Graduate studies at Western
Journal of Business Ethics 15 (6):695 - 702 (1996)
|Abstract||In this paper I argue that if we are to have any defensible property rights at all, we must recognize a fundamental commitment to helping those in need. The argument has significant implications for all who claim defensible property rights. In this paper I concentrate on some of the implications this argument has for redefining business obligations. In particular, I show why those who typically would be quite resistant to the idea that businesses have any obligations to assist others in need must acknowledge this fundamental obligation. I also suggest how this argument contributes to our understanding of the normative basis of Stakeholder Theory.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Simon A. Hailwood (2000). Why "Business's Nastier Friends" Should Not Be Libertarians. Journal of Business Ethics 24 (1):77 - 86.
R. Edward Freeman & Robert A. Phillips (2002). Stakeholder Theory: A Libertarian Defense. Business Ethics Quarterly 12 (3):331-350.
Gillian Brock (1998). Future Generations, Natural Resources, and Property Rights. Ethics and the Environment 3 (2):119 - 130.
J. Jeremy Wisnewski (2009). What We Owe the Dead. Journal of Applied Philosophy 26 (1):54-70.
Bas van der Vossen (2011). Associative Political Obligations: Their Potential. Philosophy Compass 6 (7):488-496.
Bill Wringe (2010). Global Obligations and the Agency Objection. Ratio 23 (2):217-231.
A. John Simmons (1996). Associative Political Obligations. Ethics 106 (2):247-273.
Nicole Hassoun (2012). Globalization and Global Justice: Shrinking Distance, Expanding Obligations. Cambridge University Press.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads1 ( #292,563 of 739,369 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?