The Principle of Moral Projection: A reply to Professor Ranken

This article responds to two criticisms by Professor Nani Ranken of the Principle of Moral Projection in business ethics. In the process it enlarges upon our understanding of the moral agenda of management and the corporation as a participant in ethical transactions. Kenneth E. Goodpaster is Associate Professor at the Graduate School of Business Administration at Harvard University. He has published articles in a wide variety of journals, including the Journal of Philosophy, Ethics, Environmental Ethics, the Journal of Business Ethics, Thought, and the Harvard Business Review. He has also edited or authored five books: Perspectives on Morality: Essays of William Frankena (1976) Ethics and Problems of the 21st Century (1979) Regulation, Values and the Public Interest (1980) Ethics in Management (1984) and Policies and Persons: A Casebook in Business Ethics (1985). Work in progress includes a monograph on management and moral philosophy (1987).     

Integrating ethics into the business school curriculum

A project on teaching business ethics at The Wharton School concluded that ethics should be directly incorporated into key MBA courses and taught by the core business faculty. The project team, comprised of students, ethics faculty and functional business faculty, designed a model program for integrating ethics. The project was funded by the Exxon Education Foundation.The program originates with a general introduction designed to familiarize students with literature and concepts pertaining to professional and business ethics and corporate social responsibility. This may be accomplished through orientation sessions, readings, packages, short classes and lectures.The key segment of the plan is to have ethics modules developed and systematically integrated throughout key business courses. In the project experiment, sample modules were developed for courses in introductory marketing, introductory management, corporate finance and business policy.The modules are designed to respond to the concerns of functional business faculty that they cannot be sufficiently authoritative in teaching ethics and that inserting coverage of ethics will displace critically important topics in their already crowded courses. On the other hand, the functional instructors found that, once encouraged, students were very willing to discuss ethical issues and that their sophistication increased throughout the course. Thomas W. Dunfee is the Kolodny Professor of Social Responsibility at The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Author of numerous textbooks (Random House, Prentice-Hall, John Wiley), he teaches courses on business ethics and commercial law. He has published numerous articles in law reviews and business periodicals and has consulted to many corporations, government agencies and law firms. Currently President-Elect of the American Business Law Association, he is a former editor-in-chief of the American Business Law Journal. Diana C. Robertson is a Senior Fellow in Business Ethics in the Department of Legal Studies at The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. Her publications in business ethics include Corporate Restructuring and Employee Interests: The Tin Parachute, The Ethics of Organizational Transformation: Mergers, Takeovers and Corporate Restructuring, Quorum Books, 1988, Why Superimposing Ethics on the Corporation Won't Work, Corporate University Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1, July 1988, 18–23, and Work-Related Ethical Attitudes: Impact on Business Profitability with Thomas W. Dunfee, Business and Professional Ethics Journal, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Winter 1984), 25–40.     

Assessing the application of cognitive moral development theory to business ethics

Cognitive moral development (CMD) theory has been accepted as a construct to help explain business ethics, social responsibility and other organizational phenomena. This article critically assesses CMD as a construct in business ethics by presenting the history and criticisms of CMD. The value of CMD is evaluated and problems with using CMD as one predictor of ethical decisions are addressed. Researchers are made aware of the major criticisms of CMD theory including disguised value judgments, invariance of stages, and gender bias in the initial scale development. Implications for business ethics research are discussed and opportunities for future research delineated.John Fraedrich is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at Southern Illinois University of Carbondale. His areas of interest include ethical decision making and international marketing. He has published inJournal of Macromarketing, Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, Journal of Business Research, Journal of Marketing Management, International Journal of Value Based Management, andJournal of International Consumer Marketing. Dr. Fraedrich is co-author of a textbookBusiness Ethics: Ethical Decision Making and Cases, Second Edition.Debbie M. Thorne is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at the University of Tampa. Her areas of interest include business ethics, social network analysis, and cultural issues in organizations. She received a Ph.D. in 1993 and has published in theJournal of Teaching in International Business and numerous conference proceedings.O. C. Ferrell is Interim Dean and Distinguished Professor of Marketing and Business Ethics in the Fogelman College of Business and Economics at Memphis State University. Dr. Ferrell was chairman of the American Marketing Association Ethics Committee that developed the current AMA Code of Ethics. He has published articles on business ethics in theJournal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of Business Research, Journal of Macromarketing, Human Relations, Journal of Business Ethics, as well as others. He has co-authored ten textbooks includingBusiness Ethics: Ethical Decision Making and Cases, Second Edition, and a tradebook,In Pursuit of Ethics.     

The individual investor in securities markets: An ethical analysis

In this paper we consider whether one type of individual investor, which we call at risk investors, should be denied access to securities markets to prevent them from suffering serious financial harm. We consider one kind of paternalistic justification for prohibiting at risk investors from participating in securities markets, and argue that it is not successful. We then argue that restricting access to markets is justified in some circumstances to protect the rights of at risk investors. We conclude with some suggestions about how this might be done.Robert E. Frederick is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Bentley College and Assistant Director of the Center for Business Ethics. Before coming to Bentley College he worked at a large financial institution for nine years, where he was Vice President for Administrative Services. Dr. Frederick has authored or co-authored over fifteen articles and has co-edited four books. He has consulted on business ethics for several major corporations. W. Michael Hoffman is the founding Director of the Center for Business Ethics, and Professor and Chair of the Department of Philosophy at Bentley College, Waltham, MA. He was President of the Society for Business Ethics in 1989. He has authored or edited ten books, including Business Ethics: Readings and Cases in Corporate Morality (McGraw-Hill, 1984; 1990) and published over thirty articles. He has consulted on business ethics for many major corporations and institutions of higher learning, and he serves on the board of several journals.     

When two ‘wrongs’ make a right: An essay on business ethics

Sometimes two wrongs do make a right. That is, others' violations of moral rules may make it permissible for one to also violate these rules, to avoid being unfairly disadvantaged. This claim, originally advanced by Hobbes, is applied to three cases in business. It is suggested that the claim is one source of scepticism concerning business ethics. I argue, however, that the conditions under which business competitors' violations of moral rules would render one's own violations permissible are quite restricted. Hence, the observation that two wrongs may make a right does not give people a broad warrant for ignoring moral standards in their business activities. Gregory S. Kavka is Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Irvine. He was awarded a NEH Fellowship for Independent Study and Research, 1982–83. His most important publication is: Some Paradoxes of Deterrence, Journal of Philosophy (June 1978).My work on this paper was partly supported by a University of California, Irvine Summer Faculty Research Fellowship. I am grateful to the University of Virginia for use of its library facilities, and to Mike W. Martin, Rick O'Neil, a referee for the Journal of Business Ethics, and participants at the Society for Business Ethics meeting at the Pacific Division APA convention in March 1982, for helpful comments on earlier drafts.     

Fair markets

The paper challenges a minimalist strategy in business ethics that maintains if it's legal, it's moral. In hard cases, judges decide legal issues by appealing to moral ideals. Investigation shows that the bedrock concept is fairness. Often judges define fairness in terms of non-coerciveness or equality of bargaining power. The prudent manager must look beyond the legal department to the ethical notion of fairness. Moreover, if the courts were to consistently appeal to non-coerciveness and equality of bargaining power, some practices now considered morally acceptable would be neither moral nor legal. Norman E. Bowie is Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Center for the Study of Values at the University of Delaware. He is the author of numerous articles on business ethics and social and political philosophy and of Business Ethics, Making Ethical Decisions (ed.), The Tradition of Philosophy (co-ed.), and Ethical Theory and Business (co-ed.).     

A quick justification for business ethics

The article examines the question of whether business ethics courses ought to have an impact. Despite the still common attitude among students and some business professionals that ethical considerations are less pressing in business, I argue that moral obligations are just as important there as elsewhere. The emphasis on profits in business is related to other realms (e.g., hobbies and seeking and education) in which, though private goals are dominant, moral limits remain in force. Business ethics courses can play a crucial role in emphasizing the necessity of ethical analysis in business. Louis G. Lombardi is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the Lake Forest College and the author of Inherent Worth, Respect, and Rights in Environmental Ethics.     

Profit: Some moral reflections

The issues of profit, its moral meaning, justification and role, need careful examination. Mistakes to be avoided in making moral sense of profit include the assumption that profitability establishes a company's moral rectitude. Profit is too complex a phenomenon to establish any such thing. Steps toward clarifying these issues include distinguishing profit as the goal of the corporation from the larger goals of the economy itself, and clarifying what we mean by profit. Profit often includes the moral or value consideration of having been rightly or fairly earned. This provides one starting point internal to business for formulating standards for business ethics. Paul F. Camenisch (B.A., Centre College of Kentucky; B.D., Yale University Divinity School; Ph.D., Religion, Princeton University) is professor of Religious Studies, DePaul University, Chicago. His writing and research currently focus in applied areas such as business, medical and professional ethics. His articles have appeared in such journals as Hastings Center Report, Journal of Religious Ethics, Business and Professional Ethics Journal, Soundings, Listening, and Linacre Quarterly. His book, Grounding Professional Ethics in a Pluralistic Society, was published by Haven Publications in 1983.     

Schefflerian ethics and corporate social responsibility

This paper examines some of the essential features of Samuel Scheffler's hybrid theory of ethics. Scheffler posits and defends a moral theory which is intended to be neither act-consequentialist nor fully agent-centered. Instead, it provides an agent-centered analysis of moral thinking: one that, unlike consequentialist theories, respects the personal integrity of the moral agent. In this paper I shall do the following: (1) Sketch some of the general points of Scheffler's proposal; (2) Apply Scheffler's ethical theory to the matter of corporate social responsibility; and (3) Raise some objections to this Schefflerian corporate social responsibility theory, along with some modifications of this hybrid theory of corporate social responsibility which are intended to evade such criticisms.The significance of this paper is that it shows that Scheffler's quite innovative ethical theory is problematic as a foundation for a theory of corporate social responsibility. J. Angelo Corlett is a research fellow in philosophy at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He has published philosophy papers in the Journal of Business Ethics, Business & Professional Ethics Journal, Public Affairs Quarterly, and the American Psychologist among other journals. His areas of interest include Social/Political Philosophy, Ethics and Value Theory. He is currently working on a book entitled Liberty and Equality: Analyzing Nozick and Rawls.     

Bribery,consent and prima facie duty: A rejoinder to Carson

Responding to my paper Bribery Tom Carson argues that bribe takers violate promisory obligations in a wider range of cases than I acknowledge and insists that bribe taking is prima facie wrong in all contexts. I argue that he is wrong on both counts. Michael Philips is a Professor of Philosophy at Portland State University. Recent papers by him have appeared in the Canadian Journal of Philosophy, Ethics, Philosophical Studies, Nous, Law and Philosophy, The Journal of Business Ethics, and several other journals. He is currently at work an a book in moral theory.     

Correlation of gender-related values of independence and relationship and leadership orientation

This study compares the relationship between the moral reasoning modes and leadership orientation of males versus females, and managers versus engineers/scientists. A questionnaire developed by Worthley (1987) was used to measure the degree of each participant's respective independence and justice, and relationships and caring moral reasoning modes. Leadership orientation values and attitudes were measured using the Fiedler and Chemers (1984) Least Preferred Coworker Scale.The results suggest that, although males differ from female in their dominant moral reasoning modes, managers are not distinguishable from the engineers/scientists they manage in terms of their moral reasoning mode or Least Preferred Coworker score.Clarence E. Butz is a Professor of Management in the School of Business and Management at Azusa Pacific University, California. Dr. Butz's teaching areas include general management, organizational behavior, and business ethics. Phillip V. Lewis is Dean of the School of Business and Management at Azusa Pacific University. He is the author of Organizational Communication (Gorsuch Scarisbrich, 1996) and Bank Ethics: An Exploratory Study of Ethical Behaviors and Perceptions in Small, Local Banks (Journal of Business Ethics, 11: 197–205, 1992).     

Toward the development of a multidimensional scale for improving evaluations of Business Ethics

This study represents an improvement in the ethics scales inventory published in a 1988 Journal of Business Ethics article. The article presents the distillation and validation process whereby the original 33 item inventory was reduced to eight items. These eight items comprise the following ethical dimensions: a moral equity dimension, a relativism dimension, and a contractualism dimension. The multidimensional ethics scale demonstrates significant predictive ability.Dr Reidenbach is the Director of the Center for Business Development and Research and Professor of Marketing at the University of Southern Mississippi. He is the co-author of two books on business ethics and has contributed numerous articles on ethics to various academic and applied business journals. Dr Donald P. Robin, Professor of Business Ethics and Professor of Marketing, is co-author with Dr R. Eric Reidenbach of two recent books (1989) on business ethics. Both books, Business Ethics: Where Profits Meet Value Systems and Ethics and Profits: A Convergence of Corporate America's Economic and Social Responsibilities were published by Prentice-Hall. Dr Robin is a frequent lecturer on business ethics and has written several articles on the subject for both ethics and business journals.     

Thoughts on ‘management-think’

In this paper I briefly summarize Pastin's views on the problem of good business thinking (GBT) and the solution (Perspectival Analysis) which he offers. In discussing Pastin's solution I offer a number criticisms which call for further elucidation on Pastin's part. Specifically, I challenge his vagueness on which perspectives a manager must consider, the manner in which the moral components of these perspectives are to be evaluated, and whether Pastin is not in the end committed simply to an economic account of GBT. Finally, I contend that Pastin's account of GBT errors in being too intellectualistic and too individualistic. George G. Brenkert is Associate Professor at the University of Tennessee. His most important publications are Privacy, Polygraphs, and Work in Business and Professional Ethics Journal 1, No. 1 1981; Strict Products Liability and Compensatory Justice, in Business Ethics: Readings and Cases in Corporate Morality, edited by W. Michael Hoffman and Jennifer Mills Moore (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1984); and Marx's Ethics of Freedom (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1983).     

An empirical examination of three machiavellian concepts: Advertisers vs. the general public

This paper examines the perceived ethics of advertisers and the general public relative to three ethical concepts. Based on the survey findings, it can be concluded that with regard to the ethically-laden concepts of manipulation, exploitation, and deviousness, advertisers are perceptually as ethical as the general public. The research also clarifies some of the differences between ethics and Machiavellianism.John P. Fraedrich is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. Dr. Fraedrich's teaching and research interests are primarily in the areas of business ethics, international channels, strategy, and theory. His recently completed dissertation was entitled Philosophy Type Interaction in the Ethical Decision Making Process of Retailers. O. C. Ferrell is the Distinguished Professor of Marketing and Business Ethics in the Fogelman College of Business and Economics at Memphis State University. Dr. Ferrell is the author of articles in the Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of Business Research, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Journal of Advertising, Journal of Risk and Insurance, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Journal of Health Care Marketing, as well as others. He is co-author of Marketing: Concepts and Strategies, 6th ed., Marketing Strategy and Plans, 3rd ed., and Business. William M. Pride is a Professor of Marketing at Texas A&M University. Dr. Pride's teaching and research interests are primarily in the areas of consumer behavior, promotion, and advertising. He has written several books and has published numerous articles in a variety of journals including the Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of Retailing, and the Journal of Advertising.     

Management and ethical decision-making

Every human activity has its characteristic features, the general tendencies that are often difficult to perceive for those engaged in the activity. Such general tendencies are of special concern to those managing in such activities, whether one is coaching soccer or running a corporation, for only with knowledge of such tendencies can one engage in intelligent managing and, more important, intelligent moral action. For the activity of business is not value-neutral, and if one is to manage morally in business, one must come to understand its general tendencies insofar as they affect values. Wade L. Robison is Associate Professor at Kalamazoo College, Department of Philosophy. He was formerly Assistant Professor at Ohio State University and Instructor at the University of Wisconsin. He has been Ford Area Foundation Fellow and NEH Fellow. He has been Editor of three books, Profits and Professions: Essays in Business and Professional Ethics (with J. Ellin and M. Pritichard), Medical Responsibility: Autonomy, Informed Consent, and Euthanasia (with M. Pritchard), and McGill Hume Studies (with N. Capaldi and D. Norton); author of eight articles on David Hume, including David Hume: Naturalist and Meta-sceptic, in Hume: A Re-evaluation, ed. J. King and D. Livingston and Hume's Sceptisism, Dialogue (Spring 1973).Paper presented at the 16th Conference on Value Inquiry, entitled: Ethics and the Market Place: An Exercise in Bridge-Building or On the Slopes of the Interface.     

The Significance of Gender in Predicting the Cognitive Moral Development of Business Practitioners Using the Sociomoral Reflection Objective Measure

This study constitutes a contribution to the discussion about moral reasoning in business. Kohlberg’s (1971, in Cognitive Development and Epistemology (Academic Press, New York), 1976, in Moral Development and Behavior: Theory and Research and Social Issues (Holt, Rienhart and Winston, New York)) cognitive moral development (CMD) theory is one explanation of moral reasoning. One unresolved debate on the topic of CMD is the charge that Kohlbergian-type CMD theory is gender biased. This research puts forth the proposal that the issue may be elucidated by exposing an ambiguity in “gender” (Borna and White: 2003, Journal of Business Ethics 47, 89–99; Gentile: 1993, Psychological Science 4(2), 120–122; Unger: 1979, American Psychologist 34(11), 1085–1094). We use the Sociomoral Reflective Objective Measure (SROM) to measure CMD and the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) to measure gender as a psychosocial concept, rather than as a biological classification. The results of our study indicate that high femininity, measured as a psychosocial attribute, is associated with significantly lower Kohlbergian-type CMD scores among business practitioners. Sex moderates the effect of gender on CMD, but only indirectly. Our research also reveals that education plays a significant moderating role in the relationship between gender and moral reasoning. In addition, age has a significant direct effect on CMD scores of business practitioners. Beverly Kracher is an Associate Professor of Business Ethics & Society in the College of Business Administration at Creighton University. Her research areas include moral reasoning in business, e-commerece ethics & online trust, business ethics pedagogy, and business & the environment. Her research appears in Journal of Business Ethics, Business Ethics Quarterly, Business & Society, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Teaching Business Ethics, Interdisciplinary Environmental Review and more. Robert P. Marble is an Associate Professor of Decision Sciences in the College of Business Administration at Creighton University. His research is in the areas of information systems implementation, artificial intelligence, and statistical modeling of business processes. He has published in such journals as the European Journal of Information Systems and Information & Management.     

Internationalizing the business ethics curriculum: A survey

This article reports on a telephone survey of business school faculty in the United Kingdom, Asia and North America concerning efforts to internationalize the teaching of business ethics. International dimensions of business ethics are currently given only limited coverage in the business school curriculum with over half of the faculty surveyed indicating that less then 10% of their ethics teaching focuses on global issues. Teaching objectives vary widely with some faculty emphasizing a relativistic, diversity oriented perspective while others stress the universality of values. The respondents identified a great need to develop teaching materials based upon non-U.S. corporations and/or non-U.S. incidents.Christopher J. Cowton is University Lecturer in Management Studies at the University of Oxford and a Fellow of Templeton College. An author on many facets of management, his previous paper in theJournal of Business Ethics was on corporate philanthropy in the United Kingdom. Current research interests include the implications of just-in-time production for accounting, and ethical (or socially responsible) investment.Thomas W. Dunfee is the Kolodny Professor of Social Responsibility at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. He was President of the American Business Law Association 1989–1990, served as Editor-in-Chief of theAmerican Business Law Journal 1975–1977 and is a member of the Executive Committee of the Society for Business Ethics. He has published articles in theAcademy of Management Review, Business Ethics Quarterly, theBusiness and Professional Ethics Journal, and theJournal of Social Philosophy in addition to a variety of business and legal journals.     

Ethics and the organizational person: Revisiting DeGeorge

In this paper I review the dispute over DeGeorge's analysis of the issue of the ethical responsibilities of engineers in large organizations. I argue that this issue is no different than the question of the ethical responsibilities of any other relevantly situated employee because engineers have no special duty to hold paramount the safety of the public distinct from that of others. I demonstrate how critics like Mankin, James, and Curd and May have misread and misinterpreted DeGeorge's position and his argument. I then identify a serious logical problem in DeGeorge, unnoticed by critics, but conclude by defending the spirit of DeGeorge's approach. That spirit recognizes the limitations of attempting to provide necessary and sufficient conditions in response to many questions in applied philosophy. John R. Danley is Associate Professor in the Department of Philosophical Studies at Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville. His Liberalism, Aboriginal Rights and Cultural Minorities, has recently appeared in Philosophy & Public Affairs (1991). Polestar Refined: Business Ethics and Political Economy has recently appeared in Journal of Business Ethics (1991). Other articles have appeared in the following journals: Mind, Philosophical Studies, The Southwestern Journal of Philosophy, Business and Professional Ethics, Journal of Negro Education, and Journal of Business Ethics. Articles have also appeared in Action Theory and The Ethics of Organizational Transformation, and elsewhere.     

Rational interaction for moral sensitivity: A postmodern approach to moral decision-making in business

Moral dissensus is a distinct feature of our time. This is not only true of our post-modern culture in general, but also of business culture specifically. In this paper I start by explaining how modernist rationality has produced moral dissensus without offering any hope of bringing an end to it in the foreseeable future. Opting for a form of post-modernist rationality as the only viable way of dealing with moral dissensus, I then make an analysis of a number of ways proposed by both specialists in the field of business ethics, as well as philosophers to deal with moral decision-making in this situation of moral dissensus. The conclusion reached is that none of these attempts succeeds in coming to terms with moral dissensus. I then formulate an alternative approach to moral decision-making which I call: Rational interaction for moral sensitivity. After explaining this approach, I defend it against some of the most obvious objections that might be raised against it in a business environment.

相似文献   

Christ and business: A typology for Christian business ethics

H. Richard Niebuhr's typology of the relation between Christ and culture can function as a heuristic device to identify different approaches to Christian business ethics. Five types are outlined: Christ Against Business, The Christ of Business, Christ Above Business, Christ and Business in Paradox, and Christ the Transformer of Business. This typology may facilitate discussion on the relative adequacy of various theological assumptions about ethical change in business. Louke Siker received her Ph.D. in Religion and Society from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1987 (dissertation: Interpreting Corporate Cultures: Philosophical and Theological Reasons for Doing Business Ethics in a Hermeneutical Mode). She has taught Christian ethics and business ethics at Wake Forest University and Loyola Marymount University. Her research interests include methodology in business ethics. She is the author of An Unlikely Dialogue: Barth and Business Ethicists on Human Work, Annual of the Society of Christian Ethics, 1989.