Way back on 4/9/2014 NPR did a report on why there are fewer women than men in business. While the gap has narrowed as of 2026, it persists (especially at the senior level). The difference begins in business school and continues forward. The report presented an interesting hypothesis: men and women differ in their ethics.
While people usually claim lying is immoral, men and woman are more likely to lie to a woman when negotiating. The report also mentioned a test with an ethical issue: the seller of a house does not want it sold to someone who will turn it into a condo, but a potential buyer wants to do just that. Men were more likely than women to lie to sell the house.
It was also found that men tend towards egocentric ethical reasoning in that if the man will be harmed by something, then it is regarded as unethical. If the man benefits, he is more likely to see it as morally grey. So, in the case of the house scenario, a man representing the buyer would tend to see lying to the seller as acceptable because he would make a sale. However, a man representing the seller would be more likely to see being lied to as unethical.
In another test of ethics, people were asked about their willingness to include an inferior ingredient in a product that would hurt people but would generate more profit. Men were more willing than the women to see this as acceptable. In fact, women tended to see this as outrageous.
These results provide two reasons why women would be less likely to be in business than men. The first is that men are less troubled by unethical, but more profitable, decisions. The idea that having “moral flexibility” provides an advantage, as Glaucon argued in Plato’s Republic. If a morally flexible person needs to lie to gain an advantage, he can lie. If a bribe would serve his purpose, he can bribe. If a bribe would not suffice and someone needs to have a tragic “accident”, then he can arrange an accident. A morally flexible person is like a craftsperson that has a broader range of tools, so they are more likely to have the right tool for every occasion. Just as the better equipped craftsperson has an advantage, the morally flexible person has an advantage over those more constrained by ethics. If women are, in general, more constrained by ethics, then they would probably be less likely to remain in business because they would be at a competitive disadvantage. The ethical difference might also explain why women are less likely to go into business—it is a common stereotype that unethical activity is part of doing business. If women are more ethical than men, then they would be more inclined to avoid business.
It could be countered that Glaucon is wrong and that being unethical (while getting away with it) does not provide advantages. Obviously, getting caught and punished for unethical behavior is not advantageous—but it is not the unethical behavior that causes the problem. Rather, it is getting caught and punished. Glaucon is clear that being unjust is only advantageous when one can get away with it. Socrates argues that being ethical is superior to being unethical, but he does not do so by arguing that the ethical person will have greater material success. That is conceded to Glaucon.
It must be noted that a person could be ethical and have material success while a morally flexible person could be a complete failure. The claim is that ethical flexibility provides a distinct advantage in material success in the context of capitalism.
One could, and should, point out that there are unethical women and ethical men. The obvious reply is that this claim is true—it has not been asserted that all men are unethical or that all women are ethical. Rather, women seem to be generally more ethical than men.
It might be countered that the ethical view assumed in this essay is flawed. For example, it could be countered that what matters is profit and the means to this end are thus justified. As such, using inferior ingredients to make a profit would not be unethical, but laudable. After all, as Hobbes said, profit is the measure of right. As such, women might be avoiding business because they are unethical on this view of ethics.
The second reason is that women are more likely to be lied to in negotiations. If true, this would put women at a disadvantage relative to men. This, of course, assumes that such deceit would be advantageous in negotiations. While there surely are cases in which deceit would be disadvantageous, at deceit can be a very useful technique. While President Trump is but one example, his regime does provide an excellent example of the power of moral flexibility in material success.
If it is believed that having more women in business is desirable (which would not be accepted by everyone), then there seem to be two main options. The first is for women to become more unethical so they can compete with men. The second would be to endeavor to make business more ethical. This would also help address the matter of lying to women.
A Philosopher’s Blog is Now on Substack!
You can subscribe and read for free.
Personally, I don’t believe all the ‘the world is unfair to women’ stuff at all, not about first world countries. Bad countries, yes. To the contrary, during my five + decades of life, I have never ever witnessed any woman being ‘weaker’ than men in any ways, shape, or form, actually it’s the opposite: women are more powerful than men at a primal level, whereas men have to resort to artificial means to obtain power, such as money, status, etc. Women don’t have to do that at all, for every millionaire finds a pretty woman highly desirable, irrespectively of whether she’s highly educated or can barely count, and the very millionaire will go out of his way to please her.
In other words: men have to do a ton of work to please a woman, but a woman doesn’t have to do much at all, except for sitting back and let men make a move and keeping as attractive as possible, for otherwise, why every woman is so obsessed with her looks and why they do all these strange things to ‘enhance’ their looks? Although to be fair, they do that mainly to compete with other women, in the same way as men compete with other men for things like physical strength, etc.
” These results provide two reasons why women would be less likely to be in business than men.”.
It could also be for many other reasons, such as the one I mentioned. Moreover, a business is also started. I don’t see why a woman would find more difficult to start one compared to men, since she doesn’t need to negotiate at all with others, for she decides how the business is run.
Sure, there are the stupid and discriminatory men; so there are stupid and discriminatory women. But I don’t believe women are hindered. For the life of me, I see nowhere this ‘disparity’ between men and women: if less women own businesses etc, the answer is: perhaps because they don’t NEED to do these things. All they have to do is find men who will provide for them, and that’s not done by starting a business.
”… Men were more willing than the women to see this as acceptable. In fact, women tended to see this as outrageous.”.
The reason for this might be that the women don’t – need – to see it as acceptable: they have little to lose. Worst case scenario, they can find another man.
It would be very interesting to see how many men are single, and how many women are single: for after all, being single entails a harder life than having a partner, unless the relationship is intolerable to either or both parties.
As for the ultimate test for ethical behaviour, it would only be one where the person could have the choice and no one were checking on them or know about them doing whatever. I don’t believe the women would be more ethical, for there’s no biological explanation why this would be so, since I think good and evil are the same for men and women.
It might just be that men have developed more business skills than women, because the latter simply don’t need to do much or any of that stuff. Yes, I know my claim can seem ridiculous, but perhaps the world of men and women is really simpler than it seems. Perhaps the ‘unethical’ behaviour of selling a poorer product is not so strange at all: everywhere and in every age this has existed: panaceas, super cheap stuff that has to be poor, cheeseburgers, etc, you name it, it’s everywhere.
I always make the example of the porn industry: how many people know that men are paid very little and women are paid a lot, in that ‘industry’ ?
There we see the power of women, it is sexual. I am not of course saying that the world is a big porn movie or a giant brothel (though sometimes one gets that impression….). I am not saying women are inferior to men in absolutely any ways.
But any man who has had enough experience with women, can see that the power women have is of a primal type. If one looks at the history of menestrels, troubadours, etc etc, and all the serenading done to women in the thousand ways it has been done to impress them…..whoever has seen women serenading men? The man is expected to do the work, it has always been so, it will always be so.
So, now the idea of the ‘homemaker wife’ seems old fashioned, or even chauvinistic (I don’t know?), but the question is, why until a short while ago it has been mostly exactly that way, and now it’s not? I suspect it’s indeed like markets: they expand, they contract. They change. Things seem to be impossible staying the same, it seems like we get bored always for one reason or another and we have to change the status quo, just because we are bored.
Perhaps, this is why men seem more unethical in business: they have to impress the women and acquire more means. The world seems a big marriage party. Every man and every woman wants to get married and proliferate. The Will at work, and all else is done in relation to that, everything.
As for Glaucon, I am sure Socrates wanted nothing more to do with that madman.
” …women seem to be generally more ethical than men.”. To me this seems a dangerous proposition to make. I am sure there’s a bad woman for every bad man out there, though obviously I cannot prove that, but neither the opposite can be proven, so it’s a draw. The reason why I believe so is because I can’t see any evidence of the contrary, and since mine seems a simpler explanation, I go with that.
One thing I know, is that women will denounce openly every slight made to them (abuse, etc) but men keep it under their hat. For a woman, it results in condemnation to the man, but for the man, it would be seen as weakness, whether the abuser was male or female, and if the latter, even more so.
Ultimately, a business will not thrive if unethical. Good business people know that. The others can’t really be classed as business, but only as get rich quick schemes or the like. Sooner or later, they are found out, and their ‘business’ will pay for it.
For every male fraudster, I can think of a female fraudster. Ultimately, I don’t believe women are hindered in any ways, to the contrary, the opposite might be true: if a woman and a man of equal skill will compete for the job, I believe the woman is more likely to succeed, the more attractive she is. I mean, who wants to see an average looking man instead of an attractive woman, anywhere at all, whether it’s MacDonalds or a lawyer’s firm?
I am not of course saying that a woman gets a position – solely – for her looks, but hey, looks help men, and women even more.
Suppose you see a woman being very badly treated by a stranger, and a man going through the same. Who would you try to rescue almost without even thinking? Hardly the man….
What I personally see everywhere is women being treated BETTER just because they are women, not the opposite.
Sorry about my crude arguments, but it’s the best way I can put it: women have all the power they need to do whatever they want, and it’s a shame to blame men for women’s failures or inadequacies or lesser skill. They build their entire lives around that one thing. Men do the same, but unlike women, they do so through artificial means.
The reality is that both women and men are only driven by their ego. They differ just in the strategies employed, but ultimately, it’s all about some form of power. Thank you for your essay, Professor, and apologies for my poorly presented arguments.