"Atomic individualism" is also one of the economic metaphors that Solomon wants to criticize, and the reason why his critique of "atomic individualism" is elaborated in a separate chapter is because this concept of "individual embedded in the collective" is an important beginning of Solomon's "Aristotelian way" to solve economic ethical problems, and another concept, "the importance of ultimate happiness is the only criterion for success", is also closely related to the individual and the collective.
In Aristotle, the fundamental interests of the individual coincide with the well-being of society, and in Solomon's view, the fundamental interests of the individual coincide with the well-being of the enterprise. The following will be described in terms of Solomon's critique of "atomic individualism" and his elaboration of "individuals embedded in the collective."
Criticize atomic individualism
The study of individualism in the West has not formed a unified view in the development and change, and philosophers have understood and elaborated on the theory of "individualism" from different perspectives, so the meaning and form of the concept of "individualism" in Western traditional culture are very diverse. According to Steven Lucas, "individualism" originated in the French "individaulisme". The term "individualism" was first used in 1820 by the French Catholic thinker Joseph de Maistre. Individualism evolved to become a core component of American culture.
In 1945, Hayek in his "Individualism and Economic Order", taking individual value priority or group value priority as the criterion, distinguishing between "true individualism" represented by Hume, Smith, etc. and "pseudo-individualism" represented by Descartes, Voltaire, etc., and put forward "methodological individualism". Since this article focuses on Solomon's critique of atomic individualism and thus the concept of the individual in the collective in moral economic ethics, the origins of individualism and other theoretical debates are not traced here.
In the preface to Hayek's Methodological Individualism, Zheng Zhenglai talks about atomic individualism, arguing that "modern natural and social sciences can be regarded to a large extent as 'pseudo-individualistic'", and these disciplines basically adopt the form of atomism. Atomistic individualism, which breaks down the whole into parts, and then reconstructs them into a whole according to these parts that have "atomic properties" or "external relations", atomic individualism presupposes that "parts, atoms, or individuals" are real and objective, and therefore have "ontological primacy".
Since the 19th century, the influence of individualism in the United States has been very far-reaching, atomic individualism has taken the opportunity to penetrate the economic field, forming a metaphor for "self-fulfilling [man]", which Solomon believes brings a sense of emptiness to the enterprise "overemphasizing the individual", and he proposes that economic ethics should be studied from the perspective of people's social relations and the role of the social groups in which people live, otherwise the right way to study should never be found.
Solomon also believes that the concept of entrepreneurship seems to be a social myth, because the long-term development of a good business depends more on the trust brought by the quality products and services provided by the company, rather than solely on the strength of the entrepreneur personally, and all employees who contribute to the enterprise should integrate their personal identity with the organization.
Solomon did not deny the individuality and motivation of the subjects engaged in economic activity, but he believed that starting with the role played by the individual in the practice of activities was a better way to explain the individual. Because business is such a practice or a series of practical activities, business activities depend on human organization, otherwise transactions are difficult to carry out.
In Solomon's view, liberalism, which emphasizes the primacy of the individual over the group (classified as "true individualism" in Hayek's view), is a primitive and isolated individual making a contract, completely ignoring the obvious fact that the individual derives from family, society, etc., and that the individual has a dependence on these groups and "retains this dependence in all aspects of life."
Solomon argues that even the motive for contracting is not a natural attribute, but a "voluntary choice" of the structural nature of society. Before the contract is reached, the individual begins to play the role of a member of society, such as a member of the family, and has already determined his identity through learning in the family.
Solomon recognized the important role of individualism in the economy, such as the innovative spirit of the individual, while atomic individualism usually ignored the elements of collective society, which Solomon saw as a great destruction of corporate organization. The metaphor of atomic individualism also tends to make transactions less than a means of profit, while at the same time implying a "jungle" nature in the "economy." Solomon believed that the meaning of this choice should be considered before deciding to join a business and aspire to become a member of the organization.
If an employee only views the relationship between himself and the enterprise from the perspective of a certain contract, then for an organization, the employee is not a true "member" as Solomon said, and the true members of an organization must have mutual obligations that go beyond the general contractual relationship.
Solomon saw the organization as part of society, so that the organization must abide by the moral system of the larger framework of society, not just corporate social responsibility, although "business is business", business is also a social practice based on human relations, and the individual's personality is never denied or forced to compromise, but is given meaning in context.
Aristotle's ethics is also political science, ancient Greek politics is the politics of the city-state, and the collective (city-state) has an important place in Aristotle's ethics. In his book, Solomon summarizes the six characteristics of Aristotelian ethics, namely "group", "excellence", "membership", "integrity", "judgment", and "wholeness", in which the structural elements of "individual, enterprise and group, individual interest and public interest, individual and professional, business and virtue" are closely related to each other, reflecting Solomon's opposition to atomic individualism and emphasis on community.
Individuals in a collective
Solomon saw the enterprise as a community, just as Aristotle valued the city-state. In view of the active individualism in Western society at that time, postmodern academia also began to think about the individual, communitarianism is very opposed to atomic individualism, and Hayek's improved methodological individualism cannot avoid considering the factors of human society as a group.
Solomon's economic ethic is based on the community, and the belief that we can only find identity and meaning in the community, coincide with Charles Taylor. The corporation has never been a collection of atomic individuals, and one must first acknowledge this in order to explore Solomon's economic ethics.
Only by understanding the concept of the individual in the group can we better understand that the interests of the individual and the public interest of the collective are not divided and antagonistic, and the discussion of the virtue of the individual is also a discussion of what virtue is in the larger framework of a collective organization, virtue is a product of the city-state in Aristotle, and in Solomon's economic and ethical thought system, it can only appear in the collective.
As Solomon defined the virtues and vices of the enterprise, virtue is what is conducive to organizational unity, and evil virtue is what destroys organization. The role played by the social collective, as well as the role played by the individual in the enterprise, forms the definition of the enterprise and the individual.
The psychological point of view is that the construction of self-concept is a process of self-subjective initiative to internalize it in social relations, in which on the one hand, the group to which the individual belongs affects the self, and on the other hand, the self-directed self is constructed to act in the group.
The definition of roles in a group is the embodiment of people's social relations in the group, and it is also the moral stipulation of the role in which they live. The simplest transactions in the commercial economy also involve the roles of buyers and sellers, and before entering the economic field, the individual already has a social role, and at the same time enters economic practice as a role in the economy.
In the enterprise, roles define the responsibilities of individuals, and in society, roles define the responsibilities of the enterprise. Of course, Solomon himself admits that defining duties by role can cause some confusion, such as the definition of individual roles can also raise questions about personality and the degree of responsibility, but he believes that when we evaluate a person as suitable for a certain role, we do not offend the person, but rather praise the individual in the group.
Individuals in society have multiple roles in the enterprise, and the roles may not be completely unified, so when defining individual identity with the role of the group, it is necessary to consider that the enterprise is a collective under the larger framework of society.
But even if individuals are not defined by roles, as Solomon explains, whether in the business economy or in society, everyone faces a moral dilemma that requires the individual to use virtue knowledge and practical wisdom to help individuals behave in the most virtuous manner in specific situations. Business virtues are not uniform in business economics, and he argues that even so, role definitions are still an important feature of the discussion of business virtues.
At the same time, Solomon believes that as an individual in an enterprise, he is a complete individual, with the ability to make decisions and correct judgments, and the value orientation of the individual and the value orientation of the enterprise are not opposites. The role of the individual in the commercial economy cannot be separated from the rest of society. It is precisely because of this premise that we will not be far-fetched to discuss corporate social responsibility. The commercial economy is not an independent independent kingdom whose sole goal is economic profit, it borders on society as a whole and is an organic part of it. Since it is an organization in society, it should shoulder social responsibility.
It can be said that the elaboration of the concept of the individual in the group by Solomon's economic ethics has guiding significance for the distorted economic practice, which helps to eliminate a moral dilemma currently faced by economic agents and the tearing of personal identity in society and personal identity in the economic field, and liberates enterprises and individuals from the moral cross. Defining the roles of individuals based on groups also helps to integrate economic agents into society.
This is a significant move, people will reflect on their behavior, identity, etc., this reflection determines whether they identify with the role, and then decide whether to identify with the corresponding social behavior.
Solomon believed that the self is social, and after the middle of the 18th century, religion liberated the individual, but the individual is not just an individual, when the individual conceives of himself as an individual, it is the result of the individual's social training, and our thinking about the existence of the individual can only be given meaning if the individual is placed in the social context in which it is located, the relationship between the individual and the individual. That is, self-concept and identity exist in "relationships", in society, and individuals are already in relationships from the moment of birth and begin to connect with other people in society.
Bibliography:
[1] ZHAO Sujin. Journal of Wuhan University of Science and Technology (Social Science Edition), 2009;
[2] Zhang Hongyi. On Confucian economic philosophy[J].Confucius Yanmi, 1988;
[3] WANG Xiaoxi, WANG Jie. Exploration of traditional Chinese moralist economic ethics[J].Nanjing Social Sciences,2002;
[4] Cao Gang. Economic Theory of Confucian Morality[J].Journal of Social Sciences, Hunan Normal University,2001;