Business and Religion A Clash of Civilizations? Edited by Nicholas Capaldi Loyola University New Orleans Published by M & M Scrivener Press 72 Endicott Street, Salem, MA 01970 http://www.mmscrivenerpress.com Copyright © 2005 M & M Scrivener Press First published 2005 09 08 07 06 05 Library of Congress Control Number: 2005927127 ISBN - 13: 9780976404101 ISBN - 10: 0-9764041-0-9 Conflicts and Trends™in Business Ethics Series Editor, Nicholas Capaldi All rights reserved No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher, except by a reviewer who wishes to quote short passages for use in a review for inclusion in a magazine, newspaper, broadcast or website Printed on acid-free paper by Friesen Printers, Canada Contents Acknowledgments viii Nicholas Capaldi / Introduction PART I: ORIGINS AND NATURE OF THE CLASH Tibor R Machan / Can Commerce Inspire? Michael C Maibach / The Virtues of a Commercial Republic Mark S Markuly / Ships Passing in the Night: The Conceptual Disconnects Between American Christianity and Capitalism Stephen V Arbogast / “Disconnected at the Roots”: How Gaps in Catholic Social Doctrine Impede Dialogue and Action on Economic Justice Art Carden / The Market’s Benevolent Tendencies Walter Block / The Jews and Capitalism: A Love-Hate Relationship Robert H Nelson / Doing “Secular Theology:” Business Ethics in Economic and Environmental Religion Kevin E Schmiesing / Why is There a Conflict Between Business and Religion? A Historical Perspective 16 27 30 41 55 65 80 90 PART II: REGAINING HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE Peter A Redpath / The Metaphysical Foundations of the Ethics of Commerce Seth W Norton / The Deutronomic Double Standard: Human Nature and the Nature of Markets William F Campbell / What Does America Owe to Florence? Leonard P Liggio / Property in Roman Religion and Early Christian Fathers iii 102 111 125 134 iv CONTENTS Gary M Pecquet / Perestroika in Christendom: The Scholastics Develop a Commerce-Friendly Moral Code Joseph Keckeissen / The Concern of the Church and the Unconcern of the Free Market Harold B Jones, Jr / The “Conflict” Between Business and Religion: Where Does It Come From? James R Wilburn / Capitalism Beyond the “End of History” 135 154 163 171 PART III: THREE BRIDGES Rabbi Daniel Lapin / An Explanation for Jewish Business Success Rev John Michael Beers / The Virtue of Commerce in the Catholic Tradition Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad / Islam, Commerce, and Business Ethics 184 192 200 PART IV: APPLICATIONS A A Christian (Catholic) Business Ethics Rev David A Boileau / Can Theology Help Us in Applied Ethics? Jean-Francois Orsini / The Sources and Spiritual Basis of Catholic Business Ethics Rev Stephen C Rowntree / Calling, Character, Community: Spirituality for Business People James R Edwards, Jr / “Mankind was my Business:” An Examination of a Christian Business Ethic and Its Applications to Various Ethical Challenges B 216 230 236 245 Corporate Governance James Cavill / Corporate Corruption: How the Theories of Reinhold Niebuhr and the Ethical Practices of Joseph Badaracco May Help Understand and Limit Corporate Corruption 258 Alejandro Antonio Chafuen / Corporate Social Responsibility: A Traditional Catholic Perspective 266 Joseph F Johnston, Jr / Natural Law and the Fiduciary Duties of Business Managers 279 Peter Koslowski / The Common Good of the Firm as the Fiduciary Duty of the Manager 301 Gerald J Russello / Subsidiarity as Business Model 313 Krishna S Dhir / The Hindu Executive and His Dharma 327 PART V: GLOBALIZATION Theodore Roosevelt Malloch / Spirituality and Entrepreneurship Ryszard Legutko / Business, Religious Spirituality and the East European Experience 338 345 CONTENTS E R Klein / American Free Enterprise as an Enterprise in Freedom Abroad Irfan Khawaja / Islam and Capitalism: A Non-Rodinsonian Approach Himanshu Rai / The Role of Hinduism in Global India and Her Business Ethics Celestina O Isiramen / The African Traditional Religion’s Business Ethics: A Paradigm for Spirituality in the Global Business Ethical Standard Paul Chandler and Bartolomeu Romualdo / Faith-Correlated Responses to Rural Assistance in a Globalizing Brazil Armando de la Torre / The Worldly Failures of Liberation Theology Samuel Gregg / Globalization: Insights from Catholic Social Teaching CONCLUSION Gordon Lloyd / The Archbishop of Canterbury: On the Facts and Values of Religion and Globalization v 356 366 379 390 398 409 418 428 Contributors 437 Index 440 Acknowledgments Neither this anthology nor the conference on which it was based would have been possible without the generous support of the John Templeton Foundation Arthur Schwartz, Vice President for Research and Programs in the Human Sciences at the John Templeton Foundation has been unusually helpful throughout the process The idea for this conference and much of its content grew out of a series of discussions with Mark Markuly, a colleague and contributor to this anthology, who has continued to offer his advice and suggestions Leonard Liggio and Ted Malloch have contributed many helpful suggestions along the way Dean Patrick O’Brien of the College of Business Administration at Loyola has been unfailing in his support of the Loyola Institute for Ethics and Spirituality in Business My colleagues William Barnett and Jerry Dauterive were generous with their time and assistance Special thanks go to Lyudmila Todorova for her general and editorial assistance Brandon Thibodeaux and Meredith Capaldi helped with the running of the conference Amy Keeler, special assistant to the Dean, has been diligent in helping with conference details vi Introduction Nicholas Capaldi American culture is confronting a new chapter in its struggle since the late 1960s to articulate an effective business ethics for a pluralistic society The scandals of Enron and WorldCom constitute egregious examples of the absence or deficiency of ethical decision-making in matters of commerce This corporate immorality is a reminder of the ineffectiveness of an ethics grounded alone in the rationalism issuing from the Enlightenment, and its ineffectiveness in dealing with the newly forming social relationships of a post-modern global economy In recent decades, the grounding for ethics in commerce has slowly lost its spiritual roots As the nation’s complex web of relationships or “social capital,” which supported ethical decision-making, has eroded throughout the latter half of the 20th century, American jurisprudence has embarked simultaneously on a trivialization of religion throughout society Mainstream religions have been marginalized from the debate on ethics in general, but especially on the morality of business decisions Meanwhile, organized religions have exacerbated the breach by adopting adversarial postures toward the overall economic structure, the business community, and even members of their own congregations who work in the business sector The United States needs a re-grounding of its moral roots and this will require a more sophisticated understanding of the spiritual roots of business ethics Loyola University New Orleans has a unique plan and resources for furthering the development of this understanding, both theoretically and practically We have established the National Center for Business Ethics at Loyola University New Orleans The aim of the Institute is to show the world that business is a crucial and honorable profession and that commerce is vital to NICHOLAS CAPALDI our civilization It is our hope that business leaders realize that they have the potential to transform the corporate world into a world that promotes excellence, prosperity, and fulfillment Ethics and spirituality are key factors in making this transformation, and together they can help shape the American and world cultures of today and tomorrow The Institute is business centered not academic-centered: The Institute will learn from and serve the business community; this will enhance our educational mission with students and faculty Our activities include lectures, conferences, an online newsletter, a certificate program in the central business district, a national forum (where business leaders will be invited to lead special seminars and panels to discuss how they have dealt with ethical issues in the world of commerce; participants in the forums will include leaders from business, academe, government, and religious institutions), and a resource center Our first conference was held June 10-13, 2004, and was entitled “The Ethics of Commerce: An Inquiry into the Religious Roots and Spiritual Context of Ethical Business Practice.” It was a gathering of scholars, religious leaders, and CEOs, with papers presented on the perspectives and impact of various religious traditions on the ethics of commerce The main purpose of this first conference was to publicize and establish the viability of relating spirituality to business ethics We had already identified and invited a number of business leaders who take spirituality seriously A special feature of our conference was a series of panels in which business leaders discussed how they have dealt with ethical issues in the world of commerce We anticipate that a further consequence of the conference will be the establishment of a network for on-going dialogue Specifically, we have asked contributors to address the following questions: Is a purely secular business ethics irremediably deficient? Does a substantive business ethics require a religious and spiritual framework? To what extent does current business practice reflect a spiritual dimension? What are the various religious traditions’ perspectives on the ethics of commerce? Can the various religious traditions generate a non-adversarial, consistent, and coherent business ethics? Is there a role for religion and spirituality in a global and post-modern business world? This anthology is the first book to appear in the newly created “Conflicts and TrendsTM in Business Ethics” series That series is, in part, focused upon the extent to which the norms of business practice “affect notions of personal dignity, family, community, education, religion, law, politics, and culture in general” and how those norms are themselves impacted by other cultural practices, including religion The Problem Until recently, many Americans had a spiritual grounding for business ethics anchored in the conceptualization of virtues such as courage, honor, benevolence, or citizenship, as duties revealed through God’s laws Thomas INTRODUCTION Hobbes led Western thought and the liberal philosophical tradition in a different but parallel direction by imagining a human motivation grounded in the primacy of rights rather than duties Human duty was derived and undertaken to secure individual rights Building on the thoughts of Hobbes and John Locke, the founders of the United States created a political economy with a unique relationship between rights and duties Rights were grounded in the afterglow of centuries of Western belief in the inherent dignity of the human being in the context of a religious worldview, and duties flowing naturally from the rights of free citizens As Alexis de Tocqueville noted in his observations of the early republic in the first years of the 19th century, spirituality, religious faith, and the voluntary associations spurred by faith communities, provided an indispensable dimension in the balance between the rights and duties of the citizenry For most Americans in the first few centuries of the nation, morality in commerce was grounded in a transcendent reference point for decision-making, along with an elaborate network of social relationships to support moral choices This religious and spiritual influence endured in many forms through the centuries In recent decades, however, the grounding for ethics in commerce has slowly lost its spiritual roots Recent work documents the extent of this breach between religion and business Research into understanding the perception Christian leaders have of the business enterprise, and the perception business leaders have of the ethical guidance faith traditions and church leaders can offer the practical challenges of business, reveals a radical fissure in communication and worldview The magnitude of the fissure hampers the development of a sustained dialogue in search of new boundaries for the spiritual re-grounding of business ethics to face the profound problem-solving challenges facing the nation Indeed, the conflict