The human ability to complicate even the most straightforward questions is beyond amazing. In some cases this is being done quite deliberately, for example in the field of ethics. These days, you can't go through a MBA programme of a reputable business school without being forced to attend some ethics course, usually as part of a compulsory subject such as 'decision making' or 'managing people'.
Business schools like to examine cases like AMRON. It works for them if the blame can be nicely contained, by shifting it on a few executives and their external auditors. Business schools would not dare to examine far more instructive cases like that of Bernie Madoff, because of his right-in-your-face Jewishness and his close connections to the Israeli Mossad.
On the surface, there seems to be a perceived deficit of 'business ethics'. And indeed, unethical behaviour is so rampant that you must wonder why universities even bother. After all, they are just catering to the needs of some of the most ruthless corporations. Given their lack of repentance, it would be naïve to hope that these predators have any plans to change their evil ways. Are they just trying to find out where their critics are coming from to better counter them?
More insight can be gained from the design of the ethics programmes. Apart from some hypocritical mentioning of research saying that ethical managers are happier managers and a warning case study or two of corporations whose unethical practices badly backfired, MBA ethics courses are all about ethical frameworks.
It is only common sense that for an ethical framework to work it must be universally applicable and understandable. Even the 10 commandments have proven to be too complicated, because they leave room for misinterpretation, for example by the Talmudic teachings that they only apply to fellow Jews.
The one and only ethical framework that actually works, the 'Golden Rule', is being ignored or ridiculed . Our ruling crime families and their subservient business schools don't like the 'Golden Rule' because of its simplicity and universality. They rather provide students with a whole toolbox of ethical frameworks, to pick and choose depending on what the situation - that is their career prospects and greed - requires.
The 'Golden Rule' tells us to treat everyone the way we would like to be treated if we were in their shoes. Ethics courses typically misrepresent this as treating everyone the way they want to be treated. This obviously doesn't work. No responsible parent would always treat his children the way they want to be treated. Nor would a responsible teacher always treat his students the way they want. But a parent or teacher who treats his children or students the way he - with all of his knowledge, and experience - would like to be treated if he was the child or student, would do a terrific job.
Instead of encouraging more ethical business practises, business school ethics classes are only trying to help executives to soothe their bad conscience and provide them with better excuses, in case they get caught. Like the rest of MBA programmes they are all about making managers more effective pimps. It would be naïve though to believe that their unscrupulous actions were only motivated by greed or the wish to create shareholder value. In some of the worst cases of unethical business practices, executives are actually putting the interests of shareholders, customers and society as a whole at risk for the sake of contributing to the 'New World Order'. I'm thinking of the 'Big Brother' activities of the likes of Microsoft, Google and Facebook, the deliberate ruin of Western economies through globalisation and the systematic destruction of the fabric of Western societies by the corporate media.
None of these actions would be possible if managers followed the 'Golden Rule'. No wonder that our ruling crime families are afraid of it.