Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 86, Issue 4, pp 473–484 | Cite as

Business is not a Game: The Metaphoric Fallacy

Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Sport and game metaphors are ubiquitous in the culture and language of business. As evocative linguistic devices, such metaphors are morally neutral; however, if they are indicative of a deep structure of understanding that filters experience, then they have the potential to be ethically problematic. This article argues that there exists a danger for those who forget or confuse metaphor with definition: the metaphoric fallacy. Accordingly, business is like a game, but it is not the equivalent of a game. If business is equated to a game, then the potentially negative implications for ethical content and the application of ethical theories are numerous. This article suggests a fresh approach to issues of contemporary business ethics discourse, by attending to the business-as-game metaphor.

Keywords

ethical theories fallacies game metaphors language 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Applbaum, A. I.: 1998, Ethics for Adversaries: The Morality of Roles in Public and Professional Life (Princeton University Press, Priceton, NJ).Google Scholar
  2. Aristotle: 1994–2000 [350 bce], Poetics (trans: S. H. Butcher). http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/poetics.html, Section 3, Part XXI.
  3. Caillois, R. 2001, Man, Play and Games (trans: M. Barash). (University of Illinois Press, Urbana).Google Scholar
  4. Caputo, J.: 1993, Against Ethics(Indiana University Press, Bloomington).Google Scholar
  5. Carr, A.Z. (1968). Is Business Bluffing Ethical? Harvard Business Review, 46(1), 143–153.Google Scholar
  6. Ching, M.K.L. (1993). Games and Play: Pervasive Metaphors in American Life. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 8(1), 43–65. doi: 10.1207/s15327868ms0801_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen, B. and J. Greenfield: 1996, ‹Founder’s Letter’, in Ben & Jerry’s 1996 Annual Report.Google Scholar
  8. Dewey, J. 1927, The Public and Its Problems (Henry Hold and Co., New York).Google Scholar
  9. Donaldson, T. (2000). ‹Are Business Mangers “Professionals?”. Business Ethics Quarterly, 10(1), 83–94. doi: 10.2307/3857697 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T.W. (1994). Toward a Unified Conception of Business Ethics: Integrative Social Contracts Theory. Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 252–284. doi: 10.2307/258705 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Doyle, C. (1996). Why Markets Need Referees. Business Strategy Review, 7(4), 35–40. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8616.1996.tb00140.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Epictetus: 1998, The Discourses (ed. Christopher Gill, trans: Robin Hard) (Everyman, London).Google Scholar
  13. Goldman, A. 1980, The Moral Foundation of Professional Ethic (Rowman and Littlefield Totowa, NJ).Google Scholar
  14. Goodpaster, K.E. (2004). Ethics or Excellence? Conscience As A Check On The Unbalanced Pursuit of Organizational Goals. Ivey Business Journal, 68(4), 1–8.Google Scholar
  15. Heath, J. (2007). An Adversarial Ethic for Business: or When Sun-Tzu Met the Stakeholder. Journal of Business Ethics, 72(4), 359–374. doi: 10.1007/s10551-006-9175-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jenkins, W. (2005). The Pitch for a New Leadership Metaphor. Human Resource Planning, 28(1), 19–20.Google Scholar
  17. Johnson, M.: 1987, The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason (The University of Chicago Press, Chicago).Google Scholar
  18. Johnson, M.: 1993, Moral Imagination: Implications of Cognitive Science for Ethics (The University of Chicago Press, Chicago).Google Scholar
  19. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.1999, Philosophy In The Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought (Basic Books, New York).Google Scholar
  20. Machold, S., P. K. Ahmed and S. S. Farquhar: 2007, ‹Corporate Governance and Ethics’, Journal of Business Ethics 76(4)Google Scholar
  21. Moore, M.: 1989, Roger and Me [film].Google Scholar
  22. Moore, G. E.: 1903, Principia Ethica (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).Google Scholar
  23. Moulton, J. 1992, ‹A Paradigm of Philosophy: The Adversary Method’ in (eds) A. Garry and M. Pearsall, Women, Knowledge and Reality: Explorations In Feminist Philosophy. (Routledge, New York), pp. 5–20.Google Scholar
  24. Niebuhr, R.: 1932, Moral Man and Immoral Society(Scribners, New York).Google Scholar
  25. Noddings, N. 1984, Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education (University of California Press, Berkeley, Ca).Google Scholar
  26. Rigney, D. 2001, The Metaphorical Society: An Invitation to Social Theory (Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, Md).Google Scholar
  27. Solomon, R. (1999). Game Theory As A Model For Business and Business Ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 9(1), 11–29. doi: 10.2307/3857632 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stack, J., & Burlingham, B. 1994, The Great Game of Business (Currency, New York).Google Scholar
  29. Stern, J. (1985). Metaphor as Demonstrative. The Journal of Philosophy, 82(12), 677–710. doi: 10.2307/2026404 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tuana, N.: 1993, The Less Noble Sex: Scientific, Religious and Philosophical Conceptions of Women’s Nature (Indiana University Press, Bloomington).Google Scholar
  31. Wasserstrom, R. (1975). Lawyers as Professionals: Some Moral Considerations. Human Rights (Chicago, Ill.), 5(1), 105–128.Google Scholar
  32. Wittgenstein, L. 1953, Philosophical Investigations (Blackwell Publishers, New York).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Metropolitan State College of DenverDenverU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations