Search

Most of us are convinced there is a difference between vice and virtue. The problem is analyzing this difference in useful detail. Some people believe the problem can be solved by looking to local cultures. Others argue that there is something universal about the difference. The debate between these two views is the subject of this paper. Topics of the paper include cultural relativism, ethical absolutism, ethical relativism, external and internal objections to ethical relativism, pluralistic relativism, and ethics in business. The author asserts that ethics is public by its very nature and Immanuel Kant is correct in positing that from the moral point of view, we are all in this together. The author believes that we are fortunate that there is much more moral agreement across the world than ethical relativism admits. He also believes that in these times, ethics can, at best, make changes at the margins; however, it is only at the margins that we can begin to remake the world as it ought to be.

In this paper, the author focuses on the work of two more recent thinkers, the eighteenth-century Scottish economist and philosopher, Adam Smith, and the later nineteenth-century English thinker, Herbert Spencer. The thinking of these two has influenced much of what today we take to be the relationship between economics and ethics. The author propounds that rereading Smith and Spencer forces us to question some traditional assumptions about democratic free enterprise. Such analyses help us to envision democratic capitalism not as a static well-defined system but rather has an evolving set of political economies where a particular prevailing view is not, and should not be, the sole model. Smith and Spencer suggest how free enterprise can work to create viable, fair, or democratic economic institutions that protect and even enhance human liberty.

To some extent, a nature-based concept of ethical-unethical workplace behavior competes with alternative explanations given by social, behavioral, and organizational scientists, and by philosophers. The former emphasize social, psychological, cultural, and organizational forces as the main determinants of normative behavior, while philosophers work to identify normative principles, rules, and concepts distilled from the long traditions of philosophical thought. The author believes that neither of these two scholarly approaches is immune from the influence of the other's preferred methods. In this paper, he explains the spillover into the business arena of a naturalist ethics approach that has had a long history in other areas of scholarly inquiry. The author observes that much more, pro and con, could be said about the prospects for an ethics grounded in nature. Ecologists have in a sense been pioneers and advocates of using the natural sciences, especially biology, to take normative positions regarding business operations. Topics discussed in this paper include the evolutionary background of naturalist business ethics, the role of genes, the hunter-gatherer mind, nature's moral sentiments, and nature in the workplace.

For the first fifty or so years of its life, business ethics has developed primarily along two lines of thought: the 'business and society' or 'social issues in management' line, and the 'business ethics' approach. Recently some scholars have adopted a different approach. In this paper, the authors aim to describe some features of this new approach and how it dovetails with some broader intellectual trends that go under politically charged names like 'postmodernism' and 'pragmatism.' The authors move from the broad notion of postmodernism as a response to the Enlightenment project (modernism) to the more specific instantiation of this postmodern response in the area of organization studies. They then suggest that postmodernism and pragmatism have both a deconstructive and a reconstructive task. They show how these tasks have been carried out by a number of scholars working in business ethics.

Classical American pragmatism offers a unique normative frame for rethinking several tenets of traditional theories of business ethics and which are proving to be problematic. In this paper, the author aims to provide a sketch of the way in which the normative frame offered by pragmatic philosophy provides viable new directions out of this quagmire. The author believes that new directions offered by pragmatic thinking involve inextricably intertwined pathways. New directions in business ethics are not going to be found in a forced choice between traditional alternatives but in a recognition of the way in which these traditional alternatives distort the very nature of the concrete reality they must ultimately service. This recognition requires a clear rejection of the modern world view with its separation of facts and values, instrumental goods and intrinsic goods, its atomic individualism and fascination with the products of quantification, its resulting understanding of growth as the quantifiable accumulation of individual things and, what underlies it all, its persistence in giving independent status to discriminable dimensions of concrete human existence, resulting in the need for us to engage, ceaselessly, in destructive choices among false alternatives or in the futile endeavor of trying to put together that which a long philosophical tradition has illicitly pulled asunder in the first place.

A serious question regarding capitalism is whether people who manage commerce and business may be trusted to use their own judgment concerning how to conduct themselves. This article argues that the libertarian economic philosophy of Milton Friedman is compatible with a different conception of the moral responsibility of corporations. The author propounds a position called 'classical individualism' and aims to show that it can address the issue of the social responsibility of corporations better than the one that Friedman defends. He concludes that it is always important to keep in mind that professional ethics depends mainly on constant vigilance, on sustained discretion and prudence, and on wisdom, rather than on certain set rules. Topics discussed in this paper include classical individualism, corporate responsibility, the question of the moral legitimacy of business, business ethics, professional versus social responsibilities, and ethics and choice. Some of the questions looked at include: Is racial discrimination in conducting trade, employment, and promotion morally wrong? What should advertisers do, or not do, in their endeavors to attract buyers to their products or services? Ought those in the financial professions to engage in insider trading? How should one deal with laws and customs when doing business abroad? Should employees be treated as subordinates or partners within a firm? Is it morally wrong to hire non-union employees when one's employees have gone on strike? Is nepotism always morally objectionable? Is there moral merit to any type of affirmative action?, and Is it always a form of morally objectionable bigotry to hire or fire on the basis of the prospective employee's beliefs, etc.?

Feminist theory includes a broad range of thinking about the roles and experiences of women; however, contemporary research in business ethics demonstrates little awareness of feminist theory. Two broad areas hold potential for the integration of business ethics and feminist theory: the articulation of ethical theory, and the research methodologies underlying ethical theory and practice. The use of feminist theory and research methods could significantly extend the scope of issues addressed and the depth of learning from research in the field of business ethics. In this paper, the following topics are discussed: feminist ethical theory, application of ethical theories, feminist research methods, and application of research methods. The author believes that feminist research methods hold the potential for greatly increased learning on the three levels of 'the person, the problem, and the method.' He concludes that if we are willing to explore beyond the positivist process, we may learn about ourselves and the research method as well as the problem under study. And, if we are willing to admit and discuss that learning in the context of our research presentations and publications, we will be doing the field a much greater service than if we merely write up the numerical or theoretical results of our research.

This chapter reviews the role of the ethical leader in an organization. An ethics quick quiz is a component of the chapter. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nonprofit activity rests on a foundation of public trust-a trust that the primary incentives in the nonprofit sector are neither profit nor power but rather voluntary action directed toward the public good. For this reason, ethics is central to the work of the nonprofit sector in a way in which it is not central for the for-profit or governmental sectors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Donor privacy includes the ethics of privacy, confidentiality, and the right of the individual to set limits on information and the dissemination of that information. Fundraisers and their organizations are expected to adhere to practices that protect the privacy of the donor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This chapter presents the ethical considerations for fundraisers in asking for the gift. Compliance with laws and regulations is also presented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The appearance of impropriety is often linked to a perceived or potential conflict of interest, which is a situation in which someone in a position of trust has competing professional or personal interests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This chapter presents the challenges of percentage-based compensation and the ethical issues involved in percentage-based pay. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

At the close of the twentieth century the ethical problems of work are not about particular incidents in the workplace, but fundamental questions about how people think about work and how the workplace is managed. Business ethics scholars need to examine some of the basic assumptions about the relationship between employers and employees and how work affects people's lives. The primary ethical questions about work are: Is work morally better today? and What does this question mean? To answer these, the author examines how business ethics texts cover work. Then she looks at the criticisms of management in the mid-twentieth century that foreshadow the problems that confront us about work and life at the beginning of the twenty-first century. She argues that work is not morally better today. While many companies try psychological and social interventions, moral action is stronger and longer lasting than therapeutic intervention. The challenge for business ethics in the twenty-first century is to examine the moral relationship of employers to employees critically, to design new approaches to management, based on ethical commitments, and to explore how work in corporations enhances--and deters--a person's ability to lead a good life.

In this article, the author aims to tell the inside story of business ethics in Europe in the last two decades of the century. In the process, the authors came across four questions: 1) Which target group or groups does business ethics in Europe envisage? 2) What exactly is the reception of the ethicists' endeavors among their academic peers, and what is it in the business world? 3) To what extent does the social and economic environment in Europe shape business ethics? and 4) Is it appropriate to present business ethics, first and foremost, as an academic discipline? The discussion of these questions lead to the tricky issues of 'Europe' as a shared experience and 'business ethics' as a social institution. The authors conclude that there is something like European business ethics in the traditional sense, but there is more. To elaborate business ethics at a specific level, we need conceptual instruments that, as yet, are only partly available. To determine which issues are in need of, and accessible to, moral coordination requires still a great deal of effort and cooperative exchange. To grasp the specificities of coordination issues and tradeoffs, attention should be given to what distinguishes the bearers of the European experience, and what unites them.

In this article, the authors trace the evolution and eventual intertwining of the fields of social responsibility and business ethics, interweaving historical and philosophical approaches in discussing the issues involved. Topics examined are corporate social responsibility; corporate social responsiveness; public policy; the development of business ethics; feminist theory, stakeholder theory, social contract theory, the natural origin of business values, and pragmatism. These new developments in business ethics are more directly related to business organizations themselves because they have largely been developed for this kind of application. With the exception of feminism and pragmatism, they are less ethical theories in general than ethical theories related specifically to business organizations and their specific problems. They, in different ways, address some or all of the problems associated with traditional theories of ethics that were utilized almost exclusively when the field of business ethics first developed as a field of study in its own right.

The approach to teaching ethics and law should set aside the academic and disciplinary boundaries that divide the fields, and focus on the ultimate objective: preparing students for responsible, fulfilling, and socially beneficial careers in business. There are, however, a number of barriers that stand in the way of this integrated approach. Some are institutional or political, but the focus of this article involves conceptual barriers: in particular, the barriers created by two different models of the relationship between law and ethics. The first model, according to the author, might be called the 'separate realms view'; the second, the 'congruence' or 'correspondence view.' This article examines these two views to see what is plausible, and implausible, about each and then sketches out a third alternative which is much truer to the situation as well as more useful for managers. The author concludes that the notion that law is a mere technicality or detail not worthy of serious attention, should be abandoned. An effective approach requires greater cooperation and teamwork among law and ethics professors, as well as faculty members trained in social psychology, management, political science, and economics.

The study of business ethics has been approached from two very different perspectives: a normative perspective and a social science perspective. The goals of these two perspectives are also quite different. The philosopher seeks to prescribe and to provide the tools that can be used to analyze and critique ethical behavior in business. The social scientist, on the other hand, seeks to describe actual behavior, and to uncover the factors that influence ethical and unethical conduct in business settings. Differences in training contribute to differences in the vocabulary members of these two groups use for talking about the phenomenon they study. The different vocabularies are linked to important underlying assumptions about human agency. Despite their common interest in morally significant business practice, the differences cited above remain a source of confusion and conflict. The author aims to differentiate the social science perspective from the normative perspective and then to focus on the important knowledge that has been gained from applying a social scientific approach to the study of business ethics.

The topic of ethics in management is a crucial one with which managers today must be informed. This article surveys some of the special topics about management ethics that may help the academic and practitioner alike to be more knowledgeable about this vital topic. The author provides an overview of the topic, and then discusses a number of important themes such as why managers should be ethical, ethical issues managers face, models of management morality, ethical decision making, and the manager's role in shaping the ethical climate of his or her organization. Polls indicate that the public does not have a high regard for business and management ethics. For the management community to change this situation, significant efforts are required. Part of the challenge is coming to understand what management ethics means, why it is important and how it should be integrated into decision making. One of the most formidable challenges is avoiding immoral management, and transitioning from an amoral to a moral management mode of leadership, behavior, decision making, policies and practices. Moral management requires managers to search out those vulnerable situations in which amorality may reign if careful, thoughtful reflection is not given by management. It also requires that managers understand, and be sensitive to, all the stakeholders of the organization and their stakes.

Business ethics as a philosophical discipline has developed with a pragmatic aim, but has done so mostly with an unpragmatic bent. The distinction between pragmatism's and utilitarianism's concerns for consequences leads to the final feature of the pragmatic attitude. The spirit of a pragmatic business ethics can be found neither in the simple revelling in experience suggested by Cavanagh nor in a formalized reading of pragmatism as a traditional consequentialist moral theory. The leading feature of the pragmatic attitude is a healthy dose of self-aversion: an active willingness to countenance a change in one's own beliefs. The author's suggestion is that this spirit can be found in bringing something like the pragmatic attitude to bear on the discourse of business ethics. He hopes that a focus on the pragmatic attitude opens an avenue for seeing business ethics as pragmatic not only in its general purpose, but in its detailed and ongoing practice.