Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become a focal point for research aimed at extending business ethics to extra-corporate issues; and as a result many companies now seek to at least appear dedicated to one or another version of CSR. This has not affected the arms industry, however. For, this industry has not been discussed in CSR literature, perhaps because few CSR scholars have questioned this industry's privileged status as an instrument of national sovereignty. But major changes in the organization of (...) political communities call traditional views of sovereignty into question. With these considerations in mind I assess the U.S. arms industry on the basis of CSR requirements regarding the environment, social equity, profitability, and use of political power. I find that this industry fails to meet any of these four CSR requirements. Countering a claim that these failings should not be held against arms manufacturers because their products are crucial to national defense, I contend that many of these companies function not as dutiful agents of a nation-state but as politically powerful entities in their own right. So, I conclude, they should be held responsible for the foreseeable consequences that flow from use of their products. This responsibility should include civil liability and, in cases involving war crimes and violations of human rights, responsibility under international human rights standards. (shrink)

When is it right to go to war? The most persuasive answer to this question has always been 'in self-defense'. In a penetrating new analysis, bringing together moral philosophy, political science, and law, David Rodin shows what's wrong with this answer. He proposes a comprehensive new theory of the right of self-defense which resolves many of the perplexing questions that have dogged both jurists and philosophers. -/- Winner of the American Philosophical Association Frank Chapman Sharp Memorial Prize.

Just war theory needs to become a real-time critique of government war propaganda in order to facilitate peace advocacy ante bellum. This involves countering asserted justificatory reasons with demonstrable facts that reveal other motives, thereby yielding reflective understanding which can be collectivized via electronic media. As a case in point, I compare here the publicly declared reasons for the U.S./U.K. invasion of Iraq in 2003 with reasons discussed internally months and even years before in government and think-tank documents. These sources (...) show that control of oil rather than regime change or a WMD threat was theunderlying motive. Neo-conservatives in the Bush Administration justified such deception by citing an exoteric/esoteric distinction traceable to Plato via Leo Strauss. As with the Iraq invasion, so in general such propaganda and its rationalizations can be undermined by investigative journalism understood as ranging from fact gathering to rhetorical analysis and critique. (shrink)

In this new edition of the classic book on the moral conduct of war, Sidney Axinn provides a full-length treatment of the military conventions from a ...

Introduction -- Just war theory -- Objections to just war theory -- Easy cases : Germany, Japan, Korea -- Harder cases : Serbia, Russia, Kosovo, Iraq -- Multiple reasons -- More problems with just war theory -- Prevention : Sri Lanka, Thailand -- Two just war theories -- Problems with just war theory I -- Problems for just war theory II -- Closing thoughts.

This is the text of The Lindley Lecture for 1984, given by Alasdair Maclntyre, a Scottish philosopher.

Unless one is a pacifist there is little difficulty in theory in ethically justifying a country’s entitlement to produce or to purchase, or even to market, weapons for the preservation of internal order or external peace. In practice, however, the international arms industry gives considerable cause for ethical misgivings, which are here explored. “It is difficult to escape from the notion that the primary factor behind the international sale of arms is the generation of profits. If companies are left unchecked, (...) there is considerable evidence that companies will exploit commercial opportunities to the detriment of ethical considerations.”. (shrink)

If recourse to war is sometimes justifiable, then weapons need to be available. But is all fair in war, or can and should some weapons be banned as unethical? If so, how will this affect the arms business in a shrinking market demanding continuous product innovation? The author is completing his MBA degree at London Business School and has a background in electronic engineering and computer science.

Given the close relationship between the modern arms industry and the military, engineers and other professionals who work in the arms industry should be held accountable to the principles of just war theory. While they do not deploy weapons on the battlefield and are not in the military chain of command, technical professionals nonetheless have a moral duty to abide by principles of jus ad bellum and jus in bello. They are morally responsible both for choosing the companies that employ (...) them (and to whom these companies sell arms) and a well as what types of arms they develop. (shrink)

When is it right to go to war? The most persuasive answer to this question has always been 'in self-defense'. In a penetrating new analysis, bringing together moral philosophy, political science, and law, David Rodin shows what's wrong with this answer. He proposes a comprehensive new theory of the right of self-defense which resolves many of the perplexing questions that have dogged both jurists and moral philosophers. By applying the theory of self-defense to international relations, Rodin produces a far-reaching critique (...) of the canonical Just War theory. The simple analogy between self-defense and national defense - between the individual and the state - needs to be fundamentally rethought, and with it many of the basic elements of international law and the ethics of international relations. (shrink)

