Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 15 (2):221 - 238 (2012)

Abstract
In latter-day discussions on corporate morality, duties of commission are fiercely debated. Moral institutionalists argue that duties of commission—such as a duty of assistance—overstep the boundaries of moral duty owed by economic agents. " Moral institutionalism" is a newly coined term for a familiar position on market morality. It maintains that market morality ought to be restricted, excluding all duties of commission. Neo-Classical thinkers such as Baumol and Homann defend it most eloquently. They underpin their position with concerns that go to the core of liberalism—the dominant western political theory that sustains the ideals of both the free market and the free, rational person. Those authors claim that liberalism calls for a fully differentiated market because it resents the politicization of the market. Fully differentiated markets exclude duties of commission. They also claim that full differentiation of the market closes the troublesome gap between moral motivation and moral virtue. Full differentiation redeems the promise of "easy virtue". In this paper moral institutionalism will be rejected from a Kantian point of view, mostly inspired by Herman's thesis on the invisibility of morality. Liberalism may perhaps ban the politicization of the market; it does not forbid its moralization. The idea of a fully differentiated market must also be rejected because it is either morally over-demanding (to the morally autonomous person) or morally hazardous (to the person with failing moral motivation). Contrary to what the moral institutionalists claim, right action, morally, is actually quite difficult in fully differentiated markets
Keywords Free markets  Market morality  Duties of commission  Invisibility of morality  Liberalism  Neo-classical (moral) thinking  Moral institutionalism  Kantian moral thinking  Corporate duties
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s10677-011-9283-x
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 52,973
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

What We Owe to Each Other.Thomas Scanlon - 1998 - Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

View all 29 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Grounding Positive Duties in Commercial Life.Wim Dubbink & Luc Van Liedekerke - 2014 - Journal of Business Ethics 120 (4):527-539.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Abstract Of: "Toward a Theory of Bribery" [with Commentaries].John R. Danley, Kendall D'Andrade & Scott Turow - 1983 - Business and Professional Ethics Journal 3 (1):79 - 86.
Kant's Ethics and Duties to Oneself.Lara Denis - 1997 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 78 (4):321–348.
Moralizing Markets.Richard Bellamy - 1994 - Critical Review 8 (3):341-357.
On the Existence of Duties to the Self.Paul Schofield - 2015 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 90 (3):505-528.
Animality and Agency: A Kantian Approach to Abortion.Lara Denis - 2008 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 76 (1):117-37.
A Kantian Moral Duty for the Soon-to-Be Demented to Commit Suicide.Dennis R. Cooley - 2007 - American Journal of Bioethics 7 (6):37 – 44.
A Fiduciary Argument Against Stakeholder Theory.Alexei M. Marcoux - 2003 - Business Ethics Quarterly 13 (1):1-24.
Diamonds in the Cosmic Sands.Ronald Dworkin - 2011 - The Philosophers' Magazine 54 (54):22-31.
Collectives' Duties and Collectivisation Duties.Stephanie Collins - 2013 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 91 (2):231-248.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2011-05-04

Total views
23 ( #431,159 of 2,344,021 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #514,126 of 2,344,021 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes