Material incentives and Kantian optimisation: John E. Roemer on ‘left-right’ economics

Abstract

John Roemer has argued in favour of rehabilitating Kanitanism as an antidote to the kind of utilitarian incentivisation theories associated with neoliberal economics. This article asks whether the ethical thought of Kant is in fact fit for purpose. Placing Kant in dialogue with other contemporary enlightenment thinkers, it also questions whether ‘solidarist’ social theories solve the problems Roemer associates with their ‘selfish’ competitors, and indeed whether the two approaches can be so neatly distinguished.     

In Defence of Principles? A Response to Lurie and Albin

This article presents a response to a recent article by Yotam Lurie and Robert Albin in which they discuss and present the merits of casuistry as a method for resolving moral dilemmas in business, principally by developing ‹edifying’ perspectives on the situation, and in doing so highlight the shortcomings of principles (such as the categorical imperative) in generating insights and thereby moral choices. The present article accepts the importance of cases and examples as a source of insight, but argues that the process of conceptualisation involved in understanding these necessarily involves some reference to principles. However, principles and cases are best seen as complementary to the ethical decision-making process rather than in opposition. The complementary functions of these are highlighted in processes such as reflection upon experience, in applications of moral imagination and in the integration of emotive and cognitive elements in ethical choice.     

Shareholders and Social Responsibility

The article presents an analysis and critique of Milton Friedman’s argument that the social responsibility of business is merely to increase its profits. The analysis uncovers a central claim that Friedman implies, but does not explicitly defend, namely that the shareholders of a corporation have no duty to direct that corporation’s management to exercise social responsibility. An argument against this claim is then advanced by way of a convergence strategy, whereby multiple influential moral approaches are shown to align themselves against Friedman. The convergence strategy shows that Friedman’s position lies on the lonely fringes of Western moral thought, and that at least some of Friedman’s professed adherents appear to offer incoherent moral views. The convergence strategy is shown to suggest, but not entail, a stakeholder model of the corporation. The article concludes by considering two objections.