Advertisement

Philosophy of Management

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 135–149 | Cite as

Economic Rationality and a Moral Science of Business Ethics

  • Duane WindsorEmail author
Article

Abstract

This article examines the relationship between economic rationality and the possibility of a moral science of business ethics. The purpose of this inquiry is to consider whether a universal and non-controversial moral science of business ethics can be defined satisfactorily, and linked to economic rationality of managers and other stakeholders of firms operating in market economies. Economic rationality connotes economic efficiency, meaning a strictly instrumental maximization of actor utility from limited resources. This rationality is a universal and value free (or value neutral) axiom: actors should and generally will be rationally efficient. Utilitarianism accepting aggregation across values is the moral framework associated with market exchange. Business ethics is about normative valuation of motives, actions, and consequences. This article argues that the common foundation across relevant ethical frameworks – moral common sense, Kantianism, virtue theory, religion as a belief system, and utilitarianism – is a first or axiomatic principle of no harm without acceptable justification. A moral science of business ethics proceeds from this no harm axiom.

Keywords

Business ethics Economic efficiency Economic rationality Moral psychology Moral science 

References

  1. Arrow, K.J. 1987. Economic theory and the hypothesis of rationality. In The New Palgrave: A dictionary of economics (first edition).Google Scholar
  2. Atkinson, A.B. 2009. Economics as a moral science. Economica New Series 76(Supplement 1: Robbins’s Essay at 75): 791–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Backhouse, R.E., and S.G. Medema. 2009. Defining economics: The long road to acceptance of the Robbins definition. Economica 76(302): 805–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Banfield, E.C. 1958. The moral basis of a backward society. Glencoe: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  5. Barnett, M.L., and R.M. Salomon. 2012. Does it pay to be really good? Addressing the shape of the relationship between social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal 33(11): 1304–1320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baron, D.P. 2010. Morally-motivated self-regulation. American Economic Review 100(4): 1299–1329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baumol, W.J. 1976. Smith vs. Marx on business morality and the social interest. American Economist 20(2): 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bazerman, M.H., and F. Gino. 2012. Behavioral ethics: Toward a deeper understanding of moral judgment and dishonesty. Annual Review of Law and the Social Sciences 8: 85–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bazerman, M.H., and J.D. Greene. 2010. In favor of clear thinking: Incorporating moral rules into a wise cost-benefit analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science 5(2): 209–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bazerman, M.H., and A.E. Tenbrunsel. 2011. Ethical breakdowns: Good people often let bad things happen. Why? Harvard Business Review 89(4): 58–65.Google Scholar
  11. Becker, G.S. 1976a. Altruism, egoism, and genetic fitness: Economics and sociobiology. Journal of Economic Literature 14(3): 817–826.Google Scholar
  12. Becker, G.S. 1976b. The economic approach to human behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Berkowitz, M.W. 1997. The complete moral person: Anatomy and formation. In Moral issues in psychology: Personalist contributions to selected problems, ed. J.M. DuBois, 11–41. Lanham: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  14. Berkowitz, M.W. 2002. The science of character development. In Bringing in a new era in character education, ed. W. Damon, 43–63. Stanford: Hoover Institution Press.Google Scholar
  15. Berkowitz, M.W., and M.C. Bier. 2004. Research-based character education. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 591(1): 72–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Boulding, K.E. 1969. Economics as a moral science. American Economic Review 59(1): 1–12.Google Scholar
  17. Brekke, K.A., S. Kverndokk, and K. Nyborg. 2003. An economic model of moral motivation. Journal of Public Economics 87(9–10): 1967–1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Brown, J.A., and W.R. Forster. 2013. CSR and stakeholder theory: A tale of Adam Smith. Journal of Business Ethics 112(2): 301–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chen, M.K., V. Lakshminarayanan, and L.R. Santos. 2006. How basic are behavioral biases? Evidence from capuchin monkey trading behavior. Journal of Political Economy 114(3): 517–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Coase, R.H. 1960. The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics 3: 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Coase, R.H. 1976. Adam Smith’s view of man. Journal of Law and Economics 19(3): 529–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Donaldson, T. 2011. The inescapability of a minimal version of normative stakeholder theory. In Stakeholder theory: Impact and prospects, ed. R. Phillips, 30–39. Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  23. Donaldson, T., and T.W. Dunfee. 1994. Toward a unified conception of business ethics: Integrative social contracts theory. Academy of Management Review 19(2): 252–284.Google Scholar
  24. Donaldson, T., and T.W. Dunfee. 1995. Integrative social contracts theory: A communitarian conception of economic ethics. Economics and Philosophy 11(1): 85–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Donaldson, T., and T.W. Dunfee. 1999. Ties that bind: A social contracts approach to business ethics. Boston: Harvard University Business School Press.Google Scholar
  26. Dunfee, T.W. 2000. Corporate governance in a market with morality. Duke Law Review 62(3): 129–157.Google Scholar
  27. Elhauge, E. 2005. Sacrificing corporate profits in the public interest. New York University Law Review 80(3): 733–869.Google Scholar
  28. Frankena, W.K. 1974. Sidgwick and the dualism of practical reason. The Monist 58(3): 449–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Friedman, M. 1953 (1970). The methodology of positive economics. In Essays in positive economics: 3–43. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  30. Friedman, M. 1970. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine.Google Scholar
  31. Gardner, H. 2007. The ethical mind: A conversation with psychologist Howard Gardner. Harvard Business Review 85(3): 51–56. 142.Google Scholar
  32. Gardner, H., M. Csikszentmihalyi, and W. Damon. 2001. Good work: When excellence and ethics meet. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  33. Gauthier, D. 1986. Morals by agreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Gentile, M.C. 2012. Giving voice to values: How to speak your mind when you know what’s right. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Gert, B. 2011. The definition of morality. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
  36. Ghoshal, S. 2005. Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education 4(1): 75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ghoshal, S., and C.A. Bartlett. 1997. A new moral contract: Companies as value-creating institutions. In The individualized corporation: A fundamentally new approach to management – great companies are defined by purpose, process, and people: Ch. 10, 273–299. New York: Harper Business.Google Scholar
  38. Gino, F., L.L. Shu, and M.H. Bazerman. 2010. Nameless + Harmless = Blameless: When seemingly irrelevant factors influence judgment of (un)ethical behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 111(2): 102–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Goodpaster, K.E. 1983. Ethical frameworks for management. Harvard Business School 9: 384–105.Google Scholar
  40. Goodpaster, K.E. 1984. Some avenues for ethical analysis in general management. Harvard Business School 9: 383–007.Google Scholar
  41. Graham, J.R., C.R. Harvey, and S. Rajgopal. 2005. The economic implications of corporate financial reporting. Journal of Accounting and Economics 40(1–3): 3–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Gruchy, A.G. 1949. J. M. Keynes’ conception of economic science. Southern Economic Journal 15(3): 249–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Guerrera, F. 2009. Welch condemns share price focus. Financial Times. Google Scholar
  44. Hartman, E.M. 2015. Rationality in management theory and practice: An Aristotelian perspective. Philosophy of Management 14(1): 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Heilbroner, R.L. 1953. The worldly philosophers: The lives, times, and ideas of the great economic thinkers. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  46. Hill, L., and S. Wetlaufer. 1998. Leadership when there is no one to ask: An interview with Eni’s Franco Bernabè. Harvard Business Review 76(4): 81–94.Google Scholar
  47. Howard, H., P. Lorange, and J. Sheth. 2013. The business school in the twenty-first century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Howson, S. 2004. The origins of Lionel Robbins’s essay on the nature and significance of economic science. History of Political Economy 36(3): 413–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hutt, W.H. 1936. Economists and the public: A study of competition and opinion. London: Jonathan Cape.Google Scholar
  50. Hutt, W.H. 1940. The concept of consumers’ sovereignty. The Economic Journal 50(197): 66–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Jensen, M.C. 2002. Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly 12(2): 235–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kanter, R. 2005. What theories do audiences want? Exploring the demand side. Academy of Management Learning & Education 4(1): 93–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Knight, F. H. 1922. Ethics and the economic interpretation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 22: 454–481. Reprinted in F. H. Knight, The Ethics of Competition and Other Essays: 19–40. New York: Harper & Brothers 1935.Google Scholar
  54. Knight, F. H. 1923. The ethics of competition. Quarterly Journal of Economics 37: 579–624. Reprinted in F. H. Knight, The ethics of competition and other essays: 41–75. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1935.Google Scholar
  55. Lad, L.J., and C.B. Caldwell. 2009. Collaborative standards, voluntary codes and industry self-regulation. Journal of Corporate Citizenship 35(Fall): 67–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. London, J. 1904. The sea-wolf. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  57. Macey, J.R. 2008. A close read of an excellent commentary on Dodge v. Ford. Virginia Law & Business Review 3(1): 177–190.Google Scholar
  58. McLeod, O. 2000. What is Sidgwick’s dualism of practical reason? Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 81(3): 273–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Miller, R.A. 1974. Are familists amoral? A test of Banfield’s amoral familism hypothesis in a South Italian village. American Ethnologist 1(3): 515–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Morris, T.V. 1997. If Aristotle ran general motors: The new soul of business. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
  61. Nussbaum, M. C. 1999. Judging other cultures: The case of genital mutilation. In Sex and social justice: 118–129. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Paganelli, M.P. 2008. The Adam Smith problem in reverse: Self-interest in The Wealth of Nations and The Theory of Moral Sentiments. History of Political Economy 40(2): 365–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Paganelli, M.P. 2010. The moralizing role of distance in Adam Smith: The Theory of Moral Sentiments as possible praise of commerce. History of Political Economy 42(3): 425–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Persky, J. 1993. Retrospectives: Consumer sovereignty. Journal of Economic Perspectives 7(1): 183–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Piper, T., M.C. Gentile, and S.D. Parks. 1993. Can ethics be taught? Perspectives, challenges, and approaches at Harvard Business School. Boston: Harvard Business School.Google Scholar
