The Meccan Madness Case Study

The “Meccan Madness” case

1. Milton Friedman’s profit maximizing principle

If Carol Davis follows the Milton Friedman’s profit maximizing principle, she should decide to publish Jonathan Taajwar’s manuscript to increase the profit of her company. Indeed, according to Milton Friedman, it will create welfare for everyone, especially in a capitalist country like the united states. However, publishing this book may cost the company more than she will earn from the sales if history repeats itself, and Davis Press found itself in the same situation as Viking Penguin. Even with following one principle, it is hard to take a decision. In my opinion, the reactions will be different from the Satanic Verses, and the world has changed a lot in 16years. In the 21st century, there are a lot more publications and information, mainly thanks to the internet, and even if the book gets to the people it may offend, the controversial reactions don’t have the same magnitude than before. As Friedman said: “...there is one and only one social responsibility of business – to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits” , and if this book will increase the company’s profit, Carol Davis should definitely publish it, especially that Davis Press is a relatively “young” company and could use a “helping hand” to grow.

1. Jones and Felps’ principle of stakeholder happiness enhancement

Jones and Felps’ principle is about stakeholders happiness. Let’s say that the only stakeholders are the clients, the investors, and the employees:

• For the clients, Jonathan Taajwar said that another publisher wants to publish his work. So the people will still have access to the book and its contents.
• For the investors, it may be better to publish the book and benefit from its controversial effect to increase their profit. But again, as said in question 1, we are not sure if the consequences of the publishing won’t cost the company more than that.
• Finally, if the book is published, Carol Davis is responsible for her employees. She may put their safety at risk. If we take a most recent example (after this case), the Charlie Hebdo shooting killed 12 people.

If Carol Davis follows the Jones and Felps’ principle, she should decide not to publish Jonathan Taajwar’s manuscript. She shouldn’t mix Economic wealth is not the same as happiness. Even of the company profit will temporary increase, she will lose much more in the process. And maybe by trying to help her company grow, she will lose the trust of her employees, and their will to cooperate.

1. Kant’s categorical imperative (use explicitly the distinction between a “contradiction of the will” and a “contradiction in conception”)

According to Kant, moral action must be judged according to the intention behind it and not according to its results, and must not be tied to any particular condition. If Carol Davis follows Kant’s categorical imperative, she should decide to publish the book whether it will have good or bad consequences, whether if there is a tense climate with some Muslim countries. As Kant said in his book Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”

• Contradiction in conception: if Carol Davis decides not to publish the book, and her maxim is “not to publish something if it offends someone” , then obviously it would be impossible to everyone doing that. We will live in a world where almost nothing is published, and then no one will write anything controversial, and the maxim won’t have any meaning. If her maxim is to publish any content with value, then it can be a universal law of free press.
• Contradiction of the will: if Carol Davis decides not to publish the book, and if everyone did the same, she wouldn’t have access to a lot of books and articles and she wouldn’t want that.  In order to change the world and to move forward, we must take actions. If we decide not to do it, according to Kant, this means that we want this to become a universal law, then no one will take actions, and we don’t want that (contradiction). As said in the article, Carol Davis is “committed to the value and rights of a free press”, and doesn’t want a world without it.

1. If you were Carol Davis, would you be satisfied with one (or more) of these conclusion, or perhaps none of them? Why? What would you decide?

If I were Carol Davis, I would be satisfied with the conclusion according the Kant. If we want to live in a world with freedom of expression, we must start by taking action if we can. In this case, Carol Davis can do something about it since she owns a publishing firm. If everyone was afraid of the consequences, then the world as we know it now wouldn’t be the same. If I were Carol Davis, I would publish the book, and I wouldn’t it do it for the wrong reasons. By “wrong” reasons I mean that I wouldn’t do it for the money, but for the principle of freedom itself. Of course, the world “wrong” is subjective and reflect my own point of view. Following Kant’s categorical imperative, I would also do everything I can to protect myself and the people I work with, even if it means losing the money earnt from the book’s sales, as I would want people to do the same for me. By selling the book AND using the money to temporary increase the security of my stakeholders, I will at the same time act according to two maxims: “freedom of expression” and “not causing any harm”. If the harm is unavoidable, I will still publish it and I will not consider it as a direct consequence of my action. In my opinion, the people who will react badly to the book are the immoral and the only one to blame and no one should give in to their request.