Business and Ethics in 5 Different Cultures

In Business Administration lesson, when we tackle with the cost and benefit analysis (CBA), we tend to assume that all economic agents in this world use the same formula of the CBA to make their business plan. So, we tend to ignore that not all economic agents share the same rationale of their business planning. This CBA formula is based on the utilitarian philosophy which regards highly of maximising the utility which is the total benefits minus the total costs. It takes account of all the costs and benefits accumulated from the time of this business establishment to the present time period (or possibly to the expected ending period).

Nonetheless, when we take a look of our real world, we eventually realise that many economic agents do not exactly follow this business model. Some of them incur the costs more than this CBA suggests. Some of them only focus on minimising the cost rather than maximusing the benefit minus the cost. Some of them even behaves extremely irrational owing to perspective of this CBA rationale.

The ethics basing this CBA introduced in Business Administration is the ethics of Anglo-Saxon and Jewish entrepreneurs. Anglo-Saxon and Jewish ethics has become the dominant mainstream in this world especially in various private economic activities since British Empire started dominating the world economy. The USA took over the world economic domination from Britain. So, Anglo-Saxon culture has been extremely influential. Furthermore, Jewish have been taking a huge part of the world economic activities. So, Jewish philosophy also participated in forming the mainstream ethics of the world economy. All in all, the mainstream world business ethics is based on both Anglo-Saxon and Jewish philosophical characteristics.



When we observe those who behave differently from what the mainstream business ethics suggests, the CBA analysis may eventually regards these economic agents are highly irrational. By contrast, we should realise that their business planning is based on their own different rationale of business ethics. In particular, since Germany became industrially strong, and the USA became highly influenced by her Germanic origins, German business ethics has been a very remarkable characteristics in the world economy. Even though it has not been the top mainstream, it formed one of the unique characteristics in the Western business models. Nowadays, on the top of Germanic influence, Nordic (Scandinavian) nations recently started having a strong influence over the world because of increase in the number of Nordic multinational corporations. We also cannot ignore Romanic culture (Latins and France) because it was dominant before British empire took over the dominance from it. Orthodox culture (Russia, many Eastern European countries, and Greece) is also unavoidable. In addition, some of the non-Western cultures have a strong impact on the world business ethics. Thus, regardless of right and wrong, we must analyse the various CBA analyses offered by the different business ethical models. This essay introduces 5 different influential models.

Moral is relative in Legal Judgement

The "moral" is a big variable affecting the legal justification. But, the moral is highly "relative" in both ethics and legality.

In countries which adapt Civil Law e.g. Continental Europe, Scotland, and almost all non British common wealth countries, the moral influence depends on how the written positive criminal code is interpreted by the professionals.

In the other parts of Britain, Contin
ental Europe, and almost all British Common-Wealth nations, the moral intervention depends on the past case scenario, the ability of lowyers to emphasise, and the current moral trend which juries believe in.

Some customary law, adapted in the United Nation and Paris, France, depends on its "customary moral principle".

The moral also can be really relative across time, place, and occasion. Both legal and moral issues are treated differently in Scotland, the other parts of Britain, Paris, and the other parts of France....

9.11 Condolence

To those who lost their
irreplaceable ones on
11th of September 2001,

I am sending my
enormous condolence....

......Amen!

Game Theory: Your enemy won't allow you to be a friend of his/her enemy

There is a famous proverb, "The enemy of your enemy is your friend". But, it is questionable to regard that all individuals unconditionally behave by means of what this proverb suggests. In order to lead you to this situation, you and the enemy of your enemy has to trust each other very deeply (E.g. You guys are related, already known to each other, and/or guaranteed to gain the mutual benefit and interest together already).

Let's imagine that there are three individuals with the same power and no emotional attachment on the others (All of them are completely anonymous to each other). These individuals are homogeneous in terms of their characteristics. These three individuals are named, A, B, and C accordingly.

When A is in a conflict with both B and C (I.e. B is the enemy of C's enemy A, and also C is the enemy of B's enemy A), A loses in this situation if A accepts this situation and does nothing. Because A has to fight with both B and C at the same time, and B's and C's characteristics is identical to A's, A has a big disadvantage to be alive unless there is an exogenous advantage like a geographic advantage.

The philosophy of "The enemy of your enemy is your friend" looks also irrelevant to B and C to defeat A. Even though B and C do not make an alliance (Becoming a friend of each other), A's loss is inevitable under this situation.

Therefore, A will have to intervene into the relationship between B and C in order to survive in this situation. Then, what Friedrich Nietzsche sounds more striking as being most likely. He said "The best weapon against an enemy is another enemy".

Under the situation that both B and C do not cooperate together, A will advice either B or C, or both, to antagonise the other. When B and C are already cooperating together to plot to defeat A, then A will attempt to break up the coalition of B and C until either B or C betrays the other.

So, let's take a look of this following graph:

First of all, it is the least likely option for A not to intervene into B and C because it is a suicidal choice for A as explained previously. Then, B and C suffer from a dilemma to choose whether they corporate together to defeat A or not.

Secondly, B and C can cooperate together, and so reject A's attempt of dissolving their alliance. However, when B or C takes an offer from A and betray his/her ally, this betrayer can not only survive in this battle but also gain A's reward for the betrayal. Then, there is always a suspicion that B or C will be convinced to A's attempt. If B and C are stranger for each other, then B and C are always possible to betray the other. Therefore, B is suspicious about C, and C is suspicious about C.

If B trusts C, and C betrays B, then C gains A's reward, and B is defeated. If C trusts B, and B betrays C, then B gains A's reward, and C is defeated. If both B and C trust each other, and ensure both of them do reject A's offer, they corporate. Nonetheless, if both B and C are anonymous (Neither related to each other nor sharing the mutual benefit and interest guaranteed), trusting their partner involves a high risk of being defeated. Then, both of them eventually accept A's offer plotting them to antagonise each other. This choice is cruel but the safest option for B and C to survive.

All in all, the most likely outcome in this game is that all A, B, and C are fighting altogether. B will betray C, and C will betray C in order to secure their "safest" option to survive. But, it does not mean that both B and C will be friendly with A. Both B and C will eventually realise that the cost of accepting A's reward for betraying their former ally is high. So, they start hating A for making them antagonising each other. Furthermore, B and C do not remain enough power to defeat both A, their old enemy, and their new enemy, their former ally because all of them have to fight with two enemies. Unless there is a shock to provide any of them with an exogenously gained advantage, all of these three individuals keep fighting together until all these three of them cease away by exhaustion.


Hence, "The enemy of your enemy is your friend" is wrong because your enemy won't allow you to be an enemy of his/her enemy, and so "The best weapon against an enemy is another enemy" (Friedrich Nietzsche) tends to be correct (realistic?!).

Spain should abolish Bull-Fighting, the unproductive uncivil animal cruelty!!

----------------------- Copied ---------------------------
"This incredible photo marks the end of Matador Torero Alvaro Munera’s career. He collapsed in remorse mid-fight when he realized he was having to prompt this otherwise gentle beast to fight. He went on to become an avid opponent of bullfights. Even grievously wounded by picadors, he did not attack this man.
----------------------- Copied ---------------------------


I almost had a tear running on my face when I watched it. I am sympathetic to this man stopped killing this innocent bull. Spain should end this bad tradition...!

As same as Jeremy Bentham, I claim that "tradition" should always be ready to be repealed as soon as it starts displeasing us rather than pleasing us! Also, as same as Jeremy Bentham was strongly against killing dogs by letting dogs fight ag
ainst each other , I also think that we should not kill animals for entertainment! This kinda bad tradition creates an enormous antipathy, and induces the bad consequence leading people to being uncivilly cruel!

Leviathan, the invisible creature no one can control

In Japan, there is a professor in Economics (and probably Political Philosophy as well), known to be a self-proclaimed Neoliberalist or Libertarian, who said there is not such an individual called corporation. According to his argument, taxing on a corporation only means taxing a group of individuals. Therefore, the weight of the tax called corporation tax is eventually levied on not only the executive members and the managers (Authority/Meritocrats) but also the labourers (Commoners).

I agree with him by means of the fact that the corporation tax cost both Authority/Meritocrats but also Commoners/Labourers. Nonetheless, I disagree with him on contradicting the existence of something called corporation. This Japanese professor must not be familiar with sociology and ethics (political philosophy). When we study sociology and ethics, we eventually know that there is something which exists like an invisible creature. This invisible creature is controlled by neither Authority/Meritocrats nor Commoners/Labourers. It is also neither created nor regulated by Law&Legislation. Nobody can create nor control over this invisible creature, and this invisible creature certainly influences us.

An entrepreneur establishes his/her business, and then employs majority citizens (Commoners) as the labour force. Then, there is the Law&Legislation imposed by the third party such as government, court, and any public institute. When these three factors, "Authority/Meritocrats", "Commoners/Labourers", and "Law&Legislation" interact each other, there are not only those which any of these three can decide and control but also those which nobody can either decide or control. When they form an organisation, an uncontrollable invisible factor is born and starts controlling not only the member of this organisation but also the outsiders.

Let's take a look of this graph:

There are three spheres of "Cannot (Decide not Control)": "Authority/Meritocrats cannot", "Commoners/Labourers cannot", and "Law&Legislation cannot".

The top blue sphere is the area that "Commoners/Labourers cannot" so that both Authority/Meritocrats and Law&Legislation can. This is the area both "Authority/Meritocrats and Law&Legislation influence simultaneously. This area represents the power Law&Legislature gives to Authority/Meritocrats such as economic and status privilege, the right to make a final decision, and how to measure the merit of individuals (Meritocracy).

The bottom left red sphere is the area that "Authority/Meritocrats cannot" so that Commoners/Labourers and Law&Legislation can. This is the area both Commoners/Labourers and Law&Legislation influence simultaneously. This area represents the power Law&Legislature gives to Commoners/Labourers such as Welfare, Labour Regulation, Employment Contract, and Collective Bargaining. This area is very developed in the Western civilisation, and all the modernised/Westernised nations.

The bottom right red sphere is the area that "Law&Legislation cannot" so that Authority/Meritocrats and Commoners/Labourers can. This is the area both Authority/Meritocrats and Commoners/Labourers influence simultaneously. This area represents a set of the unwritten rules. Illegal acts against Law&Legislation states is one of them. It also includes a communal rule which individuals implicitly accepted to exist without making any explicitly written or clarified contract. This area is still influential in the non-Western nation and any isolated communitarian civilisation.


Then, there are three areas where two "Cannot" spheres interact: Neither Authority/Meritocrats nor Commoners/Labourers can i.e. "Law&Legislation can", Neither Commoners/Labourers nor Law&Legislation can can i.e. "Authority/Meritocrats can", and Neither Authority/Meritocrats nor Law&Legislation can i.e. "Commoners/Labourers can". These three "Can" spheres represent the area which at least one of Authority/Meritocrats, Commoners/Labourers, or lawyers/legislators can decide and control.



The middle sphere where these three "Cannot" spheres interact. This sphere represents the area which none of Authority/Meritocrats, Commoners/Labourers, or lawyers/legislators can decide or control. Let's call this area "Point X".

Thomas Hobbes described Point X takes appears when people create their nation. Nation is composed of authorities, a sovereign and aristocracies, commoners, and civil law. Then, when these three components are combined together to form a nation, none becomes totally sovereign enough to be completely free to control not only the others but also themselves. When these three components interact each other, there is an invisible power controlled by nobody. Then, these three have to work for not only their own or the others' interest but also the interest of a whole nation which is called "National Interest". Also, this invisible power influence and form the characteristics of these three components. A nation with this invisible power is called "Leviathan", the mystic enormous monster, in Hobbes' book. Nowadays, Hobbes' Leviathan is also referred to not only nation but also corporation. His theory explains how human-made structure works.

Jean Jack Rousseau also mentioned the "Equity Law" which can be explained as Point X. He described that individuals make their social contract between them when they have to agree or disagree on their exchange in trade and following custom in their culture. He explained that the current environmental circumstances (E.g. Ethnological characteristics, climate, geographic location, time period, available technology, and fashion) highly influence over the Equity Law. Meanwhile, Hobbes explained how human-made structure works, Rousseau described how humans have to take exogenously from their given environment they are currently living in. His Equity Law theory lately interpreted by Adam Smith, the father of economics, to the "Market Mechanism".


Max Weber warned that the bureaucracy holds this invisible force. Someone has said that bureaucracy is only the universal characteristics of all nations, corporations, and any institutes composed of humans.

Bureaucracy is certainly a human-made structure guided by Law&Legislation. But, when bureaucracy is formed, there is also a certain geometry of power which Law&Legislation cannot have influence over. In particular in the Eastern civilisation, the unwritten rule which people implicitly agree or disagree regardless of what their Law&Legislature regulates. Even in the Western nations, Weber claimed that there is a contingent effect of bureaucracy which is not guided by the Law&Legislation. As the structure of bureaucracy is composed of human-beings, there is always some space that humans' emotion can intervene into bureaucracy's decision making process. The human-error also occurs inside this bureaucratic procedure. This is the characteristics whihc Law&Legislation cannot have a full influence over bureaucracy.

Status of individuals is also important to keep the bureaucracy. The characteristics of bureaucracy changes depending on how the human-beings composing it regard and admire the status. Certain individuals can be admired because they are educated or elderly enough to appoint them to be in charge of the bureaucratic system (I.e. Becoming the authority/meritocrats). When majority of individuals (Commoners/Labourers) change their mind to respect the different characteristics to admire (E.g. They no longer admire being educated or elderly, and they start admiring being rich and handsome instead), the structure of bureaucracy drastically changes (Even revolts itself). This is the example that both Authority/Meritocrats (with their merit and status) and Commoners/Labourers (with the power of their number) have some significant influence over bureaucracy though they are also under the influence of the others to be controlled.



All in all, there "is" such an existence called corporation as an invisible institution. Corporation is "Leviathan" of this modern day, and thrives in the market mechanism, the Equity Law. Of course, corporation is invisible, and the tax on corporation is consequently paid by some individuals. Nonetheless, there is a meaning to focus on the "action" of a corporation, the invisible force. Then, taxing on the act of this invisible force can mean something more than taxing directly on individuals' income and expenditure. Hence, the corporation tax implies taxing on the invisible but significantly influencing our living environment; and what the Japanese professor in economic says is contradicted.