Cheating in Business: A Metaethical Perspective

Journal of Business Ethics 162 (3):519-532 (2020)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Although the managerial practice of cheating spans complex and heterogeneous situations, most business ethics scholars consider that the very idea of cheating is indefensible on moral grounds, and quickly dismiss it as wrongdoing. This paper proposes to fine-tune this conventional moral assessment by arguing that some forms of cheating can be justified—or at least excused. To do so, it starts with a value-free definition of cheating that covers a wide diversity of situations: “breaking the rules while deliberately leading or allowing others to think they have been respected.” While using this definition at the metaethical level, the paper contends that the moral assessment of cheating depends on the obligation to comply with the rules. There are rules which do not entail moral obligations, and there are special circumstances where other more important obligations override the obligation to comply with the rules. Furthermore, the paper argues that respecting the penalty rules also influences the moral assessment of cheating on the rules. The key interest of this endeavor lies in contributing to building a more solid theoretical framework for the study of cheating in management, which may replace our common prejudices and basic intuitions on this matter.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,745

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Normative Revisionism about Student Cheating.Odysseus Makridis & Fred Englander - 2020 - Journal of Academic Ethics 19 (1):1-23.
Did Armstrong Cheat?Eric Moore - 2017 - Sport, Ethics and Philosophy 11 (4):413-427.
On the argument that enhancement is "cheating".M. Schermer - 2008 - Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (2):85-88.
Cheating: ethics in everyday life.Deborah L. Rhode - 2018 - New York: Oxford University Press.

Analytics

Added to PP
2018-08-23

Downloads
32 (#127,447)

6 months
8 (#1,326,708)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

What we owe to each other.Thomas Scanlon - 1998 - Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Nicomachean ethics. Aristotle - 1999 - New York: Clarendon Press. Edited by Michael Pakaluk. Translated by Michael Pakaluk.
The concept of law.Hla Hart - 1961 - New York: Oxford University Press.
What We Owe to Each Other.Thomas Scanlon - 2002 - Mind 111 (442):323-354.
A Treatise of Human Nature.David Hume & A. D. Lindsay - 1958 - Philosophical Quarterly 8 (33):379-380.

View all 96 references / Add more references