Skip to main content

Business is not a Game: The Metaphoric Fallacy

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  • Applbaum, A. I.: 1998, Ethics for Adversaries: The Morality of Roles in Public and Professional Life (Princeton University Press, Priceton, NJ).

  • Aristotle: 1994–2000 [350 bce], Poetics (trans: S. H. Butcher). http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/poetics.html, Section 3, Part XXI.

  • Caillois, R. 2001, Man, Play and Games (trans: M. Barash). (University of Illinois Press, Urbana).

  • Caputo, J.: 1993, Against Ethics(Indiana University Press, Bloomington).

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr, A.Z. (1968). Is Business Bluffing Ethical? Harvard Business Review, 46(1), 143–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, B. and J. Greenfield: 1996, ‹Founder’s Letter’, in Ben & Jerry’s 1996 Annual Report.

  • Dewey, J. 1927, The Public and Its Problems (Henry Hold and Co., New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T. (2000). ‹Are Business Mangers “Professionals?”. Business Ethics Quarterly, 10(1), 83–94. doi:10.2307/3857697

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, C. (1996). Why Markets Need Referees. Business Strategy Review, 7(4), 35–40. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8616.1996.tb00140.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epictetus: 1998, The Discourses (ed. Christopher Gill, trans: Robin Hard) (Everyman, London).

  • Goldman, A. 1980, The Moral Foundation of Professional Ethic (Rowman and Littlefield Totowa, NJ).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, W. (2005). The Pitch for a New Leadership Metaphor. Human Resource Planning, 28(1), 19–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M.: 1987, The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason (The University of Chicago Press, Chicago).

  • Johnson, M.: 1993, Moral Imagination: Implications of Cognitive Science for Ethics (The University of Chicago Press, Chicago).

  • Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.1999, Philosophy In The Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought (Basic Books, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Machold, S., P. K. Ahmed and S. S. Farquhar: 2007, ‹Corporate Governance and Ethics’, Journal of Business Ethics 76(4)

  • Moore, M.: 1989, Roger and Me [film].

  • Moore, G. E.: 1903, Principia Ethica (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).

  • 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 

  • Niebuhr, R.: 1932, Moral Man and Immoral Society(Scribners, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Noddings, N. 1984, Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education (University of California Press, Berkeley, Ca).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rigney, D. 2001, The Metaphorical Society: An Invitation to Social Theory (Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, Md).

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, R. (1999). Game Theory As A Model For Business and Business Ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 9(1), 11–29. doi:10.2307/3857632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stack, J., & Burlingham, B. 1994, The Great Game of Business (Currency, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern, J. (1985). Metaphor as Demonstrative. The Journal of Philosophy, 82(12), 677–710. doi:10.2307/2026404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuana, N.: 1993, The Less Noble Sex: Scientific, Religious and Philosophical Conceptions of Women’s Nature (Indiana University Press, Bloomington).

  • Wasserstrom, R. (1975). Lawyers as Professionals: Some Moral Considerations. Human Rights (Chicago, Ill.), 5(1), 105–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittgenstein, L. 1953, Philosophical Investigations (Blackwell Publishers, New York).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maurice Hamington.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hamington, M. Business is not a Game: The Metaphoric Fallacy. J Bus Ethics 86, 473–484 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9859-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9859-0

Keywords

  • ethical theories
  • fallacies
  • game metaphors
  • language