BlackRock Announcement and Moral Philosophy

 • There is a perception of duty in the language Mr. Fink uses in explaining his decision to consider climate risk in all future investments and strategies, but is that duty to take care of the planet? Or is it an exercise of his fiduciary responsibility to protect investors from overpriced deals in a world where environmentally noxious products will soon see precipitous declines in their value?

and

• Does it matter?

All this is reminiscent of the moral philosophy of 18th Century German thinker Immanuel Kant (pictured), who drew the distinction between acts motivated by duty vs. those motivated by inclination.  He argued that only the former could be considered to be “moral.”  E.g., if you simply wanted to take a swim, rescuing a child from drowning in a lake could not be considered to have any moral goodness.

So, should Mr. Fink be congratulated on his decision on the basis that he did something good?  According to Kant, it depends on what motivated his behavior.

In any case, I look at this somewhat differently, given that I’ve had 45 years to think about it since the last time I read Kant.  I don’t see any way to draw a line between duty and inclination. Put another way, don’t most people have an inclination to do their duty?  Who wouldn’t love to have the opportunity to save that kid, regardless of his wish to take a swim at that moment?

I hope readers have enjoyed this little digression in the history of Western philosophy.  No extra charge.