First, even those who are morally sensitive and well-disciplined benefit from the review of principles and the discussion of cases. Second, the ethical implications of new practices may not be self-evident, and discussion will bring that out. Third, the process itself will strengthen the moral dimension of the corporate structure. Fourth, even those without a reliable moral compass can benefit from a reliable map of the territory.

In the face of uncertainty, the greatest anxiety is felt by those whose personal habits are rule-bound, or who work in a corporate setting that leaves little to individual judgment (or both). At one level of the organization there may be great insistence on following the rules to the letter; at another level there may be rich rewards for those who know what to do when the rules no longer apply—or, more commonly, when the rules remain but no longer mean what they meant before. Following rules often leads to bad results because the meaning of the rules has changed while the form has remained the same. Letting rules determine behavior is also often seen as praiseworthy in a junior executive and as a weakness in a senior executive.

The way out of ethical confusion will not be found in rules. We have entered a period where we may be called upon to fashion a new ethics, a new understanding of the consensus concerning what is ethical and unethical. The sources of ethics and morality are to be found in custom and usage as those reflect the externalized values of the community and the internalized values of individual behavior. We can expect ethical norms to change as community values change, reminding ourselves that values don't change monolithically or uniformly. "Openness" and "accountability" were more generally applauded in the 1970s than in the 1980s. The "tolerance" praised in some circles as sensitive consideration of the rights of others may be considered by others to be the reflection of an empty and spineless relativism.[1] And, if tolerance of other people's values has increased in many ways, there is much resistance in some others. Most religious leaders argue that religious values should permeate our lives, and not be relegated to ritual observance on weekends. Many corporate leaders consider the influence of organized religion out of place in the business corporation, and worry about personal values supplanting corporate ones.

To address the complex and uneasy relationship of religious and secular values in corporate philanthropy would require another essay. The matter is extremely sensitive as well as complicated. Even so, religion and philanthropy are so interwoven in the American tradition that I am convinced the tensions should be discussed and clarified rather than avoided and ignored.

The question here is whether the values of corporate grantmaking are changing, putting more emphasis on the benefits to the donor and less on the needs of the recipient. if they are, is that an ethical issue? For example, when someone advocates that grants to nonprofit organizations be used as a means of increasing corporate profits, one of the questions that must be asked is whether that is an ethical matter as well as an operational and organizational change. It may be argued that it is a different strategy to achieve the same ends—or that it is simply adding a second end to the first one, or making the whole process more efficient. If it is an ethical change, what do we mean by that? If the answer is given that the result will be more money flowing through nonprofits to increasing numbers of people in need, that will reflect one approach to ethics. If the answer is given that the moral rules of philanthropy and the practices of marketing are incompatible, that will reflect another approach. A third approach may be that we have to balance rules and results in the way that is most "responsible."

Almost all ethical problems are complex, not simple. Many problems have an ethical dimension, and in some cases the ethical consideration will govern the solution-the ethical aspect will determine the choice among the available alternatives.

But it is wise to remember that not all problems are ethical problems, and that the ethical consideration should not always be conclusive. Leaping to ethical conclusions is as risky as leaping to financial or manufacturing conclusions. On the other hand, more business problems arise from neglecting the ethical dimension than from putting too much emphasis on it.

Thinking About Ethics

Grantmakers make grants or reject them, or recommend to others that grants be made or not. Grantmakers are agents, actors, and making a grant is an act. Grantmakers as well as others often ask whether a grant should be made or not; some grants are not automatic (although many are: consider matching gifts, for example). Asking that sort of question involves a spectator or commentator. It is a level of reflection one step higher than that involved in the act itself.

At a third level there is a different sort of question that is asked, and this is what philosophers do (amateurs and capital-P philosophers alike). According to the British moral philosopher Bernard Mayo (from whom I borrow this analysis), moral philosophers ask:

• Why do we do what is right?

• Why should we do what is right?

• How do we know what is right?

Mayo adds a fourth question to these "three fundamental questions" for moral philosophy:[2]

• What do we mean by 'right'?

To which I will add a fifth, of fundamental importance to corporate grantmaking (that we will come back to later):

• Who do we mean by 'we'?

We could also add, in parentheses after "right" in each of those questions: "(or wrong)."

I would also add, adapting a suggestion from a philosopher who is a writer and corporate consultant on business ethics, three other questions that are particularly germane to corporate grantmakers: A grant is thought to be:

• Good (or bad) for whom?

• Good (or bad) when?

• Good (or bad) by what standard?[3]

For example, "Will a grant to a private voluntary agency engaged in development in Central America be helpful to that organization?" is one way of asking the first question. A different way of asking the question would be to ask, "Will we be criticized for making a grant in a country where we have very little business interest?" The question of whether the grant will help the people most directly affected by it in Central America may never be asked at all. The question of timing may be crucial. A grant for a chemistry laboratory may not be considered timely if the donor is a chemical company being sued for illness following the use of a toxic chemical. The third question—by what standard—might come up with a grant for research that includes pressure to redirect the research away from the original objective. That would be thought to violate an accepted grantmaking practice. (Are corporate strings on research support any different from, government strings? What do we mean by "strings," anyway?)

In thinking about notions of good and bad, right and wrong, students of law have been more persistent in studying the underside of their domain than have moral philosophers. Criminology is a fat and affluent field. There are not only books about it, there are courses, even degrees. I know of no courses or degrees in immorality.

I have a great many books about ethics and morality. I have very few that confront the unethical and immoral as their main theme. There are some important exceptions, of course: Ronald Milo has published a book entitled Immorality.[4] Sissela Bok has written a bestseller with the title Lying.[5] There is a reawakened interest among moral philosophers in Aristotle's notion of akrasia—"weakness of will"—the failure to behave morally even when we know the right thing to do.[6]

This is as good a time as any to point out that ethics and morality can mean (a) theory and practice, or (b) the externally imposed and the internalized.[7] "The two words, once fully synonymous ... have now so divided their functions that neither is superfluous ... ethics is the science of morals, and morals are the practice of ethics."[8] The distinctions are useful to philosophers, but in my opinion common usage now considers the two terms to be interchangeable.

(This digression may also be a good time to argue that references to "business ethics" are misleading; ethical problems characteristic of life in large complex organizations do not differ in important ways among business corporations, government agencies, universities, even religious organizations. It is moral life in the organization that is the common factor.)