Against MacIntyre: The Corrupting Power of Practices

Reference work entry
First Online:
Part of the International Handbooks in Business Ethics book series (IHBE)

Abstract

In this chapter, I build on the virtue-practice-institution schema of modern virtue ethics theory. Within this schema firms produce two goods: external goods, which are associated with the firm-as-institution; and internal goods, which are associated with the firm-as-collection-of-practices. Although there is general agreement among virtue ethicists about the normative desirability of firms pursuing both internal and external goods, there is marked disagreement about the actual ability of modern firms, operating within modern global markets, to consistently pursue both goods. Here I offer arguments to support the view that it is possible for modern business organizations, operating within contemporary markets, to successfully pursue both internal and external goods. I also argue that the main threat to this successful pursuit is not – as MacIntyre suggests – the corrupting power of institutions, but rather the corrupting power of rogue practices.

Keywords

Virtue ethics Alasdair MacIntyre Practices 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Campbell J-L, Goritz AS (2014) Culture corrupts! A qualitative study of organizational culture in corrupt organizations. J Bus Ethics 120:291–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dunfee TW (1998) The marketplace of morality: first steps toward a theory of moral choice. Bus Ethics Q 8(1):127–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Frazer E, Lacey N (1994) MacIntyre, feminism and the concept of practice. In: Horton J, Mendus S (eds) After MacIntyre: critical perspectives on the work of Alasdair MacIntyre. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre DameGoogle Scholar
  4. Ho K (2009) Liquidated. Duke University Press, DurhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Keat R (2008) Ethics, markets, and Macintyre. Analysis Kritic 30:243–257Google Scholar
  6. MacIntyre A (1994) A partial response to my critics. In: Horton J, Mendus S (eds) After MacIntyre: critical perspectives on the work of Alasdair MacIntyre. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre DameGoogle Scholar
  7. MacIntyre A (1999a) Dependant rational animals. Open Court Publishing, IllinoisGoogle Scholar
  8. MacIntyre A (1999b) Social structures and their threat to moral agency. Philosophy 74(289):311–329, JulyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Maitland I (1997) The market as school of the virtues. Bus Ethics Q 7(1):17–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. McClosky D (1994) Bourgeois virtue. Am Scholar 63(2):177–191Google Scholar
  11. Moore G (2002) On the implications of the practice-institution distinction: Macintyre and the application of modern virtue ethics to business. Bus Ethics Q 12(1):19–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Moore G (2005) Corporate character: modern virtue ethics and the virtuous corporation. Bus Ethics Q 15(4):659–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Moore G (2008) Re-imagining the morality of management: a modern virtue-ethics approach. In: Proceedings of Alasdair MacIntyre’s revolutionary Aristotelianism, 29 June–1 JulyGoogle Scholar
  14. Moore G, Beadle R (2006) In search of organizational virtue in business. Organ Stud 23(3):369–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pettis M (2013) Why the world needs reckless bankers. Financial Times, March 26:8Google Scholar
  16. Willman J (1998) Large scoops of social values. Finan Times (February 9):8Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of BusinessCalifornia Polytechnic State University–San Luis ObispoSan Luis ObispoUSA

Personalised recommendations