v2n7: Hasnas Responds to Wolcott on Business Ethics Education

“The Principles Approach Is a Big Tent Approach” by John Hasnas

A RESPONSE TO Gregory Wolcott (2014), “Business Ethics and Ideals”Bus Ethics J Rev 2(6): 36–41.

Abstract: In his Commentary on my Principles Approach, Gregory Wolcott (2014) worries that the approach leaves no room for ethical theory and decries the tendency of business school faculty to derive ethical conclusions from legal standards. However, the Principles Approach is, by design, open to supplementation by ethical theory and has the virtue of providing a basis for making ethical assessments of legal standards.

To download the full PDF, click here: Hasnas Responds to Wolcott.


v2n6: Wolcott on Hasnas on Teaching Business Ethics

“Business Ethics and Ideals” by Gregory Wolcott

A COMMENTARY ON John Hasnas (2013), “Teaching Business Ethics: The Principles Approach”J Bus Ethics Ed 10: 275–304.

Abstract: John Hasnas (2013) argues for a “Principles Approach” to supplant normative theory and casuistry in business ethics pedagogy. This Commentary argues some normative theory ought still to have some place in business ethics education and that the problems Hasnas sees in business ethics pedagogy only tell half the story.

To download the full PDF, click here: Wolcott on Hasnas.


v2n5: Beabout Responds to Sinnicks on the Essence of Management

“Once More On Re-Conceiving Management as a Domain-Relative Practice:
A Response to Sinnicks” by Gregory Beabout

A RESPONSE TO Sinnicks (2014), “Mastery of One’s Domain Is Not the Essence of Management”Bus Ethics J Rev 2(2): 8–14.

Abstract: Matthew Sinnicks has attempted to cast doubt on my efforts to extend MacIntyre’s virtue ethics with regard to re-conceiving management as a domain-relative practice. However, rather than weakening my argument, his objections provide an opportunity to clarify a key distinction, address several misunderstandings, respond to criticisms, rectify misrepresenta- tions, and show again that MacIntyre’s virtue ethics provides a fertile framework for re-casting issues of management and business ethics, including a transformed understanding of management as a domain- relative practice.

To download the full PDF, click here: Beabout Responds to Sinnicks.


v2n4: Norman Responds to Martin on the ‘Point’ of Markets

“Is there ‘a Point’ to Markets? A Response to Martin,” by Wayne Norman

A RESPONSE TO Dominic Martin (2013), “The Unification Challenge”Bus Ethics J Rev 1(5): 28–35.

Abstract: Dominic Martin attributes to me and other adherents of the market-failures approach to business ethics a narrow account of justification, focused solely on economic efficiency. On the contrary, I argue the appeal to efficiency and market failure is best seen as a pragmatic, Rawlsian, strategy to find common ground and a shared vocabulary for business ethicists who have long been Balkanized by overly ideological “theories.” So understood, the market-failures approach is not the reductivist program Martin portrays it to be. Efficiency and the taming of market failures should be seen as one of many grounds (albeit usually the most important) for both regulatory and beyond-compliance norms for business in a capitalist democracy.

To download the full PDF, click here: Norman Responds to Martin.


v2n3: Koehn on Dierksmeier’s Kantian Virtue Ethics

“Kantian Virtue Ethics in the Context of Business: How Practically Useful Can It Be?” by Daryl Koehn

A COMMENT ON Claus Dierksmeier (2013), “Kant On Virtue,” J Bus Ethics 113: 597–609.
Abstract: Claus Dierksmeier admirably combats the misperception that Kant is a deontologist with no regard for virtue. Dierksmeier contends Kant offers a theory of virtue that can contribute in significant ways to advancing the analysis of, e.g., stakeholder theory and internal compliance programs. His plea that business ethicists should view Kant as a resource for thinking more widely and deeply about virtue seems eminently sensible. However, there are grounds for questioning whether a Kantian approach will be of much help in thinking through the ethics of real world business practices.

To download the full PDF, click here: Koehn on Dierksmeier.


v2n2: Sinnicks on Beabout

“Mastery of One’s Domain Is Not the Essence of Management” by Matthew Sinnicks

A COMMENT ON Gregory Beabout (2012), “Management as a Domain-Relative Practice that Requires and Develops Practical Wisdom,” Bus Ethics Q 22(2): 405–432

Abstract: I attempt to cast doubt on Beabout’s attempt to build on MacIntyre’s ethical theory by accounting for management as a ‘domain-relative’ practice for three reasons: i) we can partially engage in practices, so if management can be accounted a practice there is no need to invoke domain-relativity; ii) management does not seem to be domain-relative in the same way that other examples of domain-relative practices might be; and iii) practical wisdom, which Beabout sees as key to management as a domain-relative practice, is adequately covered by MacIntyre’s account of politics.

To download the full PDF, click here: Sinnicks on Beabout.


v2n1: Cohen Responds to Ohreen on Empathy in Business Ethics Education

“Empathy in Business Ethics Education Redux,” by Marc A. Cohen

A RESPONSE TO David Ohreen (2013), “The Limits of Empathy in Business Ethics Education”Bus Ethics J Rev 1(18): 113–119.

Abstract: My original paper (Cohen 2012) argued that business ethics education should focus on cultivating empathetic concern. This response clarifies terminology used in that paper and responds to criticisms presented by David Ohreen (2013).

To download the full PDF, click here: Cohen Responds to Ohreen.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 51 other followers