But in 2007 and eight again, they come to face the theory of some of the largest financial institutions, which led to a recession.

Many economists and experts in economy and political science, basically including people like Alan Greenspan, was shocked.

And Greenspan, as even as you might know, is a great supporter off the regulation of financial industry and was also the head of the Federal Reserve in 2006 at the level of greed and corruption exhibited by these financial institutions.

The result of these things that happened, these de Beckles are chaos in our social, economic and political lives.

Now they can be many reasons for for these economic doback ALS.

But one important reason is the lack of ethical behavior on part of these businesses.

The makers.

They can be several reasons for this ethical anemia.

But however, one important reason is that business, education and business environment as such propagates a dangerous view that business exists in the realm separate from our social lives.

Hence regular common sense, morality and ethics.

Ality does not apply to it now.

Before we go into deeper into the topic into consideration, I would like to go have a couple of slides on what terms and concepts are and how they related to the way we think Patricia were.

Hand argues that we all perceive, frame and interact with the world through his conceptions, schemes that are modified by mental models, so words terms, biases, interpretations create and provide those mental models.

She discusses the case of Ford Pinto, perhaps the most notorious case in the carbon affecting industry.

A defect in the tank fuel tank led to several deaths, and four did its infamous cost benefit analysis.

They found out.

They estimated, that if they would spend $11 on the update, this would take care of the problem.

But if all 12.5 million cars are recalled, the cost would be on her $37 million.

Then, on the other hand, based on the estimate made by vanished TSA, they estimated that this update would save 180 lives and on ABC cities injuries and that would lead to ah benefit or saving off $49.5 million.

How we're leaving a net loss for $87.5 million.

The question is, were able to make this decision.

The Ford management Obviously not all of them were intrinsically evil people.

Professor Bullion argues that they made these calculations because the decision to recall Ford, Pinto or not was based on the employees.

Four Trained Perspective, which precluded ethical considerations from decision making processes.

And the gap was created between personal morality and business decision making and of evidence in favor of recall was found inconclusive.

Organization cultures that preclude ethic ality from the business vocabulary remind me off new speak in the great novel 1984.

A totalitarian regime basically wanted to exclude certain words from the vocabulary, so that might lead to some kind of thought crime that the logic really waas that if we do not have a word for, say, free will or self expression, then in all probability will not be able to discuss or relate to the concept of free will and self expression.

The profession of the perpetuation of phrases like business off business is business.

Our business ethicist is an oxymoron, leads the creation off economic dogma, which expects unquestioning against these statements as veritable truths and intractable facts.

If you look at the oral argument here, which leads to the statement or provides the ideological underpinnings of the statement business, it is an oxymoron.

You will see the statement is quite simplistic.

It's actually intuitive, but it doesn't tell you the whole truth.

Um, it basically we look at the statement.

There are three main ideas that are being being expressed here.

Number one is that self interest is the sole reason motive behind all business activities.

Number two is the purpose of any business is just to make money for the shareholders, and three is that business exist in a realm where normal common sense ethics does not apply.

Now I argue that these dogmatic believes that have and will create more chaos in our economic lives are dangerous decisions, and they need to be deconstructed and reassessed.

The idea of self interest can be traced back in economic terms can be traced back to Adam Smith and his book Developed Nations in 17 76.

Now this book is to this day is considered as the foundation work for modern economics.

Many scholars and economists have interpreted Adam Smith's work as a P in tow, unabated pursuit of self interest.

And that claim is supported by this statement, which is perhaps the most quoted statement from that book.

As you can see, the butchers, the butcher and the brewer need our money.

We need their products.

The market facilitates the exchange.

Hence, other than self interest, no ethical considerations are in play.

How it must be argued that Adam Smith was mistakenly interpreted as an ideologue whose only contribution was the introduction and support, often ethics free view off economics.

Dr.

Murchison, who's an economist and in a noble laureate, he adapts a Shakespearean efforts, and thus, while some people are born small, some achieve smallest, the unfortunate Adam Smith has had much smallest test upon him.

If you really want to understand what happened, Smith really meant by self interest.

We need to go beyond this one statement.

This is situated in a book that is 14 hundreds long.

We will need to go began beyond what being relative nations and two other important works, and one of them is the Terry moral sentiments which preceded and also laid the Moore Foundation for resignations.

The Terri More model sentiments begins with this that this statement in which you can clearly see that Adam Smith is saying that human beings have an innate desire to see others do well.

I can go on and give you several quotations on passages from the Belt of nations that are much less sighted.

But they're at the same time very important to understand what he meant but self interest.

We don't have the time, so the cracks really is.

The Smith had cautioned against self interest or limitless pursuit of self interest.

He had noted that human beings have two motives.

To act self interest and concern for others, which he called sympathy.

And he believed that sympathy would restrict self interest whenever it is that the added expense off other people over never fairness and justice required it.

In some, Smith was an economist and a virtue assist who provided ethics a dominant place in the Cup free free market economy, and he would have never agreed to the thesis that allows or justifies the pursuit of unfettered self interest or personal gain under the guise of self interest.

The second link in the chain is argument that allows us to determine the difference between purpose and motive of business now.

Purpose, as Portillo's, as the Greeks used to call it, allows us to understand why certain institutions were created.

Motive, on the other hand, is a mechanism.

It is based on psychological needs and other needs that stimulates people to act.

Both purpose and motive can actually be used to explain why certain things are done, but they could very well be different from each other.

Let's take the example of journalism journalist work for money because they want to pay the bills.

Journalistic outlets also need to have access to funds so that they can keep it operating.

But journalism's purpose, as it them in by political science scholars, is basically to act as the fourth estate and perform the function of a watchdog over government, another powerful interests in the state.

Hence the original kilos off Journalism actually is quite important for any healthy democratic society.

But if we argue that no businesses these, these journalistic outlets are just there to make money, then essentially we're turning means into ends, and by doing so, we debasing a very important social institution.

Business is a social institution.

It was created by society so that the members of society can benefit by achieving all of these human needs, including, but not limited to profit.

No society creates an institution if it's not fulfilling the overall goal off society.

If you go back in the history of corporations, we will realize that corporations were given charters by state legislatures and federal.

It's ended and country letting US US Legislature based on separate votes.

And the economic activities were limited to certain areas that aligned with the overall purpose of the state.

Hence the state.

Our society is a bigger, more important unit.

Adam Smith also acknowledge that an overall, laudable goal off free market economy is the improvement off the society, and he believed that that that self interest is the mechanism behind those business and market transactions.

Furthermore, he knew that unfettered pursuit of self interest will damage social interest, and she was in favor of establishing more Lam's to restrict it.

Two dead economic dogma would said disproportionate emphasis on making profit is the sole purpose of off corporations.

This might be true partially, but think about this.

What if the business was created so that it can produce good and service is more effectively or efficiently?

What if the business was created because they can bring together skills and resource is for different sources for the benefit of all participants, The bottom.

This bottom line my opium needs to be avoided as when it gets unquestionable, ingrained in our business practices.

It leads to the development off a callous attitude in business people in managers that justify a socially damaging but at the same time, a single track pursuit of profit at all costs.

The last link in the chain it's a descriptive argument, is basically says that business is a separate realm.

Are common sense.

Morality doesn't apply to it.

A great proponent of this idea is Elbert Car Car argues that business executives, in the pursuit of their interest and then just of the organizations, are supposed to unexpected, to lie, cheat and love.

He compares business with with the game of poker.

And, he say, Is that a game of poker in which distrust is the norm, in which kindness is a source of weakness in which cunning is a source of strength.

Friendship is ignored, and in fact, it is quite all right and acceptable to deceive a friend for personal gain.

He also instructs business people that if you do lie, cheat in your business transactions, don't feel bad about yourself.

You're all getting all right.

I love to watch gangster movies and one very important thing in a very interesting aspect of those movies that have found is that how these Gangsters are able to back forget their personal life with their social life?

I mean more.

In most cases, they're shown Mafia movies shown us as individuals who are loving fathers, loving parents, good neighbors, helping people, giving money to charity, going to church, but the same time that extremely, extremely ruthless when it comes to their business transactions.

I'm always reminded of this really famous scene from perhaps the greatest movie against him we ever made.

The Godfather, in which Michael Colleoni finds out that one of his father's old and trusted associates, Tesio, is setting him up to be assassinated.

Fantasy is being taken out, but Michael's men to be shot does.

He looks back at Tom Hagen was their lawyer and consigliere e and says.

Well, tell Michael always liked him.

It was business, not personal.

The question really is setting somebody up to be assassinated.

How personal can you get more?

I'd feel I understand that The point really is that I always wonder how they achieve this, this this compartmentalization.

But then you read car.

You realize maybe they're using the similar strategy and they're saying and they're eschewing all blame.

All charges off antisocial criminal behavior by believing that their business is a game in which normal common sense morality does not apply.

But does business really ask us to lie all the time?

Well, if that was the case, then violet companies lose their goodwill and why would they have impact negative impact on their bottom lines when the light?

We have examples of companies like Volkswagen Toyota really good companies, but getting into trouble because of lying and deceit.

If lying was okay in business than the idea or the value off, off promise, explicit and implicit would end in business.

If the line lang was okay in business, then the idea or value off off good faith, which is a presupposition of all business transactions, would be abolished isn't in some industries, even giving in incomplete information intolerable.

Like the pharmaceutical industry, even advertising not fit standing the half a 1,000,000,000 Wald has to provide us with some credible, useful information to be effective.

If advertising is all lying and we all know it's lying, then why it is affected.

And finally, if cars arguments actually right, then why would people want to be managers?

Because it almost seems that if they want to be managers and do well in the business, they have to sell their soul, So why would they do it?

The business with the fact is that that whatever we have, they're seeing the business world does not support these obsessions.

There is no universal code of morality that it's followed and subscribed by all business people.

Business is part of a society off our society and many of the common sense ethical principles like truth telling, trust building, fulfilling promises, contractual obligations do apply to business that apply to all other institutions in our society.

The term business ethics is an oxymoron leads to a cynical Devyn Yin zero sum game zero sum game view in which self entrances a be all and end all off all economic activity.

It justifies egoism.

It states that people only and always will act ended in the self interest.

It allows corporations to develop a callous attitude that justifies the most deplorable acts behind behind exalted benefits of off, off, off self interest.

Therefore, the need is to confront these ideas and dogmas and reconstruct them a little bit.

The issue is not at all.

Businesses are unethical.

The issue is that we need to make ethical behavior the dominant Nam.

We can achieve this, in fact, by creating ecosystems in businesses.

Were business executives can discuss business issues in ethical terms without being denounced as impractical or or too idealistic.

We can achieve this by making ethics part of common parlance so as to ensure that our business decision makers are able to develop the ability to discern ethical issues, assistant and analyze them in ethical terms and eventually develop an overall appreciation off off, off, unethical life.

Thank you very much.