between commerce and religion is so severe businesses have a difficult time creating organizational structures that allow for spiritual practice and expression to enhance and energize company values, even though the openness to spirituality increases performance Likewise, the biases of most religious leaders make it impossible for them to bring the religious tradition to bear on the traditional roles and functions of the corporation, which are the points at which business practitioners shape and execute their ethical decisions Most seminarians and clergy assume those engaged in business are compromising their Christian values as a requirement for success As a rule, religious leaders consider the Christian value system and a capitalist economic system mutually exclusive This is one reason, perhaps, why religious leaders demonstrate little understanding of the practical economic issues that allow businesses to thrive Likewise, interviews with business leaders suggested that most Christian managers considered their pastors and religious traditions largely irrelevant for guidance on the practicalities of their profession Despite this cultural disconnect from spirituality, ethics in commerce remains linked to transcendence in the minds of most Americans According The Archbishop of Canterbury: On the Facts and Values of Religion and Globalization Gordon Lloyd The Problem of Globalization In December 2002, Rowan Williams, the newly selected Archbishop of Canterbury, delivered his “provocative” lecture on the appropriate relationship between religion and public policy in the “globalized” 21st century.1 “Let me put it provocatively,” he said “We are no longer confident of educating children in a tradition,” that teaches a shared vision (Williams, 2002, p 10) Traditional religion, concludes the archbishop, must fill the “moral vacuum” that currently exists in the creation of public policy For the archbishop, the central public policy question is: “Why should we what the government tells us?” (Williams, 2002, p 1; see also pp 12, 14, 15.) Translated to the 21st century, the archbishop wants to know what makes it legitimate for “modern governments” to “order you around?” There is urgency to Williams’ question: we are living in a time when the “basic assumptions” about legitimate authority are shifting The 21st century market state, argues the archbishop, is replacing the 20th-century nation state, with the result that a moral and political vacuum has been created The nation state’s legitimacy is based in a social contract, by which Williams doesn’t mean a contract among individuals who create a society where they lay down rights and write constitutions No, a Williams’ social contract is a 428 ON THE FACTS AND VALUES OF RELIGION AND GLOBALIZATION 429 “bargain” made between the “people” and their “government.” We obey the government because it delivers a “high degree of internal stability” (Ibid p.2) Williams’ social contract has little to with securing individual freedom and much to with guaranteeing public welfare Thus, says Williams, we need a new social contract, and that is where the revival of traditional religion enters the equation Traditional religion must now fill the role once held by the welfare state to provide the eternal context within which the market state ought to operate Traditional religion, operating within the geographical boundaries of the former nation state, is the solution to the problem of economic globalization; it provides a national religion or moral compass for an identifiable “homogeneous community” in a world occupied by solitary individuals who go to market to buy a fat pig and then go home again jiggerty jig, and, moreover, don’t give a fig We need a rejuvenated traditional religion, he chides, one that presses the case for community standards in a world that has lost its collective compass We need the value of traditional religion to trump the fact of the market state The Archbishop’s Paradox There is a fundamental tension at the heart of Williams’ analysis of moral action and public policy On the one hand, he calls for a renewed confidence in “the strength of non-governmental communities that support and nourish the sense of continuity, the sense of the story, which I have been suggesting is vital for reasonable moral action that looks beyond the immediate scene” (Williams, 2002, p 10) And he has in mind traditional religious organizations as the critical non-governmental organizations This is promising, for it could involve a partnership between religious organizations and business enterprises based on an active social sphere, independent from the administrative state On the other hand, he is so critical of “the consumer culture” of the market state that we are left wondering about what his “third way” of “moral action” might look like He rightly observes that in education, “we are very much at sea over what concrete moral content we want to see in our children’s education.” The schools aren’t providing the moral culture and the best they can is encourage general respect and tolerance But he blames the market state for this concern with “procedural education,” when in fact this drift is due to the actions of the nation state itself over the last 50 years I wonder also where the status of the individual fits into his solution He wants a robust social order, but an organic and planned group order rather than a decentralized order created by individuals to meet the twin objectives of individual freedom and community responsibility The archbishop exaggerates the extent to which 1) the welfare state2 actually provided for public morality; it certainly provided for an individual dependency on the state for basic services from womb to tomb, even from jowel to bowel, as well as nationalizing personal responsibility, 2) the market 430 GORDON LLOYD state undermines the personal morality of self-reliance and encourages selfindulgence, greed, and “piggishness;” the archbishop has uncritically accepted the criticism that the market is responsible for self-indulgent behavior when this unruly behavior may well have been caused by what Prime Minister Tony Blair calls “the liberal consensus of the 1960s,” 3) traditional religion is still capable of providing the solution which he seeks The 20th century nation state encouraged indifference, perhaps a hostility, toward traditional religion.3 All major studies on religiosity in Britain and Europe show an alarming indifference to church attendance and religious belief over the last 25 years In Britain, fewer than 10 percent of the population attend church more than once a month, and in Western Europe, 50 percent of the population have given up on going to church all together In fact, there are more practicing Muslims in Britain than there are practicing Anglicans, 4) the social contract is a “bargain” between government and citizen, rather than an arrangement between individuals Only the latter aims to retain a robust private sphere while at the same time providing for the public good.4 And, finally, he underestimates the extent to which the nation state still interferes in our day-to-day lives Many of the archbishop’s market-orientated critics point out that it is perverse to argue that contemporary Britain is in fact a market state In the 21st century, Health, Education, and Welfare are very much under the control of the central government and more than 50 percent of the government budget is devoted to these three social issues Interestingly, however, these marketbased critics of the archbishop’s thesis appear to be more worried about what they see as his call for the return of an intolerant religious state than they are about the persistence of the welfare state They would rather stick it out with the secular values of the welfare state than even consider Williams’ call for a rejuvenation of religious values Such is the dysfunctional condition of the conservative movement in Britain I wish to make two points about the archbishop’s claim that the welfare state has collapsed and that it is time for the religious sector to be revitalized First, Williams misses the opportunity to foster a robust private sector and instead simply replaces the mechanism of the welfare state with the mechanism of traditional religion without altering the fundamental goals of the welfare state His premise seems to be that the religious ethic and the spirit of capitalism are locked in mortal combat and with the factual victory of capitalism over the welfare state, the religious ethic must rise to battle once again, but now on behalf of the values of the deceased welfare state Second, nevertheless, Williams’ call for a vigorous role for the religious sector can be rescued from Williams himself; like the good archbishop, I think traditional religion should work to reestablish the severed connection between the community and the individual, and the religious ethic and the market spirit But he assumes that the market is amoral, perhaps even ON THE FACTS AND VALUES OF RELIGION AND GLOBALIZATION 431 immoral, and that individualism, even properly understood, is an illegitimate moral horizon Thus, for Williams, morality must be imposed from the outside on both the market and individuals And the only institution that can impose that kind of collectivist disposition, he claims, is the established church Contrary to the archbishop, I suggest that the only way that traditional religion can provide an ethical guide in the era of globalization is by rejecting, rather than by endorsing, the principles of the welfare state, and by invigorating the links within the private sector I agree with the archbishop that we need to restore what I will call value-based political economy It was once a beacon for all lovers of self-reliance, personal autonomy, risk taking, and, yes, community responsibility But the idea of value-based political economy was tarnished by a religious, political, and economic critique from both the left and the right There is an unfortunate value-free predominance in the social sciences these days I also agree with the archbishop that there is a vital role for traditional religion to play in the restoration of moral political economy But we disagree on the nature of that role I believe traditional religion should inspire a new love of individual freedom and communal responsibility, instead of repeating the old, and tired, desire for individual security and communal paternalism.5 We need a good dose of Alexis de Tocqueville’s “self interest rightly understood.”6 And we need this even more in a world that seems to have embraced the market far more than ever The Archbishop’s Case Against the Market State Here is Archbishop Williams’s concern: The welfare state had a “clear public morality,” but it “no longer has the power to keep up its side of the bargain.” Economic globalization has arrived and the independence of the nation state has departed The nation state is no longer able to secure its side of the bargain: stable employment patterns and manageable welfare levels at home (Williams, 2002, p 3) The “social contract,” whereby the citizens obey the law in exchange for government delivering “internal security,” has collapsed The nation state, which attempted to “give shape to society,” has been replaced by the market state where individuals are given “maximum choice” to determine their own life-style The market state substitutes the importance of immediate personal concerns for the traditional interest in the long-term community well being Williams sees the arrival of the market state as a bad bargain Following the lead of Philip Bobbitt7, he sees the role of the government of the market state as one that clears “a space for individuals or groups to their own negotiating, to secure the best deal or the best value for money in pursuing what they want” (Williams, 2002, p 4) In this deregulated state, based on “the consumer model,” individual comforts take precedence and individuals 432 GORDON LLOYD ask for maximum choice with respect to purchasing power to determine one’s own life-style In short, the market state, or the consumerist-insurance model, emphasizes short-run, even immediate, gratification and “insurance issues” at the expense of long-run community good Politics takes the following form: how rapidly will the government respond to the “surface needs” of the “consumerist or insurance model?” Life under the market state becomes “just a game” (Williams, 2002, p 9) and that is his litmus test of a rotten society If politics is simply a game, then “arguments about the nature of the story, mine and ours, becomes a waste of time—whatever the political party” (Ibid.) The market state government “abandons the attempt to give shape to society.” Put differently, government and culture part company and we risk “reducing freedom in the name of increasing choice.” He thinks this emphasis on “choice” (Ibid.) actually is a parody rather than the ideal of democratic life The archbishop claims that the market state has abandoned “a clear morality for the public sphere,” once prevalent in the welfare state The market state asks us to recognize its legitimacy in terms of “its capacity to maximize varieties of personal insurance.” But in doing so, it undermines “the very idea of reasonable politics, the rule of law, and the education of active citizens” (Ibid.) So here is Williams’ proposal: Religion was made private by the welfare state, but the welfare state at least had a public morality The market state has no public morality, so religion must go public again But how is traditional religion going to persuade people to change their lives if a) it is antagonistic to the market state, and b) few people go to churches of traditional religion any more? He wants traditional religion to fill the void abandoned by the replacement of the nation state by the “button pushing” market state Traditional religion is based on the “bold claim that there is a story of the whole universe without which your own story won’t make sense.” The market state doesn’t care about “educating children in a tradition.” But, excuse me dear archbishop; didn’t this abandonment of tradition occur on the watch of the welfare state and traditional religion? What he has in mind is this: “For the religious believer—very particularly in the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim worlds—each of us, and each item in our environment, exists first in relation to something other than me, my needs, my instincts They are related…to the eternal; to God To see or know anything adequately is to be aware of its relation to the eternal” (Williams, 2002, p 11) To the archbishop, the commercial spirit is in a sort of mortal combat with the eternal spirit rightly understood Yet over the centuries, there has been sufficient evidence to demonstrate the compatibility of the religious ethic and the genius of commerce The facts suggest that the values of religion and commerce can be, and ought to be, reconcilable ON THE FACTS AND VALUES OF RELIGION AND GLOBALIZATION 433 A Third Way Home? The archbishop worries: “What does a reasonable (individual) decision look like in this context” of the market state (Williams, 2002, p 7)? When we let individuals make their own decisions, aren’t we really abandoning the idea of a grand narrative, the longer story of the fuller life, one that tunes into the “cumulative experience?” Only traditional religion can overcome the defects of the market state: it alone can make “the bold claim that there is a story of the whole universe without which your story won’t make sense” (Ibid p 8) In the end, the market state destroys our ability to make human decisions in the context of a larger story The market state, he fumes on, is only interested in “maximizing varieties of personal insurance.” Again, we are left wondering about the status of the individual in Williams’ model Isn’t there a grand human narrative that incorporates the individual into, rather than subjugates the individual to, the community? The answer is, “yes,” and it is to be found in religion and commerce marching together to promote a vigorous social sphere But we are left wondering just how robust, and spontaneous, Williams actually wants the social sphere to be In the 1980s, Williams took part in a raid of RAF facilities where cruise missiles were being stored, and he is proud of this defiance of the government I’m surprised, then, that this crusader should see the “populist protests” in 2000 against high fuel taxes across Britain as the activity par excellence of what is wrong with globalized modernity! So what is the response of the church to these concerns, which sound very familiar to the 18th century call of no taxation without representation? Williams is hostile to their claims This action, he says, shows the dangerous nature of the market state: Here “the individual confronts the state, asking for …maximal choice, purchasing power to determine a lifestyle.” Thank goodness, he says, that the British government held its ground and told the protestors to what the government tells them to Consumer demand and instant action, he says, are undermining long years of carefully constructed environmental and transportation policy And yet, there is the other more hopeful side to Williams’ approach He talks about a joining together—“a partnership”—of the market state and traditional religion so that we join the immediate with the eternal This is a new opportunity created by the collapse of the nation state Although Williams wants religion to go public again, it must be in opposition to personal liberty and the market state “Fragmented and deprived” communities “need brokers,” and local churches can organize electoral forums The church can create “a space where reflective politics is still possible because it belongs to a tradition whose interests are more than political.” But is the church a place where individuals learn from each other by reflecting on what is to be done or is it a place where an advocacy group can press their public claim—a “moral vision” of course—upon the rest of the uneducated citizens? 