This paper tests the ethics-is-good-for-profits as well as the ethics-and-profits-are-joint-outcomes-of-good-management hypotheses in the context of the U.S. defense industry in the 1988–1992 period. Both ethical behaviors (defined and measured as the number and dollar cost of convictions for violations of civil and criminal law as well as reimbursement obligations arising under environmental statutes) and espoused ethical values (in the form of membership in the Defense Industry Initiative and average level of PAC contributions) are compared with measures of profitability for the (...) defense-oriented business segments of sixty-two major U.S. defense contractors. From 1988 to 1992, the U.S. Defense Department gave these contractors an average of 65% of all prime contract awards over $25,000 to business firms for work in the U.S.We found statistically significant, positive correlations between (1) our two measures of espoused ethical values and (2) both measures of espoused ethical values and violative ethical acts. In other words, those contractors with worse ethics records were more likely to be members of the Defense Industry Initiative and give larger PAC contributions. However, we were unable to reject the null hypothesis of no correlation between either ethical behavior or espoused ethical values and profits. The public policy implications of these findings are discussed. (shrink)

Unless one is a pacifist there is little difficulty in theory in ethically justifying a country’s entitlement to produce or to purchase, or even to market, weapons for the preservation of internal order or external peace. In practice, however, the international arms industry gives considerable cause for ethical misgivings, which are here explored. “It is difficult to escape from the notion that the primary factor behind the international sale of arms is the generation of profits. If companies are left unchecked, (...) there is considerable evidence that companies will exploit commercial opportunities to the detriment of ethical considerations.”. (shrink)

In 1986, President Reagan created the Packard Commission, a blue-ribbon commission to investigate defense contracting procurement fraud. The Packard Commission''s major recommendation was for defense contractors to adopt ethics programs. Out of this recommendation emerged the Defense Industry Initiative (DII). This paper examines this Initiative and focuses on the DII''s six principles. In particular, this paper explores the implications the DII has had with respect to (1) pursuing intra-industry cooperation and setting industry-wide standards; (2) monitoring compliance; (3) the paradox inherent (...) to the DII as a facilitator for industry self-regulation; and, (4) why companies have enthusiastically adopted the directive. This paper concludes that the DII falls short of being an effective method of self-regulation because: (1) it does not achieve complete industry-wide cooperation; (2) it does not establish uniform standards of ethical conduct within the industry; (3) it does not hold the signatory companies accountable for creating a strong system of ethical conduct; and, (4) it does not relieve the organizational and market pressures to be unethical. (shrink)

Originally delivered at a conference of Marxist philosophers in China, this article examines some links, and some tensions, between business ethics and the traditional concerns of Marxism. After discussing the emergence of business ethics as an academic discipline, it explores and attempts to answer two Marxist objections that might be brought against the enterprise of business ethics. The first is that business ethics is impossible because capitalism itself tends to produce greedy, overreaching, and unethical business behavior. The second is that (...) business ethics is irrelevant because focusing on the moral or immoral conduct of individual firms or businesspeople distracts one’s attention from the systemic vices of capitalism. I argue, to the contrary, that, far from being impossible, business requires and indeed presupposes ethics and that for those who share Marx’s hope for a better society, nothing could be more relevant than engaging the debate over corporate social responsibility. In line with this, the article concludes by sketching some considerations favoring corporations’ adopting a broader view of their social and moral responsibilities, one that encompasses more than the pursuit of profit. (shrink)

When is it right to go to war? The most persuasive answer to this question has always been 'in self-defense'. In a penetrating new analysis, bringing together moral philosophy, political science, and law, David Rodin shows what's wrong with this answer. He proposes a comprehensive new theory of the right of self-defense which resolves many of the perplexing questions that have dogged both jurists and moral philosophers. By applying the theory of self-defense to international relations, Rodin produces a far-reaching critique (...) of the canonical Just War theory. The simple analogy between self-defense and national defense - between the individual and the state - needs to be fundamentally rethought, and with it many of the basic elements of international law and the ethics of international relations. (shrink)

Chomsky argues that the real 'rogue' states are not dictator-led developing countries, but the United States and its allies.

In this new edition of the classic book on the moral conduct of war, Sidney Axinn provides a full-length treatment of the military conventions from a philosophical point of view. Axinn considers these basic ethical questions within the context of the laws of warfare: Should a good soldier ever disobey a direct military order? Are there restrictions on how we fight a war? What is meant by “military honor,” and does it really affect the contemporary soldier? Is human dignity possible (...) under battlefield conditions? Axinn answers “yes” to these questions. His objective in A Moral Military is to establish a basic framework for moral military action and to assist in analyzing military professional ethics. He argues for the seriousness of the concept of military honor but limits honorable military activity by a strict interpretation of the notion of war crime. With revisions and expansions throughout, including a new chapter on torture, A Moral Military is an essential guide on the nature of war during a time when the limits of acceptable behavior are being stretched in new directions. (shrink)

