Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T02:48:36.774Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

On the Implications of the Practice–Institution Distinction: Macintyre and the Application of Modern Virtue Ethics to Business

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2015

Abstract:

After exploring MacIntyre’s (1985) practice—institution distinction, the article demonstrates its applicability to business-as-practice and to corporations as institutions. It then considers the implications of MacIntyre’s schema to ethical schizophrenia, to the claim that the market is a source of the virtues and to the opposite claim that capitalism corrodes character. A fully worked out modern virtue ethics, based on MacIntyre’s work, is then established and the claim is made and substantiated that such an understanding of MacIntrye’s work revitalises it and makes it directly applicable to business and to corporations.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Business Ethics 2002

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

Beadle, R. 1998. “Virtue Ethics and Employment or the Case of the Cancelled Holiday,” unpublished paper presented to the Second UK Conference on Ethical Issues in Contemporary HRM, Kingston Business School.Google Scholar
Brewer, K. B. 1997. “Management as a Practice: A Response to MacIntrye,” Journal of Business Ethics, 16: 825833.Google Scholar
Collier, J. 1995. “The Virtuous Organisation,” Business Ethics—A European Review, 4 (3): 143149.Google Scholar
Collier, J. 1998. “Theorising the Ethical Organization,” Business Ethics Quarterly, 8 (4): 621654.Google Scholar
Dobson, J. 1996. “The Feminist Firm: A Comment,” Business Ethics Quarterly, 6 (2): 227232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobson, J. 1997. “MacIntyre’s Position on Business: A Response to Wicks,” Business Ethics Quarterly, 7 (4): 125132.Google Scholar
Griffin, J. and Mahon, J. 1997. “The Corporate Social Performance and Corporate Financial Performance Debate. Twenty-five Years of Incomparable Research,” Business and Society, 36 (1): 531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Himmelfarb, G. 1995. The De-moralization of Society. From Victorian Virtues to Modern Values (London: IEA).Google Scholar
Hopkins, G. M. 1953. Poems and Prose (London: Penguin Classics, 1988 reprint).Google Scholar
Jenkins, D. 2000. Market Whys and Human Wherefores. Thinking again about Markets, Politics and People (London: Cassell).Google Scholar
MacIntyre, A. 1985. After Virtue (London: Duckworth).Google Scholar
MacIntyre, A. 1988. Whose Justice, Which Rationality? (London: Duckworth).Google Scholar
MacIntyre, A. 1994. “A Partial Response to My Critics,” in After MacIntyre, eds. Horton, J and Mendus, S. (Cambridge: Polity Press), 283304.Google Scholar
MacIntyre, A. 1999. Dependent Rational Animals (London: Duckworth).Google Scholar
Maitland, I. 1997. “Virtuous Markets. The Market as School of the Virtues,” Business Ethics Quarterly, 7 (1): 1731.Google Scholar
Moore, G. 1993. “The Demise of Ethical Schizophrenia?Business Strategy Review, 4 (1): 5366.Google Scholar
Moore, G. 1997. “Corporate Character: The Application of Virtue Ethics to Business,” in Business Ethics: Principles and Practice, ed. Moore, G. (Sunderland: Business Education Publishers), 6180.Google Scholar
Moore, G. 1999. “Corporate Moral Agency: Review and Implications,” Journal of Business Ethics, 21: 329343.Google Scholar
Sennett, R. 1998. The Corrosion of Character. The Personal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism (New York: W.W. Norton & Company).Google Scholar
Shaw, B. 1995. “Virtues for a Post-modern World,” Business Ethics Quarterly, 5 (4): 843863.Google Scholar
Warren, R. 1996. “Business as a Community of Purpose,” Business Ethics—A European Review, 5 (2): 8796.Google Scholar
Wicks, A. C. 1997. “On MacIntyre, Modernity and the Virtues: A Response to Dosbon,” Business Ethics Quarterly, 7 (4): 133135.Google Scholar