434 GORDON LLOYD Williams leaves me thinking that his model is the latter rather than the former Self-Interest Rightly Understood Archbishop Williams, following the footsteps of continental philosophy, emphasizes the commercial vices of modernity and expresses an embarrassment and an outrage—two critical components of prejudice—with respect to the modern project Modernity seems so banal, non-heroic, and piggish And now this amorality has been globalized To Williams, there is something abhorrent about the hallmarks of modernity and globalization: an advocacy of the economic market system and the promotion of the idea of limited political government But, dear archbishop, modernity is, as you say, what we have, and individual self-interest rightly understood is, as I say, what we must to improve the human condition Religion is a value, but currently in Britain and Western Europe, it is not a fact To bring value and fact together requires that we listen closely to the wise advice of Tocqueville who teaches us the valuable lesson that public virtue can be personally useful True, we need to make sure that we not replace “the prejudice of the nation state,” namely, that the state is the most authoritative actor in our social life, with “the prejudice of the market state,” that the market ought to be the exclusive authoritative source for the distribution of values The archbishop’s third way attempts to correct the prejudice of the market state, but it embraces the prejudice of the nation state Instead, we need a third way that corrects the prejudice of the market state without duplicating the prejudice of the nation state We need a non-prejudicial solution We agree with the archbishop, the issue is not to make the world safe for globalization Rather the task is to make globalization safe for the world But the archbishop is trapped; he rejects globalization in principle, or as a value, while accepting globalization in practice, or as a fact And in the process, Williams is promoting a public interest wrongly understood We need a Tocquevellian modern public action solution for the problems of globalized modernity, one that retains decentralized and spontaneous human initiative and yet appeals to the civic dimension of human existence Tocqueville warns that reliance on ancient sacrifice, and contemporary paternalism, is inappropriate But he also warns that the market system may well encourage self-interest wrongly understood: by helping myself, I help others Tocqueville argues instead for self-interest rightly understood: by helping others, I help myself By promoting restraint, modesty, and determination, and doing good for others, traditional religion can provide the ethical framework for global capitalism What we not need today is the following ethical precept: if you something good for me, then I’ll something good for you Instead we need the following: I’ll something good for you, and perhaps you will something good for me That is capitalism rightly ON THE FACTS AND VALUES OF RELIGION AND GLOBALIZATION 435 understood, because it reminds us that moneymaking is the necessary, but not the sufficient, condition for the good life Being a good shepherd is the sufficient condition, even if we have to be reminded that virtue is useful as well as good in itself Self-interest rightly understood, says Tocqueville, is not “a sublime doctrine,” one that is among the highest of public virtues But it is reliable, it brings out the best in modern man; it produces “orderly, temperate, moderate, careful, and self-controlled citizens.” These are virtues that religion encourages, and there ought to be nothing embarrassing about embracing these “bourgeois values” of self-reliance and generosity to others Most importantly, Tocqueville’s self-interest rightly understood provides an alternative to the worst features of both the paternalistic state and the market state It does not encourage an attachment to the prejudice of traditional religion or the nation state, nor does it encourage us to abandon the fact that we are, by nature, at least partly communal creatures The doctrine that “virtue is useful” leads humans “to help one another and disposes them freely to part of their time and wealth for the good of the state.” And when we support this practical approach with the dissemination of the “sublime utterance” of Christianity—“we must good to our fellows for love of God”— we have the grounds for a reliable moral political economy that is absent in both the paternalistic model and the market alternative The doctrine of selfinterest rightly understood makes us neither perfect nor angelic But nor does it make us nasty, solitary, poor, piggish, or brutal We can, perhaps, remain free and responsible, and perhaps we can become decent and human Perhaps we might even become autonomous in fact and philanthropic in our values Notes Williams, Rowan (2002) Archbishop of Canterbury: The Richard Dimbleby Lecture [Online] Westminster School, London: 19 December 2002 Available: http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org I use the nomenclature “nation state” and “welfare state” interchangeably because that is what the archbishop does The Church of England itself is no doubt partly responsible for the growth of indifference to traditional religion The archbishop’s speech was reported in The Times to be “one of the most intellectually ambitious and far reaching speeches from an Archbishop of Canterbury for thirty years.” See Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent, The Times, December 19, 2002 See also Ferdinand Mount’s comment that the speech was one that “tickled up the body politic like no archbishop ever did in the whole of the last century… Anything is better for the Church of England than quiet diplomacy and the genteel management of decline.” See The Sunday Times, December 29, 2002 This view of the Social Contract is grounded in thought of John Locke and the American Founders, neither of whom, in contrast to the architects of the welfare state, understood the separation of church and state to be the same as the sepa- 436 GORDON LLOYD ration of religion and politics The archbishop’s call for a revitalized role for religion in politics received a swift rebuke from secularists, including those who are friendly to a robust market and limited state See Minette Marrin, The Sunday Times, December 22, 2002 Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, vol 2, part Williams relies on Philip Bobbitt’s claim that a “consumerist” approach to politics turns politics into “a matter of insurance,” where “voters look for what will guarantee the maximum possible freedom to buy their way out of insecurity.” See Lecture, p In The Shield of Achilles: War, Peace and the Course of History, Bobbitt argues that the market state is “indifferent to norms of justice, or for that matter, any particular set of moral values.” Bobbitt focuses on the impact of globalization on the foreign policy of individual nation states; Williams focuses on the impact of globalization on domestic policies Contributors Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad is president of the Minaret of Freedom Institute, an Islamic think tank in the Washington, D.C area Stephen V Arbogast is treasurer for ExxonMobil Chemical Company in Houston, Texas, EMC’s worldwide chemical division Rev John Michael Beers currently teaches at Ave Maria University in Naples Fl He also serves as President of the Annecy Institute for the promotion of Virtue and Liberty Walter Block is the Harold E Wirth Eminent Scholar and Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics at the College of Business Administration of Loyola University in New Orleans Rev David Boileau teaches philosophy at Loyola University in New Orleans William F Campbell is emeritus professor of economics at Louisiana State University and currently serves as secretary of the Philadelphia Society Art Carden is a Ph.D candidate at Washington University in St Louis where he studies economic history and development James C Cavill is a retired executive from the oil industry He is currently studying religion at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ontario Alejandro Chafuen serves on the Boards of several U.S., European and Latin American institutes including the Atlas Economic Research Foundation and the Hispanic American Center of Economic Research Paul M Chandler was a Peace Corps volunteer in Brazil and presently teaches environmental history, resource conservation and development challenges at Ball State University in Indiana Krishna S Dhir is professor of business administration and dean of the Campbell School of Business at Berry College in Georgia 437 438 CONTRIBUTORS James R Edwards, Jr., is principal and co-founder of Olive, Edwards, & Brinkmann, a Washington, D.C public affairs firm Samuel Gregg is director of research at the Acton Institute and adjunct professor at the John Paul II Pontifical Institute for Marriage and the Family within the Pontifical Lateran University in Rome Celestina Isiramen teaches philosophy, religion, and management studies at Ambrose Ali University in Nigeria Joseph F Johnston, Jr., is a partner in the Washington office of Drinker Biddle & Reath He also serves on the Board of the Liberty Fund Harold B Jones, Jr., is a Methodist pastor and currently teaches at Mercer University’s Stetson School of Business and Economics Joseph Keckeissen is a brother of the Salesians of Don Bosco and professor of economics at Francisco Marroquin University in Guatemala Irfan Khawaja is adjunct professor of philosophy at the College of New Jersey, lecturer in politics at Princeton University, and member of the Institute for the Secularization of Islamic Society Ellen Klein was a Fulbright Scholar in Bosnia and is a professor of philosophy at Flagler College H C Peter Koslowski is a professor of philosophy and the philosophy of management at the Free University of Amsterdam He was the founding d i rector of the Hanover Center for Ethical Economy and Business Culture Rabbi Daniel Lapin is the president of Toward Tradition, a noted columnist and the host of a radio show Ryszard Legutko is professor of philosophy at the Jagellonian University in Krakow, Poland and president of the Center of Political Thought Leonard Liggio is executive vice president of the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, and is serving this year as president of the Mont Pelerin Society Gordon Lloyd is a Professor at the School of Public Policy of Pepperdine University Tibor Machan is a prominent libertarian philosopher and the R.C Hoiles Chair in Business Ethics and Free Enterprise at the Argyros School of Business & Economics of Chapman University Michael C Maibach is the vice chairman of the board of the World Affairs Council of Washington, D.C and is the president and CEO of the European American Business Council Theodore Roosevelt Malloch is chairman and chief executive officer of the Roosevelt Group, a leading strategic management and thought leadership company CONTRIBUTORS 439 Mark Markuly is the director of the Loyola Institute for Ministry Robert Nelson is professor of environmental policy at the School of Public Affairs of the University of Maryland Seth W Norton is Norris A Aldeen Professor of Business at Wheaton College Jean-Francois Orsini is founder and president of the Saint Antoninus Institute of Catholic Education in Business Gary Pecquet is a visiting assistant professor of economics at Tulane University Himanshu Rai is a doctoral student in the field of personnel and industrial relations management at Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, India Peter Redpath is professor of philosophy at St John’s University in New York Bartolomeu Romualdo is an independent consultant in Brazil who assisted Paul Chandler Rev Stephen C Rowntree, S.J., teaches philosophy at Loyola University in New Orleans, and he has spent a number of years in Zimbabwe Gerald J Russello is senior attorney with the Securities and Exchange Commission in New York Kevin E Schmiesing is a research fellow in history at the Acton Institute in Grand Rapids, Michigan Armando de la Torre is professor of philosophy at Francisco Marroquin University in Guatemala James R Wilburn is dean of the School of Public Policy at Pepperdine University and professor of strategy in Pepperdine’s Graziadio School of Business and Management Index Abrahamic: 4, 13 Africa: 13, 88, 122, 269, 276, 359, 360, 361, 391, 392, 396, 408, 412 Aquinas: 17, 18, 21, 106, 108, 113, 133, 147-150, 232, 284, 286, 304, 305, 315 Aristotelian: 17-19, 21, 23-25, 105, 131, 144, 147, 148, 152, 217, 290 Aristotle: 17, 18, 19, 21, 105, 107-109, 130, 147-151, 196, 222, 284, 286, 345 Augustine: 108, 140, 141, 145, 152, 223, 415 352, 357, 360, 361, 366-370, 372-376, 414, 430, 434 Catholic Social Doctrine (Catholic Social Teaching): 5, 13, 42, 48, 54, 323, 325, 326, 419-421, 423, 424, 426 Catholicism (Roman Catholicism, Catholics): 13, 114, 154, 313, 315, 348, 349, 353-355, 380, 403, 418-421, 423-426 Christianity: 4, 10, 11, 23, 31, 32, 34-36, 38-40, 62, 81, 84, 