Business Ethics Quarterly 30 (3):361-387 (2020)

Authors
Abstract
ABSTRACTBusiness actors often act in ways that may harm other parties. While the law aims to restrict harmful behavior and to provide remedies, legal systems do not anticipate all contingencies and legal regulations are not always well-enforced. This article argues that the logic of double effect, which has been developed and deployed in other areas of practical ethics, can be useful in helping business actors decide whether or not to pursue potentially harmful activities in commonplace business activity. The article illustrates how LDE helps to explain the exploitative nature of payday lending, the distinction between permissible and impermissible forms of market competition, and the potential wrong of imposing risk of harm on others. The article also addresses foundational debates about LDE itself. We offer the article as an illustration of the sort of “midlevel” theorizing that can address directly the needs of practitioners.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/beq.2019.39
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: 53,634
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

Moral Dimensions: Permissibility, Meaning, Blame.Thomas Scanlon - 2008 - Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Sweatshops, Choice, and Exploitation.Matt Zwolinski - 2007 - Business Ethics Quarterly 17 (4):689-727.
Defending Double Effect.Ralph Wedgwood - 2011 - Ratio 24 (4):384-401.

View all 38 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

When Responsibility Can't Do It.A. Gowri - 2004 - Journal of Business Ethics 54 (1):33-50.
Possible Intentions and the Doctrine of Double Effect.Christopher Fruge - 2019 - Ethics, Medicine and Public Health 8:11-17.
10.5840/Jbee2011815.Brian H. Kurbjeweit - 2000 - Journal of Business Ethics Education 1 (1):55-62.
The Relationship of Ethics and Law in Governing the Game of Business.Brian H. Kurbjeweit - 2011 - Journal of Business Ethics Education 8 (1):55-62.
A Stronger Doctrine of Double Effect.Ben Bronner & Simon Goldstein - 2018 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 96 (4):793-805.
Three Cheers for Double Effect.Dana Kay Nelkin & Samuel C. Rickless - 2014 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 89 (1):125-158.
Double Effect Reasoning: Why We Need It.Helen Watt - 2017 - Ethics and Medicine 33 (1):13-19.
The Danger of Double Effect.P. A. Reed - 2012 - Christian Bioethics 18 (3):287-300.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2020-07-14

Total views
4 ( #1,184,298 of 2,348,973 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
4 ( #186,326 of 2,348,973 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes