The answers on a Plato

In British academic circles, there has been a resurgence of interest in Greek philosophy, particularly the work of the Big Three - Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. What most concerns modern-day thinkers is the Athenian debate about human values and ethics.

According to Socrates, the four principal virtues - prudence, temperance, fortitude and justice - were manly qualities and part of the natural human spirit. Plato argued that they were "life skills" and could be learnt. St Paul later added to the dialogue when he said that the theological virtues of faith, hope and love could also be adopted.

What makes this debate interesting in the 21st century is the readiness or not of those in authority - then and now - to accept new codes of behaviour. The Greeks may have enjoyed a good argument but they were also a pretty amoral lot, and anyone who questioned authority or conventional wisdom was tolerated only for so long. The philosophical conversations of Socrates were considered sufficiently provocative by the establishment for him to be to convicted of "impiety" and he was condemned to die by drinking hemlock.

His death didn't kill off his ideas, of course, and his moral and ethic-related thinking is, in a diluted and oblique way, at the heart of modern employment procedure and good customer service guidelines. It may not be immediately obvious, but Socrates has probably had a bigger influence on the Working Time Directive than Tony Blair.

There is a problem with ethics and morals, however - they can be forgotten just as easily as learnt. This is particularly true in a commercial society, where vices such as gluttony and greed become virtues, and real virtues are seen as signs of weakness. Big businesses and powerful corporations, under constant pressure to deliver results, can easily fall from the moral high ground in their pursuit of "performance", and the human spirit of a company - or, rather, the spirit of humanity - can be abandoned on the floor of the Stock Exchange.

So, when global hospitality companies start flexing their corporate muscles - when it becomes apparent that, for example, a hotel chain such as Shangri-La has still not resolved its dispute with 600 staff dismissed from its Jakarta hotel in late 2000, or when Marriott appears to have reneged on an agreement to re-employ New York workers made redundant after 11 September - the true motives behind the disputes have to be questioned.

It may be that the companies involved in these two staff disputes, and others in other disputes, have taken an honest course of action. Only they can answer that truthfully. What they have to be clear about in their own minds is that their actions are morally correct. Are they acting in the best interests of the staff they were once desperate to employ, or are they being too quick to drop them at the first sign of trouble (in these cases, union trouble)?

Pompous words, perhaps, but a quick debate in the Athenian tradition could resolve a dispute or two with honour.

Companies are often run by accountants. A few more philosophers on boards of directors might not go amiss. (You can see the business cards now - vice-president, ethics.)

Debate is better than hemlock.

Forbes Mutch
Editor
Caterer & Hotelkeeper