Pluralistic business ethics: the significance and justification of moral free space in integrative social contracts theory

Abstract

Integrative social contracts theory (ISCT) has been an influential theory in normative business ethics for well over a decade, drawing attention both as an object of criticism and as a source of inspiration. In this paper I argue that, despite this attention, the fact that it is a genuinely pluralistic theory, in the tradition of pluralistic theories of political philosophy, is often overlooked. It is in the notion of moral free space that this pluralism is most clearly expressed. This oversight is unfortunate for two reasons. Firstly, it prevents the potential of ISCT, as a normative theory of business ethics, from being appreciated fully; secondly, it leads us to ignore resources that could help tackle its most problematic flaws. In this second respect, I show how some of these flaws could be addressed by paying closer attention to the similarities between ISCT and John Rawls' theory of Political Liberalism.

Quantitative content analysis as a method for business ethics research

“…The adoption of methods from communication sciences for the study of business ethics may seem farfetched. However, it is closer than it may be perceived in the first place: the fundaments of business ethics are grounded in social contract theory (Dempsey ), which implies that there is an invisible ‘social contract’ between corporations and society, where firms have to fulfill or react properly to the norms and expectations of societal members (e.g. Donaldson & Dunfee ).…”

An integrative ethical approach to leader favoritism

“…First, as a general ethical principle, universalism entails treating everyone alike, disregarding intimacy shared among interactants (Beekun, Stedham, Westerman, & Yamamura, 2010; Dempsey, 2011; Parsons & Shils, 1951). A universal approach relies on principles that are context‐ in dependent, since universalists taking a Kantian approach emphasize the fundamental principles of right, where it is essential to treat people as ends, rather than merely the means to an end (Demuijnck, 2015).…”

Business Ethics without Philosophers? Evidence for and Implications of the Shift From Applied Philosophers to Business Scholars on the Editorial Boards of Business Ethics Journals

“…Other papers address philosophers such as Kant (Dierksmeier ), Foucault (Crane, Knights, and Starkey ), Habermas (Beschorner , Palazzo and Scherer , Seele and Lock ), and Plato (Klein ), just to mention a few. Other philosophical concepts employed include social contract theory (Dempsey , Donaldson and Dunfee ).…”