Towards Enforceable Bans on Illicit Businesses: From Moral Relativism to Human Rights

Journal of Business Ethics 119 (1):119-130 (2014)

Authors
Edmund Byrne
Indiana University Purdue University, Indianapolis
Abstract
Many scholars and activists favor banning illicit businesses, especially given that such businesses constitute a large part of the global economy. But these businesses are commonly operated as if they are subject only to the ethical norms their management chooses to recognize, and as a result they sometimes harm innocent people. This can happen in part because there are no effective legal constraints on illicit businesses, and in part because it seems theoretically impossible to dispose definitively of arguments that support moral relativism. Progress is being made, however, towards a “second best” arrangement consisting of widespread institutional agreements regarding ethical norms. This development might eventually enable us to transcend moral relativism in some respects. Indeed, although some business ethicists who examine illicit business practices accept moral relativism, others attempt to surmount it. The latters’ endeavor, I show, is cross-cultural in nature in that it involves businesses that are deemed illicit in at least one but not every culture. I then recall some traditional solutions and their limits: ideological teachings are culture-specific, hence both temporally and spatially limited; legal constraints, though potentially helpful, are too diverse hence often narrow in reach. Especially problematic are defense industry businesses, which are inherently transcultural and, though uniquely harmful, are not effectively banned in any culture. Harm to quality of life (QoL) can, however, be measured. So I recommend institutional support for international human rights tied to QoL data as a workable way to counter moral relativism regarding illicit businesses.
Keywords Illicit businesses  Moral relativism  Social indicators  Human rights
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s10551-013-1619-0
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature.R. Rorty - 1979 - Princeton University Press.
Real World Justice.Thomas Pogge - 2005 - Journal of Ethics 9 (1-2):29-53.
Whose Justice? Which Rationality?Alasdair MacIntyre - 1988 - University of Notre Dame Press.
Whose Justice? Which Rationality?Alasdair Macintyre - 1988 - Journal of Religious Ethics 16 (2):363-363.

View all 65 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Neo-Positivism About Rights the Problem with 'Rights as Enforceable Claims'.Saladin Meckled-Garcia - 2004 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 105 (1):143–148.
Human Rights and Human Well-Being.William Talbott - 2010 - Oxford University Press.
Rights as Enforceable Claims.Susan James - 2003 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 103 (2):133–147.
Human Rights and Concept of Person.Barbara de Mori - 2001 - Croatian Journal of Philosophy 1 (2):159-169.
Which Rights Should Be Universal?William J. Talbott - 2005 - Oxford University Press.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2013-01-20

Total views
73 ( #106,577 of 2,248,744 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
19 ( #41,069 of 2,248,744 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature