Kierkegaardian confessions: The relationship between moral reasoning and failure to be promoted
Journal of Business Ethics (forthcoming)
| Abstract | Kierkegaard’s theory of pre-ethical, aesthetic, ethical, and religious spheres of moral reasoning was applied to the case of an individual rejected for promotion to full professor. The evaluators seemed to represent the public morality of the profession, assumed that they represented the highest level of moral reasoning, and judged that the candidate represented a private morality based on a lower level of moral reasoning. The article questioned the view that moral reasoning could be discerned from one’s actions. It was paradoxical that different spheres seemed to produce similar kinds of actions, though for differing reasons, making identification difficult. It was easy for the evaluators to confuse spheres representing private moralities and to conclude, based on the candidate’s research record, that she/he was unsuitable for promotion. It was equally difficult for the candidate to discern whether the evaluators’ moral reasoning represented the public morality of the profession, or a pre-ethical need by the evaluators to appear in solidarity with the public morality. This made it difficult for the candidate to know whether the evaluators’ recommendations represented absolute standards that would be applied to any future re-application, or not. The article’s contribution was the identification of different spheres of moral reasoning, the interactions between spheres, and the paradoxical indeterminacy of gauging moral reasoning from moral action. It supported Kierkegaard’s view that the highest truth attainable by an individual was “an objective uncertainty” and that this truth was lost in self-deception when one claimed to have been able to solve the paradox | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | No categories specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,705 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesJames Weber & Sharon Green (1991). Principled Moral Reasoning: Is It a Viable Approach to Promote Ethical Integrity? Journal of Business Ethics 10 (5):325 - 333.
Ann Breslin (1982). Tolerance and Moral Reasoning Among Adolescents in Ireland. Journal of Moral Education 11 (2):112-127.
Warren French & David Allbright (1998). Resolving a Moral Conflict Through Discourse. Journal of Business Ethics 17 (2):177-194.
Stephen Cohen (2004). The Nature of Moral Reasoning: The Framework and Activities of Ethical Deliberation, Argument, and Decision-Making. Oxford University Press.
Robbin Derry (1989). An Empirical Study of Moral Reasoning Among Managers. Journal of Business Ethics 8 (11):855 - 862.
Joseph M. Paxton & Joshua D. Greene (2010). Moral Reasoning: Hints and Allegations. Topics in Cognitive Science 2 (3):511-527.
Manjit Monga (2007). Managers' Moral Reasoning: Evidence From Large Indian Manufacturing Organisations. Journal of Business Ethics 71 (2):179 - 194.
John J. Ryan (2001). Moral Reasoning as a Determinant of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: A Study in the Public Accounting Profession. Journal of Business Ethics 33 (3):233 - 244.
Cordelia Fine (2006). Is the Emotional Dog Wagging its Rational Tail, or Chasing It? Philosophical Explorations 9 (1):83 – 98.
Gilbert Harman, Kelby Mason & Walter Sinnott-Armstrong (2010). Moral Reasoning. In John Michael Doris (ed.), The Moral Psychology Handbook. Oxford University Press.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-07-07Total downloads5 ( #160,483 of 549,198 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,397 of 549,198 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
