes without say they knew what was going on in their company, and that even if they didn’t, they are still responsible. This is truly an Aristotelian argument straight out of the Nicomachean Ethics, both on the part of the defense and the prosecution. In essence, Aristotle claims that ignorance can be a defense when we are not responsible for the ignorance, but is not a defense when the ignorance is a result of our own actions and choices. When the defense claims their actions were made based on information they were ignorant was of a fraudulent nature, they are using Aristotle’s argument. However, when the prosecution counters that, by virtue of their position within the company it was their responsibility to know what was going on, essentially the very same Aristotelian argument is used. This is, in essence, the difference between voluntary and involuntary ignorance.
Understanding the difference between voluntary and involuntary ignorance, and how Aristotle defined them, is obvious but not necessarily easily understood. For Aristotle, “acting through ignorance…seems to be different from acting in ignorance” (1110b1[14]). Acting through ignorance is no defense and not excusable, acting in ignorance is. The difference between the two is the voluntary or involuntary nature of the ignorance. The defendants in the Enron trial claim they acted in ignorance… that their ignorance of fraudulent actions was through no fault of their own; the prosecution argues they acted through ignorance, that any ignorance (and they do not believe for a minute that the Lay and Skilling were ignorant of what was going on) was of their own choice. By virtue of choosing to be ignorant, the defendants are responsible for their actions and the results of their actions. For Aristotle, this is as it should be. The defendants were in a position of responsibility to not be ignorant, therefore any choice to be ignorant is not a defense for the negative results (ends) of their choices (means).
So should the millions of stockholders and pensioners who lost money, often entire life savings, through the Enron scandal be held for responsible for their choices? They chose an end: to increase their financial wealth. They chose a means: buy Enron stock, invest the pension fund in Enron stock. Their end was negative; they lost money. Their choices, the means they chose, to achieve their desired end were based on information they received from Enron[5] and others. They were, however, ignorant of the fraud committed behind the scenes in providing them the information they relied upon for their choices. Would Aristotle say they are responsible for their choices and the (negative) result of their choices? Perhaps, but more likely not. It is likely that Aristotle would view the corporate executives and others involved in the scandal as having a higher ethical responsibility than the average person, and that by virtue of their (high status) position, the average investor was correct (“good”) to expect the executives to make “good” (ethical) choices.
The Enron scandal is a house-of-cards that fell spectacularly. While it is true that the average American millionaire achieved their wealth through hard work and virtuous effort, there is a tendency within our culture to actually admire those who “beat the system” to achieve great wealth. For Aristotle, this admiration is ill-deserved, and we all should follow his lead and cease any admiration of those who achieve wealth through unethical means. Grasping the importance of making good (virtuous, ethical) choices in pursuing a desired goal is difficult for most modern-day Americans. It is imperative that we as a culture and society rethink our “ends justify the means” mentality and reaffirm Aristotle’s teachings. The Enron scandal highlights the vital importance of bringing back Aristotle’s view that the means are far more important then the ends, and that the means chosen must be ethical, virtuous, and good.
Works Cited
Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by H. Rackman. Aristotle in 23 Volumes, Vol. 19. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1934. The Perseus Digital Library. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Aristot.+Nic.+Eth.
MSNBC.com. Multiple articles:
Enron Scandal Timeline http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11700762/
Judge Finalizes Instructions for Jury Trial http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12722896/from/RSS/
Charges Against Skilling, Lay http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12690830/
Traders Bet on Outcome of Enron Trial http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11312568/
[1] Lay is accused of “conspiracy to manipulate Enron’s quarterly financial results, making false and misleading public statements about the company’s financial performance and omitting facts necessary to make financial statements accurate and fair” (MSNBC). He is also charged with “bank fraud” and “lying to banks about using loans to buy Enron stock on margin” (MSNBC). Very simply, he allegedly, amongst other crimes, used loans meant for the company to buy Enron stock for himself, to “flood” the market with “buy” orders in order to manipulate the stock price (make it go higher) then sell at a profit (“dump”) his stock, resulting in great losses as the price plummeted, all the while talking the company’s success “up” to increase stockholder investments.
[2] Initially indicted on 42 counts of fraud “and other crimes … alleging he misled government regulators and investors about the company’s financial condition” (MSNBC).
[3] The Enron trial is ongoing as this paper is written.
[4] This description of the defense lawyers’ strategy is VERY over-simplified for the sake of space.
[5] While I am limiting this discussion to Enron, other companies were involved and already many have pled guilty or been found guilty. One of the companies was the accounting firm of Arthur Anderson, which had at the time an highly touted reputation of fairness, honesty, accuracy and reliability. In other words, they were trusted by individual investors and government regulators.
Written for Professor Tanner's History of Ancient Philosophy class at the University of Colorado - Colorado Springs, 10th May 2006.
No comments:
Post a Comment