  66. Posner, R.A. 2009. A failure of capitalism: The crisis of’08 and the descent into depression. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Rabin, M. 1995. Moral preferences, moral constraints, and self-serving biases. Berkeley: Department of Economics, University of California.Google Scholar
  68. Robbins, L. 1932. An essay on the nature and significance of economic science. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  69. Ross, S.A., R.W. Westerfield, and J. Jaffe. 2002. Corporate finance, 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.Google Scholar
  70. Sachdeva, S., R. Illiev, and D.L. Medin. 2009. Sinning saints and saintly sinners: The paradox of moral self-regulation. Psychological Science 20(4): 523–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Shiffrin, S.V. 1999. Moral overridingness and moral subjectivism. Ethics 109(4): 772–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Simon, H.A. 1992. Altruism and economics. Eastern Economic Journal 18(1): 73–83.Google Scholar
  73. Skapinker, M. 2005. It is time to knock shareholder value off its pedestal. Financial Times, Business Life: 16.Google Scholar
  74. Smith, C. 2014. Review of Jack Russell Weinstein’s Adam Smith’s pluralism: rationality, education, and the moral sentiments. New Haven : Yale University Press, 2013. Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics 7(2): 162–169. http://ejpe.org/pdf/7-2-br-4.pdf
  75. Sonenshein, S. 2007. The role of construction, intuition, and justification in responding to ethical issues at work: The sensemaking-intuition model. Academy of Management Review 32(4): 1022–1040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Spinoza, B. 1677. Ethics, demonstrated in geometrical order (Ethica, ordine geometrico demonstrata).Google Scholar
  77. Stout, L.A. 2008. Why we should stop teaching Dodge v. Ford. Virginia Law & Business Review 3(1): 164–176.Google Scholar
  78. Strine Jr., L.E. 2012. Our continuing struggle with the idea that for-profit corporations seek profit. Wake Forest Law Review 47: 135–172.Google Scholar
  79. Strine Jr., L.E. 2014. Making it easier for directors to “do the right thing? Harvard Business Law Review 4(2): 235–253.Google Scholar
  80. Teuke, M. R. 2004. Teach the right thing: Debating the place of ethics in the business curriculum. Continental: 57–59.Google Scholar
  81. Thomas, H., P. Lorange, and J. Sheth. 2013. The business school in the twenty-first century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  82. Vanberg, V. J. 2006. Rationality, rule-following and emotions: On the economics of moral preferences. http://www.indiana.edu/~workshop/colloquia/materials/papers/vanberg_paper.pdf
  83. Vanberg, V. J. 2012. Rational choice, preferences over actions and rule-following behavior. In Philosophy of economics, eds. U. Mäki, D.M. Gabbay, P. Thagard, and J. Woods : 505–530. Volume in Handbook of the philosophy of science. Amsterdam: Elsevier BV.Google Scholar
  84. Viner, J. 1938. Book review: Economists and the Public: A Study of Competition and Opinion by W. H. Hutt. Journal of Political Economy 46(4): 571–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Walker, L.J. 2002. Moral exemplarity. In Bringing in a new era in character education, ed. W. Damon, 65–83. Stanford: Hoover Institution Press.Google Scholar
  86. Warmack, L. 2003. Emphasizing ethics: Colleges and Universities are revisiting the fundamentals of ethics in business courses. St. Paul Pioneer Press, C1 (Business).Google Scholar
  87. Weinstein, J.R. 2015. Adam Smith (1723–1790). Internet encyclopedia of philosophy. http://www.iep.utm.edu/smith/ (accessed 20 March 2015).
  88. Wellman, C. 1963. The ethical implications of cultural relativity. The Journal of Philosophy 60(7): 169–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Wellman, C. 1975. Ethical disagreement and objective truth. American Philosophical Quarterly 12(3): 211–221.Google Scholar
  90. Wempe, B. 2008. Integrative social contract theory (ISCT). In R.W. Kolb (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Business Ethics and Society 3: 1140–1141.Google Scholar
  91. Werhane, P. 1999. Moral imagination and management decision making. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  92. Whitehead, A.N. 1933. Foresight. Adventure of ideas: Ch. VI, 110–126. London: Macmillan. Originally a 1931 lecture by Whitehead at the Harvard Business School, published as preface to W. B. Donham, Business Adrift, New York: McGraw Hill, 1931.Google Scholar
  93. Wilk, R. 1993. Altruism and self-interest: Towards an anthropological theory of decision making. Research in Economic Anthropology 14: 191–212.Google Scholar
  94. Wilson, J.Q. 1989. Adam Smith on business ethics. California Management Review 32(1): 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Windsor, D. 2013a. A typology of moral exemplars in business. In Moral saints and moral exemplars, research in ethical issues in organizations, eds. M. Schwartz and H. Harris, Vol. 10: 63–95. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.Google Scholar
  96. Windsor, D. 2013b. Corporate social responsibility and irresponsibility: A positive theory approach. Journal of Business Research 66(10): 1937–1944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Windsor, D. 2015. Philosophy for managers and philosophy of managers: Turf, reputation, coalition. Philosophy of Management 14(1): 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Jones Graduate School of BusinessRice UniversityHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations