An article in The Conversation argues that the digital crisis and the climate crisis are a moral test: between a “moral threat” that normalizes harm and “moral muses” that prove that principles and profit can be combined.
By: Valerie L. Myers, Organizational Psychologist and Lecturer in Management and Organizations, University of Michigan
Digital disruption and the climate crisis are often presented as economic or social challenges. But they force critical moral questions on us. Who will bear responsibility for the human cost? And what will it take to change business culture so that these costs are not treated as inevitable – but rather as something that can be accepted with resignation?
In my opinion, the answers will shape not only the impact of technology on humanity and the planet, but also the moral foundations of democracy itself.
As a management lecturer who researches Calling ethic – The notion that work can be guided by principles and moral obligation – I believe the current moment is best understood as a clash between two recurring leadership patterns.
One pattern justifies exploitation and disguises harm as the “price of progress.” Drawing on Yale Law Professor James Whitman’s use of the phrase "moral menace", I use it here to call this recurring force.
On the other hand, there are leaders who show that it is possible to combine principles and profitability. I call them "moral muses": Leaders whose caring and fairness enable people and organizations to thrive.
The contrast is stark: the threats dominate. The muses nurture.
I argue that threat often prevails not because it is right, but because its practices have become established as managerial orthodoxy regarding how people are “allowed” to be treated. Yet this dominance can be disrupted: if we trace the ancient roots of threat, and learn – as muses have done throughout history – how to tame it.
The threat: normalized numbness
The threat is not just greed. It is a system of cruelty, rooted in the property laws of ancient Rome, in which women, children, enslaved people, and animals were considered property, and were subject to abuse—including violence—at the will of the owner. Whitman describes how this legal foundation developed into a broader “moral threat,” which became a persistent pattern in Western capitalism and was replicated again and again.
Following this idea, I argue that threat has adapted and become the norm in business management – from institutional alliances with empires, to everyday practices.
A decisive development of institutionalized commercial cruelty began in the 15th century, when papal bulls gave religious sanction to threatening conquests: campaigns of land grabbing, enslavement, and labor theft. Contemporary accounts indicate that cruelty and exploitation were pillars of the economies of the time.
In the 17th century, Dutch merchants outdid their Spanish rivals in turning the threat into an effective one. The richest 1% sent sailors on deadly voyages to amass fortunes, while their compatriots remained among the poorest in Europe. Scholars who have studied the period – sometimes called the “Dutch Golden Age” – have written that “we did not expect to find the ‘pioneers of capitalism’ in the cradle of civil society so stingy.”
Outside Europe, traders developed accounting, logistics, and labor control methods that maximized profit by brutalizing enslaved workers. Historian Caitlin Rosenthal shows how plantation owners refined these methods, the British perfected them, and the Americans institutionalized them.
Once cruelty became the norm and recast as “efficiency,” it became—ostensibly—the defining logic of modern management: extracting ever more output to enrich the capitalists, regardless of the human cost. Business journalists have called it “the dark side of efficiency.” Yet the threat also has a cultural aura: popular TV series like “Billions” and “Yellowstone” glorify exploitation, dominance, and the virtues of "dark tetrad" Like Machiavellianism.
Research shows that this grandiose leadership style yields mediocre results. Is it any surprise that only 31% of employees report feeling engaged at work?
And yet, the threat never went unchallenged. At every stage of its progress, muses opposed it – insisting that fairness and care would prevail.
The Muse: Changing the Threat Institutions
Throughout history, muses have not been content to resist a threat; they have sought to change the very institutions that sustained it. In principle, their disruptive actions have tilted institutions in a more humane and ethical direction—even as the threat has adapted to survive.
An early, “Mosey” figure was Martin Luther, who in 1524 sparked a revolution by challenging the church’s influence over commerce. In “Trade and Usury,” he denounced “unneighborly” and deceptive business practices, insisting that commerce must be guided by law and conscience, not greed. (Over time, of course, Protestants also used religion to justify slavery and dominance—a reminder that the threat reinvents itself when challenged.)
In the 18th century, an American founder and businessman, Governor Morris, advanced the struggle of the Muses when he reimagined power in the new nation. At the Constitutional Convention, he warned that “the rich will endeavor to establish their rule and enslave the rest” if they were not restrained by law. He enshrined limits on elitist dominance and enshrined civic principles in the preamble to the Constitution: justice, unity, peace, and the general welfare. Over the generations, other leaders—in politics and business—advanced this ethic.
More recently, Marriott International has demonstrated how profitable companies can operate on museum principles without sacrificing profit. Since its founding in 1927, Marriott has emphasized the principle of “people first.” In 2010, global chief human resources officer David Rodriguez established this value in the Take Care initiative. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, under the leadership of the late CEO Arne Sorenson, the initiative was expanded to Project We Care. Thanks in part to these commitments, Marriott has had less than half the losses of American competitors such as Hilton and Hyatt.
Empirical studies confirm what Marriott leaders have demonstrated: Servant leadership Produces stronger employee commitment and performance, compared to charismatic or "transformational" leadership.
It is important to note that moral leaders typically aim for intermediate goals: reforming institutions and governance to limit the threat. But since management itself is built on a foundation of threat, large-scale change will require a critical mass of moral muses in business.
Mobilizing the moral muses
Point reforms like family-friendly policies, ESG targets, and commitments to kindness are helpful, but they cannot uproot centuries of threat. What is needed is a critical mass of moral muses who refuse to justify harm in the name of progress, and lead a cultural reset with the logic that guides business.
This means uprooting institutionalized numbness and redefining what counts as efficiency, innovation, and value. It also means anchoring civic principles of caring and the common good, as Morris envisioned, and empowering leaders who demonstrate that compassion and profitability can reinforce each other.
History shows that muses are not exceptional, and their stories are relevant to us now. Throughout history, they have demonstrated that prioritizing human dignity fosters trust, prosperity, and social vitality. But too often their stories are buried or suppressed—not by chance, but because they threaten those who profit from the threat. Without ongoing reshaping of institutions, the threat tends to resurface under new moral guises.
Bringing the stories of the poor back to the forefront and amplifying them is essential for change. These are not just anecdotes of resistance; they are agendas for a more humane and sustainable capitalism.
More of the topic in Hayadan:
2 תגובות
Shlomo. For this to happen and for us to implement the moral aspects of religion, we need to separate religion from politics because somehow religious politicians always become more and more extreme.
In my opinion, the rules for a moral society already exist – Jewish law. The foundation of all Torah is “What is hateful to you – do not do to your neighbor. Leave the interpretation, go and learn.” (Talmud, Tractate Shabbat, page 31, page 1)
Even if there are points that seem like a "moral threat" - you need to know that they take on a different meaning when they are implemented as part of a set of laws.