87, 89, 90, 95, 98, 113, 128, 145, 147, 148, 153, 164, 166, 169, 170, 176, 194, 200, 225, 246, 247, 377, 379-382, 417, 424, 435 Commerce: 1-10, 14, 16-25, 28, 31, 33, 36, 39, 58, 62, 72, 102-104, 107-109, 115-117, 121, 122, 144-147, 149, 151, 153, 154, 180, 185, 192, 193, 199, 200, 202, 206, 207, 209, 212, 235, 237, 238, 241, 243, 247, 248, 252, 260, 261, 287, 348, 360, 370-375, 379, 392-397, 432, 433 Community (communitarian): 1, 2, 1014, 17, 21, 39, 41, 42, 44, 45, 72-76, 93, 94, 121, 122, 140, 174, 177-179, 192, 198, 200, 204, 237, 239, 242244, 260, 261, 270, 293, 294, 302, 314, 318-320, 323, 333, 339, 380, 383, 384, 391-397, 399-408, 429-433 Corporate governance: 10, 11, 43, 52, Buddhism: 81, 170, 380 Business Ethics (corporate, commercial): 1-4, 7, 9-11, 13, 26, 28, 41, 43, 52, 80, 86-88, 115, 116, 121, 122, 171, 172, 176, 179, 180, 189, 191, 204, 207, 208, 211, 212, 216, 228, 230, 231, 233, 237, 241, 247, 254, 277, 302, 329, 335, 336, 357, 358, 362-364, 379, 381, 382, 388, 389, 393-397, 412 Capitalism (markets, free markets): 5, 7-9, 13, 14, 17, 31, 32, 34, 37, 39, 49, 50, 56, 58, 60-62, 65, 68-72, 75, 94, 107, 108, 111, 113, 114, 125, 126, 154, 155, 161, 164, 168-180, 210, 211, 246, 260, 267, 283, 289, 295, 313, 314, 321, 324, 338, 346, 349440 INDEX 208, 271, 278, 279, 287, 293, 295, 297, 298, 300, 321, 327 441 210, 313, 341, 407, 418-426, 429-435 Hinduism: 13, 341, 379, 380, 384-389 Democracy: 13, 171, 172, 208, 303, 305, 309, 321, 338, 357, 359-362, 388, 424 Developing world: 8, 48, 423, 426 Dharma: 11, 327, 329, 331-333, 335, 380, 384-387 Eastern Europe: 12, 159, 175, 195, 347350, 352, 352 Economics: 4-8, 32-39, 42-47, 50, 52, 57, 59, 61, 66-68, 83, 86-88, 126, 129, 148, 149, 152, 171, 174-176, 217, 250, 283, 302, 314, 338, 341, 342, 368, 422 Efficiency: 5, 36, 43, 45-51, 84, 86-88, 156, 167, 209, 249, 251, 292, 293, 302, 327, 335, 384 Enlightenment: 1, 84, 87, 246, 260, 326, 380, 414, 424, 425 Enron: 1, 27, 50, 52, 198, 207, 208, 259, 262, 265, 273, 313, 328 Entrepreneur: 8, 9, 12, 31, 61, 62, 98, 99, 106, 107, 130, 150, 151, 153, 158, 159, 188, 192, 193, 196, 197, 199, 211, 246, 270, 278, 338-343, 348-351, 358, 365, 412 Equality (inequality): 56, 61, 63, 64, 79, 269, 318, 381, 382, 388 Ethics (see also, Business Ethics): 14, 23, 24, 36, 58, 81-83, 102, 107, 108, 111, 148, 178, 217, 218, 220, 234, 246, 251, 268-270, 272, 274, 275, 327, 330-333, 342, 360, 370, 370, 380, 383-387, 392 Fairness: 209, 210, 248, 253, 255, 282, 287, 292, 296, 377, 382, 383 Family: 2, 7, 33, 49, 112, 116, 120-122, 130, 135-137, 140, 172, 178, 195, 207, 212, 239, 242, 249, 271, 276, 357, 383, 393, 406, 407, 422 Fiduciary: 11, 248, 279-292, 296, 298301, 303, 305-309, 311 Globalization: 11-14, 59, 60, 118, 159, India (Indian): 9, 13, 59, 134, 159, 164, 170, 184, 189, 205, 256, 271, 278, 335, 336, 341, 361, 362, 367, 379, 380, 384, 387, 388 Islam: 4, 9, 13, 147, 200-206, 209, 212214, 357, 361, 363, 364, 366-380, 382 Jews: 5, 8, 65-76, 81, 114, 138, 184-191, 193, 205, 206, 383, 432 Judaism: 4, 25, 71, 170, 200, 221, 229, 346, 379, 380, 383 Judeo-Christian: 7, 84, 89, 177, 184, 193, 202, 221, 222, 246, 256, 266, 424 Justice: 4, 31, 41-54, 104, 109, 151, 160, 161, 173, 201, 220, 232, 258-265, 269, 274, 282, 285-287, 331, 360, 370, 387 Kant: 21-23, 330, 331 Koran (Quran, Qur’an): 4, 13, 200-205, 209, 213, 366, 368-378 Latin America: 12, 48, 409-414, 416-417 Liberation theology: 12, 409, 417, 417 Marxism: 84, 89, 151, 210, 366, 367, 375 Metaphysics (metaphysical): 4, 7, 30, 102, 105, 107-110, 157, 222, 223, 336, 345, 378, 413, 421, 425 Modernity: 216, 217, 219, 297, 303, 419, 422, 424-426, 433, 434 Muslim: 4, 8, 9, 13, 147, 193, 200, 203213, 356, 357, 361, 364, 366-370, 373, 374, 376, 377, 382, 430, 432 Natural law: 11, 36, 57, 106, 108, 148152, 204, 279-295, 421 New Testament: 11, 140, 141, 197, 237, 239, 241, 280 Novak: 7, 31, 32, 106-109, 172, 174, 176, 179, 315 442 Old Testament: 8, 71, 77, 112, 113, 127, 138-140, 185, 187, 189, 190, 191, 196, 246, 280 Philanthropy: 9, 198, 324 Politics: 2, 18, 31, 59, 82, 102, 168, 301, 307, 308, 342, 411, 412, 432, 433, 436 Post-modern: 1, 2, 277 Poverty: 5, 12, 22, 36, 43, 60, 85, 117120, 128-132, 134, 138, 139, 154, 155, 161, 162, 167, 176, 238, 239, 361, 420 Property rights: 48, 49, 53, 60, 61, 72, 134, 200, 368, 374, 377 Property: 7, 9, 36, 77, 134-142, 175, 190, 195, 200, 203, 204, 246, 280, 285, 286, 314, 315, 360, 372-374, 377, 422 Protestant: 30, 36, 37, 40, 95, 166, 167, 176, 338, 344, 346-352, 355, 376, 381, 398, 405, 412, 420, 424 Redistribution: 5, 60, 61, 252, 374, 377 Renaissance: 7, 107, 125-128, 133, 194, 260, 348 Scholastics: 7, 8, 10, 133, 142, 144, 149153, 234, 266 Scripture (see also Old and New Testament): 4, 9, 53, 60, 108, 126, 138, 140, 148, 152, 221-228, 237, 243, 246, 251, 274, 382, 384-386, 388, 421 Self-interest: 36-38, 57, 66, 85, 147, 152, 189, 203, 217, 241, 282, 292, 301305, 308-311, 325, 330, 370-371, 377, 378, 434, 435 Shareholders: 52, 91, 248, 249, 260, 271, 273-275, 280, 287-294, 296, 300, 302, 306-311, 314, 316-318, 320-325, 327 INDEX Social capital: 1, 123, 172, 315, 338-340, 342-344 Socialism: 5, 32, 60, 65-67, 70, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 84, 175, 195, 208, 210, 246, 321, 412 Solidarity: 22, 154, 161, 217, 241, 250, 269, 270, 302, 343, 421, 423 Spiritual capital: 12, 338, 341-343 Spirituality: 1-4, 8, 25, 31, 40, 163, 195, 196, 200, 201, 208, 210, 223, 224, 226, 229, 236-238, 240, 242-244, 335, 340, 343, 345, 347-349, 352, 355, 390, 391, 395, 397 St Ignatius of Loyola: 236 Stakeholders: 161, 207, 272, 277, 278, 292-294, 300, 302, 307, 309, 321, 325, 328, 357, 383 Subsidiarity: 11, 303, 317-321, 324-326, 421, 423 Tocqueville: 3, 80, 178, 431, 434, 435 Torah: 4, 190, 229 Trust: 12, 28, 109, 119, 176, 190, 280294, 328, 339, 374, 381, 393 Virtue: 2, 8, 10, 18-21, 27-29, 106, 108, 109, 130, 131, 140, 149, 173, 193199, 202, 232- 235, 264, 289, 370, 383, 421, 434, 435 Weber: 8, 32, 166, 338, 346, 347-350, 353, 355, 375, 384 Welfare state: 14, 145, 293, 429-432, 435 West: 3, 6, 7, 9-11, 13, 30, 48, 56, 59, 60, 82, 107, 108, 112, 140, 144, 147, 151, 166, 167, 168-170, 187, 206, 211, 217, 222, 246, 251, 281, 286, 331, 362, 376, 382-384, 389, 391, 412, 424, 430, 434, WorldCom: 1, 27, 52, 259