Skip to main content
Log in

Limited paternalism and the Pontius Pilate Plight

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Ebejer and Morden (‘Paternalism in the Marketplace: Should a Salesman Be His Buyer's Keeper?”, Journal of Business Ethics 7, 1988) propose ‘limited paternalism’ as a sufficient regulative condition for a professional ethic of sales. Although the principle is immediately appealing, its application can lead to a counter-productive ethical quandary I call the Pontius Pilate Plight. This quandary is the assumption that ethical agents' hands are clean in certain situations even if they have done something they condemn as immoral. Since limited paternalism can give rise to this queer conclusion in the salesperson/buyer relationship, the principle is suspect. It may be a necessary condition for ethical sales, but is not sufficient. This discussion concludes by suggesting two additional criteria which, when complemented by the limited paternalism principle, are jointly sufficient.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Walters teaches philosophy at Gettysburg College. The author of two books and numerous articles, he recently published ‘Morally Acceptable Divestiture’, Analysis 48 (1988)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Walters, K.S. Limited paternalism and the Pontius Pilate Plight. J Bus Ethics 8, 955–962 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00383432

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00383432

Keywords

Navigation