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.     

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.     

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.     

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.).     

The “Modified Vendetta Sanction” as a method of corporate-collective punishment

Shannon Shipp argues for the Modified Vendetta Sanction as a method of corporate-collective punishment. He claims that this sanction evades the difficulties of Peter French's Hester Prynne Sanction. In this paper I argue that, though the Modified Vendetta Sanction evades the problems that Shipp poses for it, it fails to evade some of the difficulties that I pose for French's method. Moreover, there are some difficulties that plague the Modified Vendetta Sanction which do not count against the Hester Prynne Sanction. Therefore, if my analysis holds, then Shipp's method neither improves significantly on the Hester Prynne Sanction nor is unproblematic in its own right. The significance of this paper is that it foils yet another attempt by some corporate punishment theorists to establish the plausibility of a method of corporate-collective punishment. J. Angelo Corlett has authored papers on ethics, social/political philosophy, history of philosophy, value theory, epistemology and metaphysics. His papers appear in such journals as the Public Affairs Quarterly, the Journal of Business Ethics, Business & Professional Ethics Journal, the American Psychologist, Idealistic Studies, the American Philosophical Association Newsletter on Philosophy and Medicine. He is the editor of and contributor to two forthcoming books: Equality and Liberty: Analyzing Rawls and Nozick and Analyzing Marx: The Moral Assessment of Capitalist Exploitation.     

Epistemological and ethical considerations in conceptualizing and implementing human resource management

As an example of applied social science, the field of human resource management is used to show that ethical problems are not only those of carrying out research, of professional conduct, and of the distribution fairness of social science knowledge. A largely overlooked ethical issue is also the implicit choices that are made as an integral part of research and implementation. First, an analysis is undertaken of the implicit assumptions, values and goals that derive from the conception of human problems in work organizations as managing human resources. Secondly, it is argued that such a conception is in fact a socially constructed reality with real consequences and not a reflection of objective states of human and social nature with which we have to live. Thirdly, to the extent that our implicit assumptions are in part based upon conceptual choices that are made by individuals or as a collective act of a discipline or work organization, the development of an ethical framework that could guide such choices becomes a crucial challenge for business ethics.H. Peter Dachler currently holds the chair for organizational psychology at the University of St. Gall, Switzerland. He received his graduate training in industrial/organizational psychology at the University of Illinois at Urbana and subsequently taught in the Department of Psychology at the University of Maryland, College Park. He was a fellow for two years at the International Institute of Management in the Science Center, Berlin, and is on the editorial boards of various international and American scientific journals. He has published mainly in the areas of motivation, leadership, organization theory, and the theoretical and practical implications of a constructionist epistemology for employee assessment, participation and leadership. Georges Enderle is a senior lecturer for business ethics at the University of St. Gall, Switzerland. Since 1983 he has been Director of the Institute for Business Ethics. He is the author of Sicherung des Existenzminimums im nationalen und internationalen Kontext — eine wirtschaftsethische Studie [Securing the minimal standard of living in the national and international context: A business ethics perspective]. He has written various articles on business ethics.     

Corporate democracy and the rights of shareholders

Some have argued that because of weaknesses in corporate democracy, there is widespread abuse of shareholders' rights in American securities markets. I describe a number of horror stories that shareholders might tell to support this claim. Then I argue that despite appearances to the contrary, there is not widespread abuse of shareholders' rights in American securities markets. This is because (i) corporations, when doing things that look abusive, are generally violating neither the legal rights nor the charter rights of shareholders and (ii) shareholders — in their role as shareholders — have no other rights than these. William B. Irvine is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Wright State University. He is the author of The Ethics of Investing, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 6, no. 3.     

Is there any ethics in business ethics

It is argued, against Richard T. De George, that while clarification of concepts, implications, and presuppositions in business ethics largely relies on a neutral territory of reason, determination of what moral intuitions are correct depends on non-neutral ethical theories. The latter posit ethics in business to varying degrees. Thus while the Kantian and utilitarian ethical theories are, for De George, proper (philosophical) approaches to business ethics, they are as reliant on affirming and encouraging moral sentiments outside parameters of pure reason as theological approaches. And hence if theological approaches can make no unique contribution by virtue of relying on more than reason or experience alone, then philosophical approaches can make no distinctive contribution either. Either both are viable or neither are. Oscillation between the mutually dependent notions of business ethics and ethics in business obfuscates what the field of business ethics is and renders De George's position inadequate.Robert Trundle, Jr., received his Ph.D. at the University of Colorado, and is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Northern Kentucky University where he teaches Business Ethics. He has worked at such companies as Stearns-Roger and Rogerson-Hiller Corporation where he was a member of the Hazardous Materials Safety Committee.     

Ethics and the professional responsibility of lawyers

Applied ethics is sometimes understood on the engineering model: As engineers apply physics to human problems, so philosophers apply ethics to dilemmas of professional practice. It is argued that there is nothing in ethics comparable to physics. Using legal ethics as an example, it is suggested that political philosophy provides a better approach to understanding professional ethics. If, for example, the adversary system is a legitimate social institution, and if attorneys must adhere to certain principles in order for that institution to fulfill its purposes, then attorneys may be said to be subject to those ethical principles. Kenneth Kipnis is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. He is the author of Legal Ethics (Prentice-Hall, 1986), editor of several volumes on legal, social and political philosophy, and co-author of the Code of Ethical Conduct of the National Association for the Education of Young Children.     

Ethics in business education: Working toward a meaningful reciprocity

This paper outlines and argues against some criticisms of business ethics education. It maintains that these criticisms have been put forward due to a misunderstanding of the nature of business and/or ethics. Business ethics seeks a meaningful reciprocity among economic, social and moral concerns. This demands that business organizations autonomously develop ethical goals from within, which in turn demands a reciprocity between ethical theory and practical experience. Working toward such a reciprocity, the ultimate goal of business ethics education is a moral business point of view through which one can live with integrity and fulfillment.To everyone who proposes to have a good career, moral philosophy is indispensible. Cicero, De Officiis, 44BC W. Michael Hoffman is Chair and Professor in the Department of Philosophy and Director at the Center for Business Ethics, Bentley College, Waltham, MA. He has received the following Grants: Council for Philosophical Studies, NEH Fellow, NDEA Fellow, Matchette. His most important publications are: Kant's Theory of Freedom: A Metaphysical Inquiry (UPA, 1979); Proceedings of the National Conferences on Business Ethics, 5 volumes (1977–1984); Business Ethics (McGraw-Hill, 1984) and articles in Journal of Business Ethics, Idealistic Studies, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, Journal of Thought, The Journal for Critical Analysis, and The Southern Journal of Philosophy.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.     

Friedman fallacies

Milton Friedman's article, The Social Responsibility of Business Is To Increase Its Profits, owes its appeal to the rhetorical devices of simplicity, authority, and finality. More careful consideration reveals oversimplification and ambiguity that conceals empirical errors and logical fallacies. It is false that business does, or would, operate exclusively in economic terms, that managers concentrate obsessively on profitability, and that ethics can be marginalized. These errors reflect basic contradictions: an apolitical political base, altruistic agents of selfishness, and good deriving from greed. Colin Grant is a Professor in the Department of Religious Studies at Mount Allison University. He teaches an undergraduate course on The Ethics and Ethos of Business. His article Giving Ethics the Business appeared in JBE 7 (1988), pp. 489–495. Some of the journals in which he has published are: The Christian Century, The Dalhousie Review, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Modern Theology, Religious Studies, Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses, The Toronto Journal of Theology.     

Does your religion make a difference in your business ethics? The case of consolidated foods

While the literature in business ethics abounds with philosophical analyses, perspectives from religious thinkers are curiously underrepresented. What religious analysis has occured has often been moralistic in tone, more fit to the pulpit than the classroom or the boardroom. In the three essays that follow, presented originally at a panel at the Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Religion in 1989, ethicists from the Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Jewish traditions analyze a case study familiar to many who teach and research in business ethics — the Consolidated Foods Case. Each author shows how a particular religious tradition might react to the case. The authors show how insights from their traditions would affect corporation's moral deliberations about policy. Specific policy recommendations are offered to CEO John Bryan. Louke Siker recieved her Ph.D. in 1987. 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. James Donahue is an Associate Professor of Theological Ethics at Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. His research and publications focus on methodology in ethics, ethics and institutions, and ethics and the professions. He has published in Horizons, Religious Studies Review, Social Thought, Bioethics Books, and The Annual of the College Theology Society. Ronald M. Green is the John Phillips Professor of Religion in the Department of Religion, Dartmouth College. He also serves as Adjunct Professor of Business Ethics at Dartmouth's Amos Tuck School of Business Administration, where he is responsible for first and second year courses on business ethics. He has written many articles in theoretical and applied ethics. He is the author of three books, Population Growth and Justice (Scholars Press, 1975), Religious Reason (Oxford University Press, 1978) and Religion and Moral Reason (Oxford University Press, 1988). Professor Green is currently working, with Dr. Robbin Derry, on a textbook in business ethics entitled The Ethical Manager to be published by Macmillian.This is a summary of the Consolidated Foods Corporation Case # 382–158, Harvard Business School, 1982. It is used with the permission of its author, Kenneth E. Goodpaster.Author of A Protestant Response to the Consolidated Food Case.Author of A Catholic Response ...Author of A Jewish Response ...     

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.     

Managers,values, and executive decisions: An exploration of the role of gender,career stage,organizational level,function, and the importance of ethics,relationships and results in managerial decision-making

A study of 513 executives researched decisions involving ethics, relationships and results. Analyzing personal values, organization role and level, career stage, gender and sex role with decisions in ten scenarios produced conclusions about both the role of gender, subjective values, and the other study variables and about situational relativity, gender stereotypes, career stages, and future research opportunities. John H. Barnett is Associate Professor at the University of New Hampshire, has an extensive background in international business and management consulting, and is co-founder of the Circle for Executive Experential Development. His publications include: A Business Model of Enlightenment, (1985) JBE, Personal Values and Business Decisions, (1987); Strategic Management Concepts and Cases 1988; Strategic Management Text and Concepts, 1989 and Cases in Strategic Management, 1989.Marvin J. Karson is Professor of Business Statistics and James R. Carter Professor of Management at the University of New Hampshire. He was formerly Professor of Statistics at the University of Alabama. His work has been published in a number of professional journals.     

Ethics as an integrating force in management

Ethics will not become part of the management decision-making process until it ceases to be viewed as an add-on; first you decide, then you assess the decision ethically. This essay focuses on one ethical concept, the good or the valuable, and shows how to incorporate it in an ethically and economically effective decision process. We focus on this concept because it uncovers a key fault in strategic thinking and generates questions central to any complex decision.The concept of the valuable is used to distinguish goals and purposes. A goal is a more or less specific target toward which one aims. A purpose is a way of being or functioning viewed as valuable in itself.Purposes make values operational. We look at values through a set of questions derived from the concept of the valuable. One question probes the range of individuals relevant to a decision. Participatory and dialectical decision approaches are critiqued. A second question probes the standards of rationality implicit in management decisions.We conclude by responding to two objections. The first is that justice in decision-making is insufficiently considered. The second is that there is little reason to think that the proposals made here would work if implemented. Mark Pastin is Director of the Center for Private and Public Sector Ethics and Professor of Philosophy, Business, and Public Affairs at Arizona State University. He was formerly Associate Professor of Philosophy, Indiana University, and had visiting appointments at Wayne State University, the University of Michigan, Harvard University, and the University of Maryland. He has been a National Endowment for the Humanities Fellow and Research Fellow of the Center for Metropolitan Research of John Hopkins University. His most important publications are: Strategic Planning for Science, The Research System in the 1980s, ed. by John Logsdon (Franklin Institute Press, 1982), Ethics and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, Business Horizons (December 1980), The Multi-Perspectival Theory of Knowlegde, Midwest Studies in Philosophy: Volume V (University of Minnesota Press, 1980), and Meaning and Perception, Journal of Philosophy (October 1976).This began as a joint project with H. J. Zoffer of the University of Pittsburgh. We both were promoting the idea of integrating ethics in management decision-making, but were embarrassed that we had little to say about how to proceed. So we picked the ethical concept of the good and set to work. This final product is my responsibility, but it certainly profited from Zoffer's efforts. This paper was 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 impact of ethical ideology on modifiers of ethical decisions and suggested punishment for ethical infractions

The present study sought to determine the extent to which individuals' ethical ideologies, as measured by Forsyth's (1980) Ethics Position Questionnaire (EPQ), impacted the degree of punishment they advocated for differing ethical infractions, as well as their selection of non-ethics related variables that might be used to modify judgments of disciplinary action. The data revealed that individual ideology does impact both advocated punishment and choice of non-ethics related variables, but only in some measures. The data are discussed in terms of potential moderating variables that could be examined in future studies.Robert A. Giacalone is the author of over 40 management articles, as well as two books,Impression Management in the Organization andApplied Impression Management, and the Editor of a Special Issue of theJournal of Business Ethics on Behavioral Aspects of Business Ethics. In 1992, Sage Publications named him the Editor of the Sage Series in Business Ethics, a book series dedicated to ethics education for students and practitioners. Dr. Giacalone is currently Associate Professor of Management Systems at the E. Claiborne Robins School of Business, University of Richmond.Scott Fricker is currently a doctoral student in the social psychology program at the University of California-Santa Barbara. The research described herein reflects, in part, research done as a psychology undergraduate at the University of Richmond.Jon W. Beard is currently Assistant Professor of Management Systems in the E. Claiborne Robins School of Business at the University of Richmond. His work primarily concerns behavioral and organizational issues related to the management of technology. He is currently editing a book titledImpression Management and Information Technology for Greenwood Press.     

The ideology of social justice in economic justice for all

Although both the American Catholic bishops and their commentators seem to agree that the economics pastoral is capitalist, if anything, in its ideology, a careful reading of the pastoral shows that the principle of social justice implicit in it is actually socialist, indeed communist, in nature. The bishops arrived at such a principle because of their interpretation of the biblical sense of justice as entailing a preferential option for the poor. To justify this option on a rational basis, they developed a theory of social justice that may be summarized in the principle, familiar from Marx's writings, From each according to one's ability, to each according to one's needs. Whether or not the bishops intended such a convergence in principle, this development sets them at odds with the capitalist ideology of the United States. William E. Murnion, S.T.L. (Gregorian University, 1958), Ph.D. in Philosophy (Gregorian University, 1970), is Associate Professor of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Ramapo College of New Jersey, where he teaches an ethics course for the business school. Recent publications include The Logic of Learning, Foundations of Ethics, and Nuclear Violence: A Philosophical Framework for the Problem.     

Common knowledge of the second kind

Although most of us know that human beings cannot and should not be replaced by computers, we have great difficulties saying why this is so. This paradox is largely the result of institutionalizing several fundamental misconceptions as to the nature of both trustworthy objective and moral knowledge. Unless we transcend this paradox, we run the increasing risks of becoming very good at counting without being able to say what is worth counting and why. The degree to which this is occurring is the degree to which the computer revolution is already over — and the degree to which we human beings have lost.I think that Aristotle was profoundly right in holding that ethics is concerned with how to live and with human happiness, and also profoundly right in holding that this sort of knowledge (practical knowledge) is different from theoretical knowledge. A view of knowledge that acknowledges that the sphere of knowledge is wider than the sphere of science seems to me to be a cultural necessity if we are to arrive at a sane and human view of ourselves or of science. (Hilary Putnam, Meaning and the Moral Sciences, 1981) David A. Bella is Professor of Civil Engineering at the College of Engineering at Oregon State University. He received his B.S. in Civil Engineering from Virginia Military Institute (1961), his M.S. and his Ph.D. in Environmental Engineering from New York University. His primary research interest is in the philosophy and sociology of technology, technological impact assessment, and moral philosophy. His most important publications are Engineering and Erosion of Trust and Organizations and Systemic Distortion of Information, Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering (1987), and Strategic Defense: Catastrophic Loss of Control, Journal of Peace Research (1989). Jonathan B. King is Associate Professor of Management at the College of Business at Oregon State University. He received his B.A. in philosophy from Antioch College (1965) and his M.B.A. in Finance (1975) and Ph.D. in Business, Government and Society (1980) from the University of Washington. His primary research interests are in the areas of moral philosophy, the philosophy of science, and critical thinking. His most important publications are The Three Face of Thinking, Journal of Higher Education (1986), Prisoner's Paradoxes, Journal of Business Ethics (1988), and Confronting Chaos, Journal of Business Ethics (1989).     

A response to “On Measuring Ethical Judgments”

This article discusses the major criticisms posed in On Measuring Ethical Judgments concerning our ethics scale development work. We agree that the authors of the criticism do engage in what they accurately refer to as armchair theorizing. We point out the errors in their comments.Dr. R. Eric Reidenbach is Professor of Marketing at The University of Southern Mississippi. He is the coauthor of two books on business ethics and writes extensively on the subject of the measurement of ethical decision making.Dr. Donald P, Robin is Professor of Marketing and Professor of Business Ethics at The University of Southern Mississippi. He is coauthor of two books on business ethics, as well as numerous articles. Dr. Robin is also a frequent lecturer on the subject of business and marketing ethics.     

Ethics as excellence: A strategic management perspective

Confidence in Australian business was severely shaken by the corporate scandals and collapses of the 1980s. Many commentators called for more emphasis on ethics education. This paper surveys the initiatives of Australian business schools and professional bodies and finds them superficial and ineffective. It then presents a case study in Quality Improvement which highlights the need to take a strategic and integrated approach to the development of core values such as quality, trust, ethics and social responsibility. In exploring the process of cultural change, the paper identifies a number of key leadership roles, responsibilities and competencies which are distinguished from the more traditional management functions.John Milton-Smith has been Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Curtin Business School, since 1990. He is currently conducting the Australian Business Ethics Project, part of which is reported in this paper. His other research interests include The Strategic Management of Corporate Culture, Global Business Strategy and International Trade Diplomacy.