“Ought” implies “can”, or, the moral relevance of a theory of the firm

Journal of Business Ethics 7 (1-2):23 - 28 (1988)
Abstract
Since ought implies can, i.e., one cannot be obligated to do what one cannot do, the question of corporate responsibility cannot be discussed intelligibly without an inquiry into the range of corporate or managerial discretion. Hence, the moral relevance of a theory of the firm. Within classical or neo-classical economic theory, for instance, firms which act other than to maximize profit are eliminated. They cannot do otherwise, and thus either have no obligations at all or only the duty to maximize profit. The thesis of the Managerial Revolution, if true, establishes only that management is free from direct stockholder control. By asserting that corporations have responsibilities to do other than maximize profit, philosophers assume a wide degree of managerial discretion, without considering recent developments in the theory of the firm which suggest that new incentives and constraints radically restrict managerial liberty in a capitalist society.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/BF00381994
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 29,841
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Ethics and Management: A Controversial Issue. [REVIEW]Josep M. Lozano - 1996 - Journal of Business Ethics 15 (2):227 - 236.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total downloads
31 ( #181,009 of 2,210,291 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #165,188 of 2,210,291 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature