Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-7f7b94f6bd-9g8ph Total loading time: 0.232 Render date: 2022-06-29T03:31:18.163Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Particularism for Generalists: A Rossian Business Ethic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 June 2021

J. Drake*
Affiliation:
Creighton University

Abstract

A standard framework for business ethics views the inquiry as an application of major ethical theories to specific issues in business. As these theories are largely presented as being principled, the exercise therefore becomes one of applying general principles to business situations. Many adopting this standard approach have thus resisted the implementation of the most prominent development in ethical theory in recent history: that of particularism. In this article, I argue that particularist thinking has much to offer to business ethics and that standard resistance to particularist business ethics is based largely on misunderstandings. I do so by illustrating how the harbinger of particularism, W. D. Ross, countenances the practical wisdom of particularist ethics while being 1) invulnerable to standard objections to particularist business ethics and 2) compatible with the generalism of the standard approach. The Rossian business ethic is therefore one that the standard approach should be eager to include.

Type
Special Issue
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Society for Business Ethics

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arnold, Denis G., Audi, Robert, and Zwolinski, Matt. 2010. “Recent Work in Ethical Theory and Its Implications for Business Ethics.” Business Ethics Quarterly 20 (4): 559–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Audi, Robert. 2001. “A Kantian Intuitionism.” Mind 110 (439): 601–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Audi, Robert. 2004. The Good in the Right: A Theory of Intuition and Intrinsic Value. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Audi, Robert. 2008. Business Ethics and Ethical Business. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bonevac, Daniel. 2016. “Defaulting on Reasons.” Nous 1 (1): 131.Google Scholar
Brink, David. 2018. “Mill’s Moral and Political Philosophy.” In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter ed., edited by Zalta, Edward N.. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill-moral-political/.Google Scholar
Carson, Thomas. 1993. “Second Thoughts about Bluffing.” Business Ethics Quarterly 3 (4): 317–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carson, Thomas. 2005. “The Morality of Bluffing: A Reply to Allhoff.” Journal of Business Ethics 56 (4): 399403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carson, Thomas. 2010. Lying and Deception: Theory and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dancy, Jonathan. 2004. Ethics without Principles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dancy, Jonathan. 2009. “Moral Particularism.” In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Spring ed., edited by Edward N. Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-particularism/.Google Scholar
Goodpaster, Kenneth E. 1991. “Business Ethics and Stakeholder Analysis.” Business Ethics Quarterly 1 (1): 5373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gustafson, Andrew. 2019. “Dancing with Dancy: Can Particularists Be Business Ethicists?” Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Heath, Joseph. 2006. “Business Ethics without Stakeholders.” Business Ethics Quarterly 16 (4): 533–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heath, Joseph. 2014. Morality, Competition, and the Firm: The Market Failures Approach to Business Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horty, John F. 2012. Reasons as Defaults. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaebnick, E. G. 2000. “On the Intersection of Casuistry and Particularism.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 10 (4): 307–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuczewski, M. G. 1997. Fragmentation and Consensus: Communitarian and Casuist Bioethics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Little, Margaret Olivia. 2000. “Moral Generalities Revisited.” In Moral Particularism, edited by Hooker, Brad and Little, Margaret Olivia, 276304. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lurie, Yotam, and Albin, Robert. 2007. “Moral Dilemmas in Business Ethics: From Decision Procedures to Edifying Perspectives.” Journal of Business Ethics 71 (2): 195207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moriarty, Jeffrey. 2017. “Business Ethics.” In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fall ed., edited by Edward N. Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-business/ Google Scholar
Plato, . 1997. Complete Works. Edited by Cooper, John M.. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
Ridge, Michael, and McKeever, Sean. 2005. “What Does Holism Have to Do with Particularism?Ratio 18 (1): 93103.Google Scholar
Ridge, Michael, and McKeever, Sean. 2006. Principled Ethics: Generalism as a Regulative Ideal. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ridge, Michael, and McKeever, Sean. 2016. “Moral Particularism and Moral Generalism.” In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter ed., edited by Edward N. Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-particularism-generalism/.Google Scholar
Ross, William David. (1930) 2009. The Right and the Good. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ross, William David. 1939. Foundations of Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ryle, Gilbert. 1949. The Concept of Mind. 60th anniversary ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Schneewind, J. B. 1970. “Moral Knowledge and Moral Principles.” In Knowledge and Necessity, edited by Vesey, G. N. A., 249–62. New York: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Jeffery, and Dubbink, Wim. 2011. “Understanding the Role of Moral Principles in Business Ethics: A Kantian Perspective.” Business Ethics Quarterly 21 (2): 205–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stratton-Lake, Philip. (2002) 2007. Introduction to The Right and the Good, edited by Stratton-Lake, Philip, ix–lviii. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stratton-Lake, Philip. 2016. “Intuitionism in Ethics.” In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter ed., edited by Edward N. Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intuitionism-ethics/.Google Scholar
Werhane, Patricia H. 1999. Moral Imagination and Management Decision Making. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Werhane, Patricia H. 2010. “Principles and Practices for Corporate Responsibility.” Business Ethics Quarterly 20 (4): 695701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Bernard. 1985. Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Particularism for Generalists: A Rossian Business Ethic
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Particularism for Generalists: A Rossian Business Ethic
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Particularism for Generalists: A Rossian Business Ethic
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *