I argue for the inadequacy of the Kantian approach to the analysis of personal relations in business presented by Moberg and Meyer, in "A Deontological Analysis of Peer Relations in Organizations" (Journal of Business Ethics). It is unclear or implausible that the (mostly reasonable) principles of business relations they advocate really do follow from Kant's theory. Kant's theory, and &ontological theories in general, do not yield reasonable principles of personal relations, particularly in the business context.
The application of an ethical theory to a specific sort of practical context is a two-way street. In one direction, a good theory will provide categories useful for considering the ethically relevant features in the practical context, and will give general principles of right and wrong behaviour. But in the other direction, the context provides criticism for the theory: if the theory fails to categorize relevantly for the context, or if it gives us moral advice we already know is mistaken, then we have grounds for thinking that the theory is inadequate. In "A Deontological Analysis of Peer Relafons in Organizations, "1 Moberg and Meyer [hereafter referred to as "M & M"] concentrate on the first direction, deriving from Kant's ethical theory moral categorization and advice regarding personal interrelations in the business context. But I shall be driving down the same street in the opposite direction. I shall argue that their discussion reveals several inadequacies of Kantian ethical theory.
Robert M. Martin has been teaching at Dalhousie University for over 20 years. His specialties are ethics, philosophy of language, and analytic metaphysics. Among his publications is The Meaning of Language (MIT Press, 1987).