The U.S. government embraces the concepts of privatization and market competition, but the realm of contracting shows that it has not always been able to put its principles into practice. Although the contracting system is supposed to be open and competitive, in recent years the government has often awarded contracts with little or no competitive bidding, has chosen to award mostly cost-plus type contracts that force the government to assume more of the risk, and lacked efficiency in monitoring and overseeing (...) private contractors. While the number and value of contracts have increased, the workforce to oversee these contracts has been reduced, preventing the government from adequately enforcing compliance with the contractors, and the government has not made use of past performance evaluations in its contracting system. Private contractors that do business with the U.S. government are for the most part well-established firms with ample resources and inside contacts; many contracts are still being awarded on preferential treatment and to the larger and well-established contractors. (shrink)

Corporate social responsibility has become a focal point for research aimed at extending business ethics to extra-corporate issues; and as a result many companies now seek to at least appear dedicated to one or another version of CSR. This has not affected the arms industry, however. For, this industry has not been discussed in CSR literature, perhaps because few CSR scholars have questioned this industry's privileged status as an instrument of national sovereignty. But major changes in the organization of political (...) communities call traditional views of sovereignty into question. With these considerations in mind I assess the U.S. arms industry on the basis of CSR requirements regarding the environment, social equity, profitability, and use of political power. I find that this industry fails to meet any of these four CSR requirements. Countering a claim that these failings should not be held against arms manufacturers because their products are crucial to national defense, I contend that many of these companies function not as dutiful agents of a nation-state but as politically powerful entities in their own right. So, I conclude, they should be held responsible for the foreseeable consequences that flow from use of their products. This responsibility should include civil liability and, in cases involving war crimes and violations of human rights, responsibility under international human rights standards. (shrink)

The paper suggests that some of the preconditions for peace may have a better chance of being fulfilled in the 1990's than they had previously during this century of wars and other bloody upheavals. Most importantly, it highlights the fact (through giving examples) that business can use the sophisticated technology developed for arms manufacture for the production of consumer goods; so that the argument that industries will fail and employees lose their jobs if there is global arms reduction no longer (...) holds. Ways of dampening demand for arms are also discussed. (shrink)

One of the most significant developments in the latter part of the 20th century and the first part of this new millennium has been the triumph of short-term over long-term thinking. We are increasingly a culture that looks neither to the past nor to the future, but only to the next “quarter,” or to the next Delphic pronouncement by Alan Greenspan. This cultural construction of time has given rise to social, political and personal problems of unprecedented magnitude. The short-term focus (...) of contemporary American capitalism is causing us to behave, both individually and collectively, in an increasingly irrational and thus self-destructive manner. Ours is now the most violent, crime-ridden society in the industrialized world. Capitalism is sometimes blamed for this, yet there are other capitalist societies that do not suffer the same evils we suffer. I argue that we can learn from these societies how to correct some of the ills of our own system and in this way construct a new paradigm of the market, a paradigm for the new millennium, a more mature, rational version of capitalism that would focus on the long rather than the short term. (shrink)

This book demonstrates why the United States should be considered an empire and how this is contrary to the ideals of both conservatives and liberals and to the very principles on which the United States was built. Through a detailed examination of U.S. foreign policy over the last century, this work explores how rampant imperialism has threatened U.S. security, strained U.S. relations with the rest of the world, and curtailed civil liberties at home. Examining signs that have marked the decline (...) of other great powers throughout history, a case is made for the dismantling of the American empire and a return to the mode of military restraint traditional to American foreign policy. This book is a chilling insight into the direction the United States has taken and, if its interventionist policies continue, the direction it will take in years to come.--From publisher description. (shrink)

The most interesting feature of the debate over the Iraq crisis is that it never took place. True, many words flowed, and there was dispute about how to proceed. But discussion kept within rigid bounds that excluded the obvious answer: the U.S. and UK should act in accord with their laws and treaty obligations.

Business Ethics is often regarded as a low priority in newly formed democracies, because it seems there are more urgent demands that have to be dealt with first. In this paper it is argued that this perception is not only wrong, but also dangerous. A lack of morality in business can undermine exactly those priorities that newly formed democracies regard as most urgent.It starts by indicating why morality in business is a precondition for the legitimacy of a market economy as (...) well as for excellence in a global market economy. It continues to argue that ethics in business is also a precondition for establishing a legitimate political democracy. Once the necessity of moral business behaviour has been argued, the focus shifts to the main stumbling blocks that impede the development of moral business culture in newly formed democracies such as South Africa. (shrink)

A large U.S. government investigation into arms procurement procedures with corporate contractors has recently led to guilty pleas to fraud and illegal use of classified documents. Operation Ill Wind has brought public attention to the criminal and unethical conduct of large defense contractors in their dealings with the government. This article will review how the defense contract bidding process operates and why illegal activity has been able to compromise the process. We will offer proposals to improve the process in light (...) of the present inquiry. (shrink)

If recourse to war is sometimes justifiable, then weapons need to be available. But is all fair in war, or can and should some weapons be banned as unethical? If so, how will this affect the arms business in a shrinking market demanding continuous product innovation? The author is completing his MBA degree at London Business School and has a background in electronic engineering and computer science.