The Exaggerated Moral Claims of Evolutionary Psychologists

This article explores and examines some of the findings from the burgeoning field of evolutionary psychology. How important are these results to our understanding of morality and ethics? In addition, more specifically, how important are theses results to our understanding of business ethics? I believe that the jury is still out on these questions. This article: (1) summarizes some of the strengths of evolutionary psychology (of which there are several); (2) identifies specific findings and suggests that many of these findings are overstated and exaggerated; and (3) points out several methodological limitations and weaknesses. The article does not, in the end, recommend jettisoning evolutionary psychology. To the contrary, its point is that evolutionary psychology is a potentially useful method among many others to help us to better understand our “moral universe.” However, evolutionary psychology will never allow us to pierce through “the illusions that evolution and culture have saddled us with” as the psychologist Steven Pinker over-promises. This is true for the simple reason that science itself is both a product of evolution and a cultural practice. The aspiration of some evolutionary psychologists to transcend evolution (nature) and culture (nurture) through science is itself a dangerous illusion. Nevertheless, evolutionary psychology’s modest findings to date are a welcome contribution to anyone interested in making better and wiser ethical decisions, business or otherwise. The more knowledge we gain about our own brains and how they functions the better. These findings, however, should be subject to the same systematic scrutiny and healthy skepticism one would apply to any moral or ethical claim regardless of its origins. That is the purpose of this article.     

Seven Pillars of Business Ethics: Toward a Comprehensive Framework

This article first addresses the question of “why” we teach business ethics. Our answer to “why” provides both a response to those who oppose business ethics courses and a direction for course content. We believe a solid, comprehensive course in business ethics should address not only moral philosophy, ethical dilemmas, and corporate social responsibility – the traditional pillars of the disciple – but also additional areas necessary to make sense of the goings-on in the business world and in the news. These “new pillars,” that we advocate include moral psychology, organizational design and behavior, motivational theory, and a unit on how society, business, and law interact. This last unit builds upon the work of Francis P. McHugh (1988) who urged an integration of “disciplines related to business ethics.” Our seventh pillar would encompass an integration of law, socio-political theory, and policy to demonstrate how business helps construct its own regulatory framework. The concluding recommendation is for a comprehensive “Seven Pillars” of business ethics approach. William Arthur Wines holds a B.S.B.A. with distinction from Northwestern University and a J.D. from the University of Michigan. He is admitted to the practice of law in Minnesota and the State of Washington. His research has appeared in over three dozen journals including the American Business Law Journal, Arizona Law Review, Economics of Education Review, Delaware Journal of Corporate Law, Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, Journal of Business Ethics, Labor Law Journal, Marquette Law Review, Nebraska Law Review, and The William and Mary Journal of Women and the Law. He is the author of two volumes of readings in business ethics and “Ethics, Law, and Business”, published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. in 2006. This material is subject to various copyright laws. Please do not transmit electronically, quote, or copy without the prior written permission of the author.     

Moral theory and defective tobacco advertising and warnings (the business ethics of Cipollone v. Liggett Group)

Traditional moral theories help corporate decision-makers understand what position consumers, like Rose Cipollone, in Cipollone vs Liggett Group, will take against cigarette manufacturers who fail to warn of the dangers of smoking, conceal data about addiction and other dangers, from the public, as well as continue to neutralize the warnings on cigarettes by deceptive advertisements. John F. Quinn teaches philosophy and management at the University of Dayton. He did his doctoral studies at the University of Washington in philosophy and his legal doctorate at the University of Dayton. Recently new to business ethics, after years of teaching medieval philosophy and aesthetics, he brings a knowledge of business law and management to his work in business ethics. His book with J.M.B. Crawford on The Christian Foundations of Criminal Responsibility, an integration of medieval moral theology and the common law tradition of criminal responsibility, will soon be published by Mellon Press. He also practices law in Ohio in select corporate issues.     

Business Ethics and Moral Motivation: A Criminological Perspective

The prevalence of white-collar crime casts a long shadow over discussions in business ethics. One of the effects that has been the development of a strong emphasis upon questions of moral motivation within the field. Often in business ethics, there is no real dispute about the content of our moral obligations, the question is rather how to motivate people to respect them. This is a question that has been studied quite extensively by criminologists as well, yet their research has had little impact on the reflections of business ethicists. In this article, I attempt to show how a criminological perspective can help to illuminate some traditional questions in business ethics. I begin by explaining why criminologists reject three of the most popular folk theories of criminal motivation. I go on to discuss a more satisfactory theory, involving the so-called “techniques of neutralization,” and its implications for business ethics.

Universal Moral Values for Corporate Codes of Ethics

How can one establish if a corporate code of ethics is ethical in terms of its content? One important first step might be the establishment of core universal moral values by which corporate codes of ethics can be ethically constructed and evaluated. Following a review of normative research on corporate codes of ethics, a set of universal moral values is generated by considering three sources: (1) corporate codes of ethics; (2) global codes of ethics; and (3) the business ethics literature. Based on the convergence of the three sources of standards, six universal moral values for corporate codes of ethics are proposed including: (1) trustworthiness; (2) respect; (3) responsibility; (4) fairness; (5) caring; and (6) citizenship. Relying on the proposed set of universal moral values, implications are discussed as to what the content of corporate codes of ethics should consist of. The paper concludes with its limitations.     

What's So Special About a Special Ethics for Business?

In business ethics literature, debate over a special ethics generally has framed examination of the rules governing business. By constructing a dilemma faced by proponents of a special ethics, I argue that this framing is misguided. Proponents must adopt either an insular or a derivative conception. The former, the view that business is insulated from moral rules, is problematic because arguments used to support it force proponents to accept the idea that each aspect of life is insulated from moral rules. This idea, however, renders philosophically insignificant the claim that business has a special ethics. Proponents no longer make a claim about business, but, rather, a relativistic claim about ethics in general. The derivative conception is the view that business is a set of circumstances that bear on the application of moral rules. This, however, is true of each aspect of life, and is simply an application of the principle 'ought implies can'. The result is that there is nothing special about this sense of a special ethics. Despite lacking specialness, however, the derivative conception provides proper framing for examination of the rules governing business. It subjects business to moral rules, but, also, accounts for the challenging circumstances businesspersons face.     

The Influence of Perceived Importance of an Ethical Issue on Moral Judgment,Moral Obligation,and Moral Intent

The study extends and tests the issue contingent four-component model of ethical decision-making to include moral obligation. A web-based questionnaire was used to gauge the influence of perceived importance of an ethical issue on moral judgment and moral intent. Perceived importance of an ethical issue was found to be a predictor of moral judgment but not of moral intent as predicted. Moral obligation is suggested to be a process that occurs after a moral judgment is made and explained a significant portion of the variance in moral intent. Electronic supplementary material   The online version of this article (doi: ) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Russell Haines is an Assistant Professor of Information Technology at Old Dominion University. He received his B.S. and Master of Accountancy from Brigham Young University and his Ph.D. from The University of Houston. His research interests are in laboratory experiments, ethical decision- making, supply chain decision-making, and computer- mediated communication. Marc D. Street is an Assistant Professor of Management at Salisbury University in Salisbury, Maryland. He received his B.A. from the University of Maryland, College Park (1983); his MBA from the University of Baltimore (1993); and his Ph.D. from the Florida State University (1998). His primary research interests are in the areas of decision-making and business ethics. Dr. Street’s research has been published in journals such as Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Journal of Business Ethics, and the Journal of World Business, among others. Douglas Haines is Associate Professor of Marketing and Department Chair of the Department of Business in the College of Business and Economics at the University of Idaho. Before acquiring his Ph.D. at the University of Oregon, he worked for 15 years in various positions at the H.J. Heinz company including Vice President of the Weight Watchers Foods Division of Heinz USA. His research interests include decision making, particularly in the marketing channel context, inter firm relationships, and the development of the market for biodiesel and other alternative energy sources.     

