Review of the Concepts of Ethics and Morals in Light of SDG 8

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is devoted to the presentation of the concepts of Ethics and Morals in relation to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goal targets 8.5 and 8.8 of the 2030 Agenda.

The "Matrix of ethical and moral conflicts in the business environment" proposed by the authors looks very positive.

 

However, the conclusion is not focused on the concepts stated in the title, namely, ethics and morality. Authors should focus on the concepts set as the main concepts in the sections "Conclusion" and "Introduction". In the Introduction, more attention should be focused on the presented study, its logic, and research tasks.

The authors need to expand the Abstract since the statement "Finally, some solutions are suggested as a synthesis of a

dialectical process." needs an explanation. The disclosure of this aspect will make the Abstract more informative.

Author Response

The abstract of the text has been expanded, justifying the suggestion of solutions based on the dialectical method as a necessary logical procedure to resolve the existing objective conflicts between the notions of Ethics and Morality in the context of business politics aimed at achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Furthermore, it is important to emphasize that the conclusions primarily focus on the resolution of this problem (previously raised in the introduction) as a result of the expositional development throughout the body of the text. The best example of this is precisely the passage corresponding to paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Conclusion, which states: 

Any company, through its governance policy, must favor competitiveness by producing goods or services whose value exceeds that of the aggregate of the factors of production. Otherwise, it will disappear along with all its employees. It should be noted that the collapse of a company means a reduction in national wealth [33]. In this sense, making decisions that erode the commercial and financial health of the company will operate against the common good. Consequently, if these decisions are knowingly made, serving private interests first, they may be considered morally unacceptable.

Corporate policy shall be responsible for standardizing and resolving actions leading to the company's sustainability. To this end, it must take into consideration all kinds of ethical principles aimed at the well-being of its employees. Nevertheless, a company must also consider the impact of internal mechanisms on the collective order. In cases where Ethics and Morals collide, the policy must weigh decisions that favor a balance between the parties, generating, in the worst case, inevitable injustices of a relative and not absolute order". 

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a well-written and well-structured paper which raises important analytical points. The choice of Philosophical materialism, even though in the discretion of the author(s), is not justified. This is problematic as it legitimizes the 'eutaxia' of organizations a priori for the achievement of SDG8. This is a highly contested point and the author(s) should make every effort to explain why they are taking almost a political stance through the paper and despite its merits. What do the readers have to gain? And, what are they missing out on? Also, the notion of eutaxia is problematic since organizations as they stand today have brought humanity to an unsustainable position. Wouldn't arguing for eutaxia bring us to more than we already have (i.e. unsustainable practice, theory and philosophy) which would be more conditions leading to climate change and impoverishment of the social fabric, including work? In this sense, I have very significant ethical concerns about this piece. I believe it would harm society, by excluding its members, their interest and agendas. The author(s) need to make a compelling case for Philosophical Materialism in the context of SDGs.

Author Response

The choice of philosophical materialism as the theoretical stance adopted throughout the essay has been justified. The notion of Eutaxia derives from Aristotelian politics and is related to his ethics, from which the Spinozist ethics used in the text draws heavily, as well as the approach presented from the perspective of philosophical materialism. The notion of Eutaxia specifically aims to resolve the objective problems that arise between ethical and moral positions in the realm of business politics (all key concepts and ideas are defined in the Introduction of the text).

The assumptions made by the reviewer, in our view, are opinions that lack demonstrative value, as we have made efforts in our text to reason and justify the propositions stated based on the premises and definitions used. The authors do not take sides with any political ideology. In fact, they aim to critically demystify the notions of Ethics and Morality, making them compatible with an empirical economic and political reality. To achieve this, a dialectical (critical) methodology is employed to foster reflection and promote the advancement of rational thought. That is the greatest benefit that readers can obtain from the text.

Reviewer 3 Report

It is recommended to clearly determine the distinctions between morals, ethics, and politics, as moral established lived customs and applied practical norms, or ethical consideration of commonly accepted and theoretically admitted values and virtues, or political socially established coercive legal concreteness.  

Author Response

The text incorporates the reviewer's suggestions distinguishing clearly the differences between the referred fundamental concepts. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I believe that this paper should not be published, because as I noted in my previous comments, I believe it would be harmful to society. In philosophy, the theme of ethics is treated independently from other themes, because ethics cannot be subject to an agenda, e.g., economic priorities. The authors write that organisations have to prioritize competitiveness, but this view is outdated and prohibits other forms of social and commercial organizing which are deeply needed and organisational/sociological researchers are exploring on an ongoing basis. I cannot support the link between ethics and narrowly perceived economic priorities as this is what has led the world to climate change and severe inequalities. If the authors believe that this is not worthy of their consideration, they are just proving my point.

Author Response

Dear reviewers

Preventing the publication of an article based on subjective grounds as a societal danger reflects an ideological interpretation of the text that demonstrates a highly questionable commitment to the pursuit of truth. Furthermore, it simply amounts to an act of censorship since the reviewer is not pointing out any logical or methodological shortcomings in the research. It is an evaluation based on prejudice rather than sufficiently reasoned arguments.

Ethics is a branch of philosophy, just like Aesthetics or Metaphysics, and should therefore be treated accordingly. The submitted article has been developed within the theoretical framework of a philosophical system influenced by key Western thinkers such as Aristotle or Spinoza. In fact, the bulk of the text revolves around the Aristotelian concept of Eutaxia, as developed in his work "Politics" (a classical and fundamental text in the philosophical tradition).

At no point are the ethical criteria being subordinated to a political agenda or economic priorities. Instead, they are tied to the very survival of the institution as a guarantor of appropriate working conditions in line with universal values of justice and dignity, just as the State stands as a guarantor of civil rights by possessing the legitimate capacity to coercively impose certain moral principles to regulate coexistence.

I fail to understand how a company's competitiveness hampers other forms of social organization, as the reviewer suggests (without justifying his/her proposition or providing any examples). Competitiveness is the driving force of a market economy, and sustainability is precisely the balance between the ability to compete against other organizations and the conservation of resources for the future. If a company is not competitive in a capitalist system, it is unable to sustain its economic activity, rendering any ethics inapplicable due to the cessation of business operations. 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf