Skip to main content
Log in

Must Business Judgements Be Self-Interested?

  • Published:
Philosophy of Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Judgement is traditionally seen as applicable in two spheres of human endeavour: the theoretical (or the sphere in which we consider both what must be the case and what is likely to be the case) and the practical (or the sphere in which we consider what we ought to do, either because it is in our interests or because morality requires it). Now insofar as we are speaking of ‘judgement’ two conceptual assumptions are being made. Firstly, we are assuming that there are imponderables and complexity, and secondly, despite the imponderables and complexity, that there is still room for the exercise of reason. Granted this view of judgement we can state our two main theses. Firstly, we shall argue that, despite the pressures of market forces, employee needs, and shareholder interests, there is still room in business practice for judgements so understood. Secondly, we shall argue that these judgements need not inevitably be directed down the single track of the financial interests of the company and its shareholders. The second thesis can be understood as a moral thesis in either of two ways. Either it can be seen as the thesis that companies have broad social responsibilities extending well beyond the immediate interests of the company, or as the thesis that companies share the social interests of the communities to which they belong; they are citizens writ large, to gloss Plato.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hempel C ‘Studies in the Logic of Confirmation’ in Achinstein P (ed) The Concept of Evidence p 12 Oxford, Oxford University Press 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Lerner L (ed) Evidence and Inference p 13 Illinois, the Free Press of Glencoe 1959.

  3. Kant I Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals Chapter 2 trans by Paton HJ London, Hutchinson’s University Library 1948.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Smith A The Wealth of Nations (1776) Book 1, chapter 11 (ed) Cannan E New York, Random House 1937.

  5. Chaucer G The Canterbury Tales, Prologue Oxford, The Clarendon Press 1910.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Plato Republic Book 1 trans by Jowett B London, Sphere Books 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Wicksteed P H The Commonsense of Political Economy pp 174–180 (ed) by Robbins L London, Routledge 1933.

  8. Shaw B The Doctor’s Dilemma Edinburgh, R&B Clark 1906.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Friedman M The New York Times 13 September 1970.

  10. Plato op cit Book 1.

  11. Hobbes T Leviathan (1654) in Raphael DD The British Moralists Oxford, The Clarendon Press 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  12. See note 9.

  13. Reid T Essays on the Active Powers of the Human Mind (1788) in: Raphael DD The British Moralists Oxford, The Clarendon Press 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kant, op cit

  15. Hutcheson F An Inquiry into the Original of our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue (1724) in: Downie RS (ed) Hutcheson’s Philosophical Writings London, Everyman Library 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Downie R S and Macnaughton J Clinical Judgement: Evidence in Practice Oxford, Oxford University Press 2000.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Downie, R., Macnaughton, J. Must Business Judgements Be Self-Interested?. Philos. of Manag. 1, 13–20 (2001). https://doi.org/10.5840/pom20011123

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.5840/pom20011123

Keywords

Navigation