The Ethics of Complexity and the Complexity of Ethics

Chapter
Part of the Issues in Business Ethics book series (IBET, volume 37)

Abstract

In this chapter, a general and critical approach to complexity is introduced. Within this approach, complex systems are viewed as irreducible. In other words, it is deemed impossible to uncover the laws of complex systems; and, since complex systems cannot be fully modelled, any engagement with complexity necessitates a critical engagement with the limits and status of our knowledge claims. This critical engagement is denoted by the ‘ethics of complexity’. Furthermore, the ethics of complexity commits us to a complex view of ethics. This is because complexity is inherent to any ethical engagement, yet ethical frameworks are also models; and, like all models, are limited, exclusionary, and incapable of accounting for the complexity of lived phenomena. However, models are also necessary, since we need to reduce the complexity, in order to make sense of our world. It is therefore argued that the best ethical models are those that draw attention to their own limited status, and, in this vein, the provisional imperative – which is a self-undermining imperative – is introduced as a guide for responsible ethical action.

Keywords

Business Ethic Moral Agent Component Part Reading Group Categorical Imperative 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Allen, P. 2000. Knowledge, ignorance, and learning. Emergence 2(4): 78–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen, P. 2001. What is complexity science? Knowledge of the limits to knowledge. Emergence 3(1): 24–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bedau, M.A., and P. Humphreys (ed.). 2008. Emergence: Contemporary readings in philosophy and science. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Chu, D., R. Strand, and R. Fjelland. 2003. Theories of complexity: Common denominators of complex systems. Wiley Periodicals 8(3): 19–30.Google Scholar
  5. Cilliers, P. 1998. Complexity and postmodernism: Understanding complex systems. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Cilliers, P. 2001. Boundaries, hierarchies and networks in complex systems. International Journal of Innovation Management 5(2): 135–147.Google Scholar
  7. Cilliers, P. 2010a. A provisional ethics of complexity. Unpublished.Google Scholar
  8. Cilliers, P. 2010b. Difference, identity, and complexity. Philosophy Today, Spring 2010, 55–65Google Scholar
  9. Derrida, J. 1988. Afterword. In Limited Inc., ed. G. Graff and trans. S. Weber, 111–160. Evanston: Northern Western University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Derrida, J. 2. On the “priceless,” or the “going rate” of the transaction. In Negotiations: Interventions and interviews, 1971–2001, ed. and trans. E. Rottenberg, 315–328. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Emmeche, C., S. Koppe, and F. Stjernfelt. 1997. Explaining emergence: Towards an ontology of levels. Journal for General Philosophy of Science/Zeitschrift für allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 28(1): 83–119.Google Scholar
  12. Ghoshal, S. 2005. Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning and education 4(1): 75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Horgan, J. 1995. From complexity to perplexity. Scientific America 1995: 104–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kant, I. 1993. Grounding for the metaphysics of morals, 3rd ed., trans. J.W. Ellington. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
  15. Kramer, R.M. 1991. Intergroup relations and organizational dilemmas: The role of categorization processes. Research in Organizational Behaviour 13: 191–228.Google Scholar
  16. Luhmann, N. 1995. Social systems, trans. J. Bednarz Jr. (with D. Baecker). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Luhmann, N. 2000. Why does society describe itself as postmodern? In Observing complexity: systems theory and postmodernity, ed. W. Rasch and C. Wolfe, 35–49. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  18. Maturana, H.R., and F.J. Varela. 1980. Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Morin, E. 1992. From the concept of a system to the paradigm of complexity, trans. S. Kelly, Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems 15(4): 371–385.Google Scholar
  20. Morin, E. 2007. Restricted complexity, general complexity, trans. C. Gershenson. In Worldviews, science and us: Philosophy and complexity, ed. C. Gershenson, D. Aerts, and B. Edmonds, 5–29. Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
  21. Morin, E. 2008. On complexity, trans. S.M. Kelly. Cresskill: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  22. Oreskes, N., K. Shrader-Frechette, and K. Belitz. 1994. Verification, validation, and confirmation of numerical models in the earth sciences. Science 263(5): 641–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Painter-Morland, M. 2006. Redefining accountability as relational responsiveness. Journal of Business Ethics 66: 89–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Painter-Morland, M. 2008. Business ethics as practice: Ethics as the everyday business of business. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Paulsen, N. 2003. Who are we now? Group identity, boundaries, and the (re)organizing process. In Managing boundaries in organizations: Multiple perspectives, ed. N. Paulsen and T. Hernes, 15–34. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Preiser, R., and P. Cilliers. 2010. Unpacking the ethics of complexity: Concluding reflections. In Complexity, difference and identity, ed. P. Cilliers and R. Preiser, 265–287. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Richardson, K.A. 2001. On the status of national boundaries: A complex systems perspective. Proceedings of the Systems in Management 7th Annual ANZSYS Conference, Edith Cowan University, Churchlands, 27–28 Nov 2001, 229–238.Google Scholar
  28. Richardson, K.A. 2. Methodological implications of complex systems approaches to sociality: Some further remarks. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 5(2). Available online at: http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/5/2/6.html.
  29. Rosen, R. 1985. Anticipatory systems: Philosophical, mathematical and methodological foundations. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  30. Seabright, M.A., and L.B. Kurke. 1997. Organisational ontology and the moral status of the corporation. Business Ethics Quarterly 7(4): 91–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Von Bertalanffy, L. 1972. The history and status of general systems theory. The Academy of Management Journal 15(14): 407–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wimsatt, W.C. 2008. Aggregativity: Reductive heuristics for finding emergence. In Emergence: Contemporary readings in philosophy and science, ed. M.A. Bedau and P. Humphreys, 99–110. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  33. Woermann, M. 2010. Corporate identity, responsibility and the ethics of complexity. In Complexity, difference and identity, ed. P. Cilliers and R. Preiser, 167–192. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Woermann, M. and Cilliers, P. 2012. The ethics of complexity and the complexity of ethics. South African Journal of Philosophy, 31(2): 447–463.Google Scholar
  35. Wood, D. 1999. The experience of the ethical. In Questioning ethics: Contemporary debates in philosophy, ed. R. Kearney and M. Dooley, 105–119. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy and Centre for Applied EthicsStellenbosch UniversityMatielandSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations