Abstract
The notion that the firm, and economic activity in general, is inherently amoral is a central feature of positive economics that is also widely accepted in business ethics. Theories as disparate as stockholder and stakeholder theory both leave this central assumption unchallenged. Each theory argues for a different set of external ethical restrictions, but neither adequately provides an internal connection between business and the ethical rules business people are obliged to follow. This paper attempts to make this connection by arguing that the purpose of business is to produce a good or service for trade. Trade involves both a respect for individual autonomy and property rights and squarely places moral norms internal to the practice of business. Trade is not a contingent activity of business, it is a practice rule which also provides the common sense boundary between business and charity on the one hand, and crime on the other. Business and those who engage in it are, from the internal point of view, bound by the purpose of trade and not just the laws of the land.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Robert M. Axelrod (1985) The Evolution of Cooperation Basic Books New York
Paul Camenisch (1991) ArticleTitle‘Marketing Ethics: Some Dimensions of the Challenge’ Journal of Business Ethics 10 245–248 Occurrence Handle10.1007/BF00382961
Coase, R. H.: 1988, ‘The Nature of the Firm’, in The Firm the Market and the Law(Chicago: University of Chicago Press), pp. 33–55
Dowie, Mark: 1977, Pinto Madness, Mother Jones, vol. 2, no. 8 (September/October 1977)
Dunfee, Thomas W. and Donaldson, Thomas: 2002, ‘Social Contract Approaches to Business Ethics’, in A Companion to Business Ethics (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.), pp. 38–55
Ronald F. Duska (1997) ArticleTitle‘The Why’s of Business Revisited’ Journal of Business Ethics 16 1401–1409 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1005731008313
R. Edward Freeman Robert A. Phillips (2002) ArticleTitle‘Stakeholder Theory: a Libertarian Defense’ Business Ethics Quarterly 12 IssueID3 331–349
Freeman, R. Edward: 1997, ‘A Stakeholder Theory of the Modern Corporation’: in Tom Beauchamp and Norman Bowie, Ethical Theory and Business, 5th edition, (Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall)
Friedman, Milton: 1970, ‘The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profits,’ New York Times Magazine, September 13
Milton Friedman (1982) Capitalism and Freedom The University of Chicago Press Chicago
H. L. A. Hart (1961) The Concept of Law Clarendon Press Oxford
Friedrich Hayek (1990) Law Legislation and Liberty: Rules and Order NumberInSeries1 University of Chicage Press Chicago
Hume, David.: 1978, A Treatise of Human Nature, edited by L.A. Selby-Bigge, 2d ed. Revised by P.H. Nidditch Oxford
Saul Kripke (1982) Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language Harvard University Press Cambridge
Duncan Luce Howard Raiffa (1957) Games and Decisions: Introduction and Criticle Survey Dove Publications, Inc. New York
Robert Nozick (1974) Anarchy, State, and Utopia Basic Books Inc. New York
John Rawls (1955) ArticleTitle‘Two Concepts of Rules’ Philosophical Review 64 3–32
Williams, Bernard: 1981, ‘Internal and External Reasons’ in Moral Luck (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kline, W. ‘Business Ethics from the Internal Point of View’. J Bus Ethics 64, 57–67 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-005-4666-3
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-005-4666-3