Toward an Intermediate Position on Corporate Moral Personhood

Models of moral responsibility rely on foundational views about moral agency. Many scholars believe that only humans can be moral agents, and therefore business needs to create models that foster greater receptivity to others through ethical dialog. This view leads to a difficulty if no specific person is the sole causal agent for an act, or if something comes about through aggregated action in a corporate setting. An alternate approach suggests that corporations are moral agents sufficiently like humans to be treated as persons, which leads to questions of intentionality and the organizational structure required to support the claim. In this article, I make an intermediate claim combining Goodpaster and Matthews' (60:132–141, 1982) view that a corporation may have a moral culture which affects subjective choices, with those of Painter-Morland (17(3):515–534, 2007) who points out that we should move from a model that posits discrete persons acting on each other to one where morality comes about through shared experience between agents who participate in each other’s lives. I argue that the discussion has been trapped in traditional dichotomies, and is better served by language that more accurately represents the dynamic interplay between organization and individual. I underwrite this claim by looking at recent changes in British and American legal approaches to corporate responsibility. These provide greater incentives for owners and business leaders to encourage employees to discuss the reflexive nature of legal and moral responsibility in business, facilitate workers to voice their moral concerns, and create structures and processes that allow those concerns to be heard.     

Defining a Moral Problem in Business Ethics

Managing expectations in a business ethicscourse is important and a key place to begin iswith a definition of a moral problem. Untilrecently I would explain, using moral terms,good and bad, right and wrong, duty or obligation or theircognates, what a moral problem is generally andthen what it may be in business. However Ifound that using familiar terms with vague orambiguous meanings to define the subject matterof the course counterproductive. What Irequired is a means of explaining to thebeginning student what a moral problem iswithout relying on the prior associations andmeanings of the term moral that thestudent brings to the discussion. In recentyears I realized that what I wanted, as astarting point for the business ethics course,is a definition of moral problem thatdoes not use specifically moral terms i.e.good, bad, right, wrong, duty. For pedagogicalreasons, I wanted a definition that suppliesthe criteria for determining whether a givenproblem is a moral problem or not without usingcommon moral terms. This paper reviews thetreatment given to the concept of a moralproblem in a number of standard business ethicstexts and then presents a working definitionthat does not rely on the use of specificallymoral terms. The definition is then critiquedfor limitations and weaknesses.     

Value Creation,Management Competencies,and Global Corporate Citizenship: An Ordonomic Approach to Business Ethics in the Age of Globalization

This article develops an “ordonomic” approach to business ethics in the age of globalization. Through the use of a three-tiered conceptual framework that distinguishes between the basic game of antagonistic social cooperation, the meta game of rule-setting, and the meta-meta game of rule-finding discourse, we address three questions, the answers to which we believe are crucial to fostering effective business leadership and corporate social responsibility. First, the purpose of business in society is value creation. Companies have a social mandate to organize mutually advantageous cooperation. Second, business ethics should teach the management competencies necessary to fulfill business’s societal mandate. These competencies are optimization competence in the basic game of value creation, governance competence in the meta game of (political) rule setting, and the three discourse-related skills of orientation competence, reception competence, and communication competence necessary for engaging in the meta-meta game. Third, companies can help solve global problems through global corporate citizenship if they participate as political and moral actors in rule-setting processes and rule-finding discourse aimed at laying the foundation for value creation on a global scale.     

‘A Case for Including Business Ethics and the Humanities in Management Programs’

The idea underlying this article was that the humanities in general and business ethics in particular should be more firmly embedded in business management programs. A number of areas have been identified for students to use as topics for research projects in management ethics. These ranged from Biblical and classical times to the present day. Some were drawn from sources that were less well known e.g. the De consolatione philosphiae ‘The Consolation of Philosophy’ by Boethius 524 AD. This was chosen partly for its ethical content, but also because Boethius was magister officiorum i.e. head of the civil service. Aelfred the Great (849–899) King of Wessex (he who burnt those cakes) was chosen because he promoted the intellectual, moral and spiritual qualities that were to serve as guidelines for his executives. Nineteenth century literature (Dickens, Thackeray, Trollope and Galsworthy) was also chosen as a source of topics for research projects in business ethics. The writer acknowledges the work of earlier writers in the fields of management, organisation theory, and business ethics.     

For or Against Corporate Identity? Personification and the Problem of Moral Agency

This article explores the concept of corporate identity from a moral perspective. In it we argue that the reification and personification involved in attributing an identity to an organization has moral repercussions. Through a discussion of ‘intentionality’ we suggest that it is philosophically problematic to treat an abstraction of the corporation as possessing identity or acting as a conscious moral agent. The article moves to consider practical and ethical issues in the areas of organizational commitment, of health and safety, and corporate social responsibility, and finds that the notion of identity can be abused, although it will no doubt continue to be used as it does have some practical utility. In conclusion, we argue that despite being meaningless from a philosophical stance, the concept of corporate identity need not be discarded, however, it is far from benign and intense moral scrutiny is necessary wherever it is applied. Ian Ashman PhD is a senior lecturer in the HRM division of the Lancashire business School, University of Central Lancashire. He has recently authored a number of papers on business ethics, leadership and research methods, all of which draw upon his interest in philosophies of existential phenomenology. He is an executive member of European Business Ethics Network U.K. Professor Diana Winstanley PhD, FCIPD was Director of Postgraduate Programmes at Kingston Business School, Kingston University. She wrote over 50 articles and five books, including her latest, ‚Personal Effectiveness: A Guide to Action’ (2005, CIPD) and Ethical Issues in Contemporary Human Resource Development (2000, Macmillan). She was a trained humanistic counsellor and an executive member of European Business Ethics Network U.K. Her research interests were in the areas of workplace learning, development, diversity and business ethics. Sadly, Diana Winstanley, died last summer.     

Just Doing Business or Doing Just Business: Google,Microsoft, Yahoo! and the Business of Censoring China’s Internet

This paper addresses the criticism recently directed at Internet companies who have chosen to do business in China. Currently, in order to conduct business in China, companies must agree to the Chinese government’s rule of self-censoring any information the government deems inappropriate. We start by explaining how some of these companies have violated the human rights of Chinese citizens to freely trade information. We then analyze whether the justifications and excuses offered by these companies are sufficient to absolve them of moral responsibility. We argue that both justifications and excuses offered are insufficient. Wilfully abiding by unjust laws, albeit necessary to do business in China, should not trump moral actions that protect rights. “This is not something we did enthusiastically, or not something that we are proud of at all.”– Elliot Schrage answering questions from Congress regarding Google’s decision to censor its Internet searches in China Neil Haddow is currently finishing his PhD in philosophy at the University of Waterloo. His interests are moral and political philosophy at the theoretical and applied levels. He is the co-author of another paper forthcoming in The Journal of Business Ethics on age discrimination and automobile insurance. G. Elijah Dann presently lectures for the Department of Philosophy at the University of Toronto. He is author of After Rorty: The possibilities for ethics and religious belief (Continuum Press, 2006), and is editor of a forthcoming book on Christianity entitled, Leaving Fundamentalism (Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2007).     

Antitrust, Dynamic Competition, and Business Ethics

The American Antitrust Institute, a Washington, D.C. think tank, recently completed a study that concludes that competition law and policy plays little if any role in business ethics courses taught in U.S. business schools. To fill this intellectual void, this article makes a case for the development of a business ethics sub-field of antitrust ethics that is synonymous with the ethics of competitive strategy. After reviewing Paine's Five Principles of Positive Competition and Boatright's and Hendry's views on the Moral Manager Model and Moral Market Model, the need for ethical decision-making in a dynamic, innovative environment is explained through a Federal Trade Commission antitrust case involving the Dell Computer Corporation. The author argues that the contributions of Paine, Boatright, and Hendry provide an initial foundation for further research concerning the moral theories, principles, and rules pertaining to antitrust ethics, especially as it pertains to dynamic competition and "fair and competitive" executive behavior.     

Should Corporations Have the Right to Vote? A Paradox in the Theory of Corporate Moral Agency

In his 2007 Ethics article, “Responsibility Incorporated,” Philip Pettit argued that corporations qualify as morally responsible agents because they possess autonomy, normative judgment, and the capacity for self-control. Although there is ongoing debate over whether corporations have these capacities, both proponents and opponents of corporate moral agency appear to agree that Pettit correctly identified the requirements for moral agency. In this article, I do not take issue with either the claim that autonomy, normative judgment, and self-control are the requirements for moral agency or the claim that corporations possess them. I claim that if both of these claims are correct, then corporate moral agency entails that, in a liberal democracy, corporations should have the right to vote. I show that under the conception of democracy supported by most liberal political theorists, all parties subject to the law are entitled to the right to vote, and all parties that possess autonomy, normative judgment, and self-control are subject to the law. Therefore, if the proponents of corporate moral agency are correct, then corporations satisfy the requirements for the right to vote. I then consider potential objections to this argument. I show that the strongest objection to the corporate right to vote is undermined by Pettit’s own argument for corporate autonomy. I then show that objections derived from other arguments for limiting the rights of corporations are equally unavailing. I conclude with some observations about the implications of my argument for the question of corporate speech rights.     

Can there be a social contract with business?

Professor Donaldson in his book Corporations and Morality has attempted to use a social contract theory to develop moral principles for regulating corporate conduct. I argue in this paper that his attempt fails in large measure because what he refers to as a social contract theory is, in fact, a weak functionalist theory which provides no independent basis for evaluating business corporations. I further argue that given the nature of a morality based on contract and the nature of the modern corporation, it is highly unlikely that any plausible contract theory of business ethics can be developed.Dr. Hodapp is an associate professor of philosophy at The University of Northern Colorado where he teaches courses in business ethics and legal philosophy. He earned a doctorate at Washington University, St. Louis. Dr. Hodapp also has a law degree from The University of Denver and practices law with a Denver law firm specializing in management labor relations.     

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.     

Infotainment and the Moral Obligations of the Multimedia Conglomerate

When the Federal Communications Commission considered revamping its policies, many political activists argued that media conglomerates had failed to meet their duties to protect freedom of speech. Moveon’s dispute with CBS over its proposed Superbowl advertisement and Michael Moore’s quarrel over distribution of his documentary, Fahrenheit 911, are cases in point. In matters of pure entertainment, the public expect companies to avoid offensive programming. The press, on the other hand, may well be forced to offend some audience members in order to create a viable forum for political dissent. As journalism and entertainment are increasingly inter-linked, an in depth moral analysis of the media corporation and its obligations becomes increasingly important. I explore Kantian, Utilitarian, and Rawlsian analyses of corporate obligation in the aforementioned cases. I then examine whether or not these results suggest anything more generally about the sorts of mission statements and ethical policies that ought to be endorsed by media conglomerates and whether non-business institutions also require changes. Ultimately, I suggest that at a minimum, media institutions should view the duty to promote the representation of diverse views in a democracy as an imperfect moral and civic duty rather than making programming decisions solely by reference to profit. Ideally, greater access to media access should not be increased for the most powerful unless doing so at the same time increases free speech opportunities for those who currently have the least access.     

Moral Luck and Business Ethics

Moral luck – which seems to appear when circumstances beyond a person’s control influence our moral attributions of praise and blame – is troubling in that modern moral theory has supposed morality to be immune to luck. In business, moral luck commonly influences our moral judgments, many of which have economic consequences that cannot be reversed. The possibility that the chance intervention of luck could influence the way in which we assign moral accountability in business ethics is unsettling. This paper argues that if we cannot explain moral luck away, we should give consideration to moral risk in our moral judgments and the associated assignment of economic rewards regarding episodes in which moral luck plays a role.     

Ethics Programs, Perceived Corporate Social Responsibility and Job Satisfaction

Companies offer ethics codes and training to increase employees’ ethical conduct. These programs can also enhance individual work attitudes because ethical organizations are typically valued. Socially responsible companies are likely viewed as ethical organizations and should therefore prompt similar employee job responses. Using survey information collected from 313 business professionals, this exploratory study proposed that perceived corporate social responsibility would mediate the positive relationships between ethics codes/training and job satisfaction. Results indicated that corporate social responsibility fully or partially mediated the positive associations between four ethics program variables and individual job satisfaction, suggesting that companies might better manage employees’ ethical perceptions and work attitudes with multiple policies, an approach endorsed in the ethics literature. Sean Valentine (D.B.A., Louisiana Tech University) is an Associate Professor of Management in the college of Business at the University of Wyoming. His teaching and research interests include business ethics, organizational behavior, and human resource management. He has published in journals such as Behavioral Research in Accounting, Journal of Business Research, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, and Journal of Business Ethics. Gary Fleischman (Ph.D., Texas Tech University) is an Associate Professor and is the McGee Hearne and Paiz Faculty Scholar in Accounting at the University of Wyoming. His teaching expertise is in accounting and entrepreneurship and his research interests are in business ethics and behavioral business research. He has published in journals such as Behavioral Research in Accounting, The International Journal of Accounting and Journal of Business Ethics.