FINAL DISCUSSION

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law, 2006 by Hurley, Robert

PROF. HURLEY:1 A very stimulating day, wouldn't you say?

I was taking notes. One of the most exciting things about being in the academy is the stimulation of ideas, and we certainly heard a lot of that today. I am going to just go through a few highlights and then throw it out to the group for discussion.

We learned from Dean Sargent that individual moral priorities are disappearing, leading to moral indifference. We learned about the power of bureaucracy, and the compelling need to conform and be accepted can be a danger. We also learned about pressure, ambition, and unguided pragmatism.2

We learned from Brad Wendel that Christianity is a radical and subversive enterprise - and I would add, only if practiced well. We also learned that perhaps the question is that we need to learn how to craft non-religious, widely shared reasons for coercive control of behavior.3

We learned from Steve Resnicoff that there is really only one conscience, not two; not the individual and the corporate - but that there is only one - which requires courage.4

We learned from Professor Zamagni that there is a micro view of this whole thing and that companies appear to want to be more socially responsible about the demise of Taylorism, about the rise of the knowledge worker, and the need to use human reciprocity to motivate and to lead to cooperative ventures. We have also learned in that session that religious values can actually be compatible with corporate success, and about the importance of fraternity.5

We learned from Joe Geoghan, Michael Naughton, Talat Ansari and Charles Clark that corporations do have integrity.6 We learned that happiness requires participation and we need to move from division to integration.7

We learned from Amy Uelmen and Professor Bruni that there is an Economy of Communion and that public happiness requires fraternity, again compatibility between religious values and economic success.8 We also learned that entrepreneurship, which is central to wealth and enterprise, is a person on a mission, a person with passion, which goes again back to the individual, and what probably Keynes would describe as the animal instincts of creation.9

We learned from Pat Daly and Rabbi Liebling the incredible power of like-minded individuals and that we are owners, not investors.10

In summarizing those interesting and compelling ideas, let me throw out to the audience the following question: What were the most compelling insights for you from the day?

PARTICIPANT: I think that whenever I want to really understand modern society, I try to find someone from the third or fourth century. One of the greatest critics of wealth, the creation and accumulation and all that goes with it, was St. John of Antioch's Christendom. He was not in favor of massive or forced redistribution. He said it was important to change the minds and the hearts of those who had accumulated wealth, which he argued either was through fraud on their part or their parents' or grandparents'. Somewhere along the line he always thought that it was based on an injustice - and in his society it was probably more true than not true that that would be the case - but that it is important to change the minds and the hearts of those who have this power.

I think one of the themes of this whole discussion, especially the last panel and what they do, is trying to change the minds and the hearts and to treat the people who work in the corporations as much as persons as the poor people that we frequently advocate for.

When John Paul talks about the preferential options for the poor and others, a lot of rich people said, "This is great."11 But what he really meant is that we are all equally persons and we all have to have the same dignity, and we do not want to exclude anyone.

I think that this approach is very much in tune with what the tradition for 2,000 years has been saying, and I was very encouraged.

PROF. HURLEY: Other insights, comments, from the themes?

Let me ask a slightly different question. What are the implications for action or where we go forward in terms of religion and corporate decision-making, corporate life and religious life? Any thoughts about where we ought to go in the future of where this is headed?

PARTICIPANT: I think the implications for looking at what the ethical language is for Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus are profound. This is especially true given the globalization realities that we are dealing with, and the fact that money is something that passes through everybody's hands.

PROF. HURLEY: A common currency.

PARTICIPANT: So it does come down to the common language of economics. Economics does not articulate ethical principles as clearly as religious language, and so ecumenical dialogue becomes a very important commodity. It is important in order to start to realize the importance of defining justice, of defining right relationship among peoples and right relationship among a creator, whatever that might mean in particular. And so it really does have global implications, financial implications, and I think human implications.