Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T20:12:07.427Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Reconsidering approaches to moral reasoning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 September 2009

Mollie Painter-Morland
Affiliation:
DePaul University, Chicago
Get access

Summary

Many business ethicists seem to work from the assumption that individuals' behavior is informed by deliberate moral decisions. Their efforts are therefore often directed at helping people make better moral decisions by teaching them appropriate reasoning skills. Ethics training courses and university curricula therefore typically introduce people to philosophical paradigms, in which “rational” principles or “objective” procedures form the basis of morality. The role that these paradigms continue to play in people's perceptions and understanding of ethics is problematic, because they effectively enforce a distinction between theory and practice. This contributes significantly to the dissociation of ethics from business practice.

The distinction between theory and practice that is evident in many business ethicists' understanding of morality has a long history. One can argue that it has its origins in the seventeenth century, when philosophers began to explore various forms of universalism and instrumentalism in moral theory. At the dawn of the Enlightenment, slogans like “Aude sapere!” or “dare to know!” carried the day. Individuals were encouraged to use their capacity for reason in the formulation of moral rules, instead of simply deferring unthinkingly to the authority of the church or state. Some seventeenth-century moral philosophers came to see ethics less as a responsive sort of practical judgment, and more in terms of an effort to rationally formulate and objectively apply universal, a priori principles. Others argued that ethical decisions had to be based on a rational, unbiased assessment of the anticipated effects of all available courses of action.

Type
Chapter
Information
Business Ethics as Practice
Ethics as the Everyday Business of Business
, pp. 50 - 93
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Jones, C., Parker, M. and ten Bos, R., For Business Ethics: a Critical Approach (London: Routledge, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuart Mill, John, Utilitarianism (Montana: Kessinger Publishing, 2004)Google Scholar
Jones, Parker and Bos, R. ten, For Business Ethics, p. 42
Kant, Immanuel, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, translated by Gregor, Mary (Cambridge University Press, 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copleston, Frederick, History of Philosophy, Volume 6, Part II Kant (New York: Image Books, 1964)Google Scholar
Bowie, Norman, Kantian Business Ethics (Malden: Blackwell, 1999), p. 45.Google Scholar
Ven, Johannes, Formation of the Moral Self (Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 1998), p. 145Google Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine, “The Normativity of Instrumental Reason” in Cullity, G. and Gaut, B. (eds.), Ethics and Practical Reason (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), p. 245.Google Scholar
Rawls, John, Justice as Fairness (Irvington, 1958)Google Scholar
Hartman, Edwin M., “Moral Philosophy, Political Philosophy and Organizational Ethics: a Response to Phillips and Margolis,” Business Ethics Quarterly, 11(4) (2001), 673–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartman, Edwin, Organizational Ethics and the Good Life (Oxford University Press, 1996), p. 108.Google Scholar
Phillips, Robert, “Stakeholder Legitimacy,” Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(1) (2003), 30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, R., Freeman, R. E. and Wicks, A. C., “What Stakeholder Theory is not,” Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4) (2003), 493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, Edward R. and Evan, William M., “Corporate Governance: a Stakeholder Interpretation,” Journal of Behavioral Economics, 19(4) (1990), 337–359Google Scholar
Child, James W. and Marcoux, Alexei M., “Freeman and Evan: Stakeholder Theory in the Original Position,” Business Ethics Quarterly, 9(2) (1999), 207–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, Iris, Justice and the Politics of Difference (Princeton University Press, 1990), p. 100.Google Scholar
Ricoeur, Paul, Oneself as Another (University of Chicago Press, 1992), p. 208.Google Scholar
Donaldson, Tom and Dunfee, Tom, Ties that Bind: a Social Contracts Approach to Business Ethics (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1999), p. 29.Google Scholar
Robertson, D. C. and Ross, W. T., “Decision-making Processes on Ethical Issues: the Impact of a Social Contract Perspective,” Business Ethics Quarterly, 5 (1995), special issue on Social Contracts and Business Ethics, 213–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilligan, Carol, In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982).Google Scholar
Etzioni, Amitai, “A Communitarian Approach: a Study of the Legal, Ethical and Policy Implications Raised by DNA Tests and Databases,” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics (Summer, 2006), 214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etzioni, Amitai, “A Communitarian Note on Stakeholder Theory,” Business Ethics Quarterly, 8(4) (1998), 679–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacIntyre, Alasdair, After Virtue: a Study in Moral Theory, 2nd edition (University of Notre Dame Press, 1984), p. 2;Google Scholar
MacIntyre, Alisdair, “Social Structures and their Threats to Moral Agency,” Philosophy, 74 (1999), 311–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Charles, The Ethics of Authenticity (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993).Google Scholar
Solomon, Robert C., Ethics and Excellence: Cooperation and Integrity in Business (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992).Google Scholar
Gray, Colin S., “Sandcastle of Theory: a Critique of Amitai Etzioni's Communitarianism,” American Behavioral Scientist, 48(12) (2005), 1607–1625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla, The Claims of Culture: Equality and Diversity in a Global Era (Princeton University Press, 2002).Google Scholar
Swanson, Diane, “A Critical Evaluation of Etzioni's Socioeconomic Theory: Implications for the Field of Business Ethics,” Journal of Business Ethics, 11(7) (1992), 545–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchholz, Rogene A. and Rosenthal, Sandra B., Business Ethics: the Pragmatic Path beyond Principles to Process (Prentice Hall, 1998), p. 38.Google Scholar
Dewey, John, The Essential Dewey: Volumes 1 and 2, edited by Hickman, Larry and Alexander, Thomas (Indiana University Press, 1998).Google Scholar
Crichley, Simon, Continental Philosophy: a Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×