Journal of Business Ethics:1-11 (forthcoming)

Authors
Hasko von Kriegstein
Ryerson University
Abstract
This paper responds to the Radical Behavioral Challenge to normative business ethics. According to RBC, recent research on bounded ethicality shows that it is psychologically impossible for people to follow the prescriptions of normative business ethics. Thus, said prescriptions run afoul of the principle that nobody has an obligation to do something that they cannot do. I show that the only explicit response to this challenge in the business ethics literature is flawed because it limits normative business ethics to condemning practitioners’ behavior without providing usable suggestions for how to do better. I argue that a more satisfying response is to, first, recognize that most obligations in business are wide-scope which, second, implies that there are multiple ways of fulfilling them. This provides a solid theoretical grounding for the increasingly popular view that we have obligations to erect institutional safeguards when bounded ethicality is likely to interfere with our ability to do what is right. I conclude with examples of such safeguards and some advice on how to use the research findings on bounded ethicality in designing ethical business organizations.
Keywords bounded ethicality  ought implies can  wide-scope obligations  business ethics denial  skepticism about business ethics  implicit bias  moral responsibility  motivated blindness  debiasing  Ability
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s10551-020-04716-w
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Translate to english
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
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

Why Be Rational.Niko Kolodny - 2005 - Mind 114 (455):509-563.
Responsibility for Implicit Bias.Jules Holroyd - 2017 - Philosophy Compass 12 (3).
Responsibility for Implicit Bias.Jules Holroyd - 2012 - Journal of Social Philosophy 43 (3):274-306.
I Ought, Therefore I Can.Peter B. M. Vranas - 2007 - Philosophical Studies 136 (2):167-216.

View all 23 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Oxymoron: Taking Business Ethics Denial Seriously.Hasko von Kriegstein - 2019 - Journal of Business Ethics Education 16:103-134.
A Quick Justification for Business Ethics.Louis G. Lombardi - 1985 - Journal of Business Ethics 4 (4):353 - 356.
Radical Business Ethics: A Critical and Postmetaphysical Manifesto.Schalk Engelbrecht - 2012 - Business Ethics, the Environment and Responsibility 21 (4):339-352.
The Limits and Prospects of Business Ethics.George G. Brenkert - 2010 - Business Ethics Quarterly 20 (4):703-709.
Business Ethics Without Stakeholders.Joseph Heath - 2006 - Business Ethics Quarterly 16 (4):533-558.
Business Ethics Without Stakeholders.Joseph Heath - 2006 - Business Ethics Quarterly 16 (4):533-557.
The Challenge of Developing a Business Ethics in China.Po Keung Ip - 2008 - Journal of Business Ethics 88 (S1):211 - 224.
Business, Ethics and Law.Richard McCarty - 1988 - Journal of Business Ethics 7 (11):881 - 889.
Heroic Business ‘Ethics’.John Dobson & Eleanor Helms - 2014 - Business and Professional Ethics Journal 33 (2-3):131-146.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2021-01-07

Total views
45 ( #230,084 of 2,432,824 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
45 ( #17,200 of 2,432,824 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes