nach oben

Philosophy of Management

Erschienen in:

12.09.2018

Levinas, Weber, and a Hybrid Framework for Business Ethics

verfasst von: Payman Tajalli, Steven Segal

Erschienen in: Philosophy of Management | Ausgabe 1/2019

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

In this paper we present a theoretical hybrid framework for ethical decision making, drawing upon Emmanuel Levinas’ view on ethics as “first philosophy”, as an inherent infinite responsibility for the other. The pivotal concept in this framework is an appeal to a heightened sense of personal responsibility of the moral actor to provide the ethical context within which conventional approaches to applied business ethics could be engaged. Max Weber’s method of reconciling absolutism and relativism in ethical decision making is adopted to provide the synergy between personal responsibility and contextual realities, forging a coherent framework. The paper concludes by discussing ways that business could make way for the flourishing of ethics of responsibility in individuals.

Vorheriger Artikel When Relationships are Broken: Restorative Justice under a Levinasian Approach

Nächster Artikel The “Freely Adaptive System”. Application of this Cybernetic Model to an Organization Formed by Two Dynamic Human Systems

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

R. Edward Freeman writes: “For too long, business ethics has been the captive of Anglo-American analytic philosophy. Ethical theory to most business ethicists means the traditional trifecta of consequentialism (usually utilitarianism), deontology (usually Kant), and virtue ethics (usually Aristotle). While this has been quite useful in the academic beginnings of the field, it is high time that we begin to connect these now traditional texts and arguments in business ethics with other traditions in the humanities.” (Freeman 2011, p.xiii)

Jones, ten Bos, and Parker write: “Despite the fact that ethics has been hotly debated in philosophy throughout the twentieth century and has been one of the major sources of philosophical reflection up to the close of the millennium, the discipline of business ethics has insulated itself from these developments, either ignoring them altogether or misrepresenting them so that it looks as if twentieth century philosophy has nothing interesting to say about ethics.” (Jones et al. 2005, p.3)

Brenkert (2010, p.703) writes: “a major challenge current business ethics faces is the lack of an account of business organizations as they develop and change …within social and political conditions”.

Since “business is not merely material and worldly; it is also spiritual and other-worldly … [it] can and must take a stand for making human lives…. The needful trick is to put the first value [worldly value] in the context of the second [other-worldly value].” (Sandelands 2009, pp.95–96)

The content component itself can be, a) internal, such as codes of ethics formulated for use within an organisation, b) external, such as philosophical theories or social laws, or c) a mix of internal and external.

The common methods used can also be divided into three categories, a) Top-Down - where the moral agent applies a known and accepted ethical theory or principle to the situation at hand. b) Bottom-Up or Case-Based (also known as Casuistry) – where the facts and circumstances of the case at hand is considered and an appropriate moral principle is identified and applied, and c) Reflective Equilibrium (Coherentism) – where a number of ethical theories and principles are considered and reflected upon before their application.

See “Weston A A twenty-first Century Ethical Toolbox Oxford University Press 2001”, as quoted by (Trezise and Biesta 2009, p.44)

DeGeorge (2006, p.384) identifies three strands of business ethics; an ethics in business, business ethics as an academic field, and business ethics as a movement.

This is to view business “as ‘amoral,’ and thus the need for a separate discourse of ‘ethics’ in which to hold business morally accountable.” (Werhane 2005)

Trezise and Biesta (2009, p.46) argue that “the model that is implied in the common approaches to the teaching of business ethics relies upon an understanding of ethical action as a process that follows from rational ethical decision-making by an autonomous moral subject… [it assumes] that ethics has a rational basis and that ethical action follows from taking the ‘right’ decisions”; in brief, “the idea that ethical being follows from knowing ethics rests upon a very specific set of assumptions about ethics and human action”.

See Levinas’ first major work, “Totality and Infinity” (Levinas 2011b)

By “Infinite” Levinas tries to capture the otherness of the other person, her uniqueness. It is “a desire …for alterity” (Levinas 1978, p.10).

Perhaps it is best to say that ethics, as developed by Levinas, “is not really a relationship at all, but a certain vigilance with respect to any relationship” (Wood 2005, p.168).

As Bevan and Corvellec (2007, p.213) write: “Virtues, rules, self-interest or principles are all reductions, reasoned expressions of values, judgemental categories, preferences or modes of understanding that are egologically specific to whoever enunciates them. As such, they express only the ethical leanings of those who proclaim them.”

“Responsibility for another is not an accident that happens to a subject, but precedes essence in it, has not awaited freedom, in which a commitment to another would have been made.” (Levinas 2011a, p.114)

The purpose of responsibility “is not mine: I do not agree to it, but I find myself responsible” (Manderson 2005, p.700).

He also writes: “the only absolute value is the human possibility of giving the other priority over oneself” (Levinas 1998b, p.109).

Todd (2001, p.70) refers to “passivity [as] a kind of radical susceptibility.”

Such a person “is aware of his responsibility for the consequences of his conduct and really feels such responsibility with heart and soul.” (Weber 1946a, p.127)

Weber asserts that “nothing is worthy of man as man unless he can pursue it with passionate devotion” (Weber 1946a, p.135).

Weber writes: “If an action of good intent leads to bad results, then, in the actor’s eyes, not he but the world, or the stupidity of other men, or God’s will who made them thus, is responsible for the evil”. (Weber 1946b, p.121)

Levinas also refers to this otherness as “Infinite” or “a desire … for alterity” (Levinas 1978, p.10).

Levinas writes that a human being is a “being who has already heard and understood the commandment of saintliness in the face of the other man” (Levinas 1999, p.180).

Aasland, Dag G. 2004. On the ethics behind business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 53 (1/2): 3–8.CrossRef

Aasland, Dag G. 2007. The exteriority of ethics in management and its transition into justice: A Levinasian approach to ethics in business. Journal of Business Ethics 16 (3): 220–226.CrossRef

Ashman, Ian, and Diana Winstanley. 2006. Business ethics and existentialism. Business Ethics: A European Review 15 (3): 218–233.CrossRef

Bauman, Zygmunt. 1993. Postmodern ethics. Cambridge: Wiley-Blackwell.

Beauchamp, Tom L. 2005. The Nature of Applied Ethics. In A Companion to Applied Ethics, edited by R.G. Frey and Christopher Heath Wellman: Blackwell Reference Online.

Bergo, Bettina. 2013. Emmanuel Levinas. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta. <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/levinas/>.

Bevan, David and Herve Corvellec. 2005. The Impossibility of Corporate Ethics. Accessed 1/3/2015.

Bevan, David, and Herve Corvellec. 2007. The impossibility of corporate ethics: For a Levinasian approach to managerial ethics. Business Ethics: A European Review 16 (3): 208–219.CrossRef

Boda, Zsolt, and Laszlo Zsolnai. 2016. The failure of business ethics. Society and Business Review 11 (1): 93–104.CrossRef

Bouckaert, Luk. 2006. The ethics management paradox. In In Interdisciplinary Yearbook of Business Ethics, edited by László Zsolnai. Oxford: Peter Lang.

Brenkert, George G. 2010. The limits and prospects of business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly 20 (4): 703–709.CrossRef

Bruna, Maria Giuseppina, and Yoann Bazin. 2017. Answering Levinas' call in organization studies. European Management Review: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12137.

Burggraeve, Roger. 1999. Violence and the Vulnerable Face of the Other: The Vision of Emmanuel Levinas on Moral Evil and Our Responsibility. Journal of Social Philosophy 30 (1): 29–45.

Child, John, and Suzana Rodrigues. 2003. International crisis of confidence in corporations. Journal of Management and Governance 7 (3).

Childress, James, and John Macquarrie, eds. 1986. A New Dictionary of Christian Ethics: SCM Press.

Clegg, Stewart, Martin Kornberger, and Carl Rhodes. 2007. Busienss ethics as practice. British Journal of Management 18 (2): 107–122.CrossRef

Cohan, John Alan. 2002. "I Didn’t know" and "I was only doing my job": Has corporate governance careened out of control? A case study of Enron’s information myopia. Journal of Business Ethics 40: 275–299.CrossRef

Collste, Göran. 2007. Perspectives on applied ethics. 109. Accessed 19/10/2017.

Cortez, Franz Giuseppe F. 2015. Critical business ethics: Contributions and challenges. Kritike 9 (2): 98–117.

Corvellec, Hervé. 2005. "An endless responsibility forJustice: For a Levinasian approach to managerial ethics." Levinas, business, ethics, University of Leicester, UK, 28/5/2013.

Critchley, Simon. 2014. The ethics of deconstruction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Crowell, Steven. 2012. Why is ethics first philosophy? Levinas in phenomenological context. European Journal of Philosophy 23 (3): 564–588.CrossRef

Ven, Bert van de. 2005. "The Impossibility of a Levinasian Business Ethics: towards an interpretation of the ethical in business." Levinas, Business, Ethics Conference, University of Leicester, 22/10/2014.

DeGeorge, Richard T. 2006. The relevance of philosophy to business ethics: A response to Rorty's "is philosophy relevant to applied ethics?". Business Ethics Quarterly 16 (3): 381–389.CrossRef

Desmond, John. 2007. Levinas: Beyond egoism in marketing and management. Business Ethics: A European Review 16 (3).

Donaldson, Thomas, and Thomas W. Dunfee. 1994. Toward a unified conception of business ethics: Integrative social contracts theory. Academy of Management 19 (2): 252–284.

Enderle, Georges. 2018. How can business ethics strengthen the social cohesion of a society? Journal of Business Ethics 150 (1): 619–629.CrossRef

Engelbrecht, Schalk. 2012. Radical business ethics-a critical and Postmetaphysical manifesto. Business Ethics: A European Review 21 (4): 339–352.CrossRef

Faldetta, Guglielmo. 2018. When relationships are broken: Restorative justice under a Levinasian approach. Philosophy of: Management. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-018-0094-1.CrossRef

Freeman, R. Edward. 2011. In Business ethics and continental philosophy, ed. Mollie Painter-Morland and Rene ten Bos. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gane, Nicholas. 1997. Max weber on the ethical irrationality of political leadership. Sociology 31 (3): 549–564.CrossRef

Gehrke, Pat J. 2006. The ethical importance of being human. Philosophy Today 50 (4): 428–436.CrossRef

Glock, Hans-Johann. 2011. Doing good by splitting hairs? Analytic philosophy and applied ethics. Journal of Applied Philosophy 28 (3): 225–240.CrossRef

Grosby, Steven. 2013. Max weber, religion, and the disenchantment of the world. Culture and Society 50 (1): 301–310.

Hartman, Edwin M. 2007. Socratic questions and Aristotelian answers: A virtue-based approach to business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 78 (1): 313–328.

Hood, Jacqueline N., and Jeanne M. Logsdon. 2002. Business ethics in the NAFTA countries: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Business Research 55 (11): 883–890.CrossRef

Hyatt, James. 2005. Birth of the ethics industry. Business Ethics 19 (2): 20–27. https://doi.org/10.5840/bemag200519229.CrossRef

Jackall, Robert. 2009. Moral mazes: The world of corporate managers. New York: Oxford University Press.

Jackson, Ralph W., Charles M. Wood, and James J. Zboja. 2013. The dissolution of ethical decision-making in organizations: A comprehensive review and model. Journal of Business Ethics 116 (2): 233–250.CrossRef

Jones, Campbell. 2003. As if business ethics were possible within such limits. Organization 10 (2): 223–248.CrossRef

Jones, Campbell, Martin Parker, and Rene ten Bos. 2005. For business ethics. London & New York: Routledge.CrossRef

Kieran, Matthew. 1995. Applied philosophy and business ethics. Journal of Applied Philosophy 12 (2): 175–187.CrossRef

Knights, David, and Majella O’Leary. 2006. The possibility of ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics 67 (2): 125–139.CrossRef

Levinas, Emmanuel. 1978. Existence and existents. Martinus Hijhoff: Translated by Alphonso Lingis. The Hague.CrossRef

Levinas, Emmanuel. 1982. Ethics and infinity: Conversations with Philippe Nemo. Translated by Richard A. Cohen. Pittsburgh: Duqesne University Press.

Levinas, Emmanuel. 1987. Collected Philosophical Papers: Martinus Nijhoff publishers.CrossRef

Levinas, Emmanuel. 1993. Outside the subject. Translated by Michael B. Smith. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Levinas, Emmanuel. 1998a. Of god who comes to mind. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Levinas, Emmanuel. 1998b. On thinking of the other. New York: Columbia University Press.

Levinas, Emmanuel. 1999. Alterity and transcendence. London: The Athlone Press.

Levinas, Emmanuel. 2000. God, death, and time. Translated by Bettina Bergo. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Levinas, Emmanuel. 2001. In Is it righteous to be? ed. Jill Robins. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Levinas, Emmanuel. 2011a. Otherwise than being or beyond essence. Pennsylvania: Duquesne University Press.

Levinas, Emmanuel. 2011b. Totality and infinity. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.

Loumansky, Amanda, and David Lewis. 2013. A Levinasian approach to whistleblowing. Philosophy of Management 12 (3): 27–48.CrossRef

Manderson, Desmond. 2005. Proximity: The law of ethics and the ethics of law. UNSW Law Journal 28 (3): 696–719.

Mansell, Samuel. 2008. Proximity and rationalisation. Journal of Business Ethics 83 (3): 565–577.CrossRef

Mayer, Colin. 2013. Firm commitment. In. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Munro, Iain. 1997. Codes of ethics. In In Current Issues in Business Ethics, edited by Peter W. F. Davies: Routledge.

Oddo, Alfonso R. 1997. A framework for teaching business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 16 (3): 293–297.CrossRef

Parker, Martin. 2003. Business, ethics and business ethics: Critical theory and negative dialectics. In In Studying Management Critically, edited by Mats Alvesson and Hugh Willmott. London: SAGE Publications.

Pattan, John E. 1984. The business of ethics and the ethics of business. Journal of Business Ethics 3 (1): 1–19.CrossRef

Quinn, John J. 1997. Personal ethics and business ethics: The ethical attitudes of owner/manager of small business. Journal of Business Ethics 16: 119–127.CrossRef

Roberts, John. 2001. Corporate governance and the ethics of narcissus. Business Ethics Quarterly 11 (1): 109–127.CrossRef

Rossouw, Gedeon J., and Leon J. van Vuuren. 2003. Modes of managing morality: A descriptive model of strategies for managing ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 46: 389–402.CrossRef

Sandelands, Lloyd. 2009. The business of business is the human person: Lessons from the Catholic social tradition. Journal of Business Ethics 85 (1): 93–101.CrossRef

Snyder, Peter, Molly Hall, and Joline Robertson. 2006. Ethical rationality: A strategic approach to organizational crisis. Journal of Business Ethics 63: 371–383.CrossRef

Svensson, Goran, and Greg Wood. 2008. A model of business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 77 (1): 303–322.

Tajalli, Payman. 2017. From beyond good and evil to before good and evil. PhD, MGSM: Macquarie University.

Taylor, Charles. 2007. A Secular Age. USA: Stanford university Press.

Timmons, Mark. 2012. Moral theory: An introduction. In: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Todd, Sharon. 2001. "On Not Knowing the Other, or Learning from Levinas." Philosophy of Education Yearbook:67–74.

Trevino, Linda Klebe. 1986. Ethical decision making in organizations: A person-situation Interactionist model. Academy of Management 11 (3): 601–617.

Trezise, Edward, and Gert Biesta. 2009. Can management ethics be taught ethically? A Levinasian exploration. Philosophy of Management 8 (1): 43–54.CrossRef

Vandenberg, Brian. 1999. "Levinas and the ethical context of human development." Human Development 42:31–44.

Vogal, David. 1991. The ethical roots of business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly 1 (1): 101–120.CrossRef

Vriens, Dirk, Jan Achterbergh, and Liesbeth Gulpers. 2018. Virtuous structures. Journal of Business Ethics 150 (1): 671–690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3174-y.CrossRef

Watson, Tony J. 2003. Ethical choice in managerial work: The scope for moral choices in an ethically irrational world. Human Relations 56 (2): 167–185.CrossRef

Weber, Max. 1946a. In From max weber: Essays in sociology, ed. H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills. New York: Oxford University Press.

Weber, Max. 1946b. Politics as vocation. In From max weber: Essays in sociology, ed. H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills, 77–128. New York: Oxford University Press.

Weber, Max. 1946c. Science as a vocation. In From max weber: Essays in sociology, ed. H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills. New York: Oxford University Press.

Weber, Max. 1946d. The social Psycology of the world religions. In From max weber: Essays in sociology, ed. H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills, 267–301. New York: Oxford University Press.

Weber, Max. 1949. The methodology of social sciences. In In, ed Edward a. Shils and Henry A. Finch. Illinois: The Free Press.

Werhane, Patricia H., and R. Edward freeman. 2005. Business ethics. In A Companion to Applied Ethics, edited by R.G. Frey and Christopher Heath Wellman: Blackwell Reference Online.

Wicks, Andrew C., and R. Edward Freeman. 1998. Organization studies and the new pragmatism: Positivism, anti-positivism, and the search for ethics. Organization Science 9 (2): 123–140.CrossRef

Wood, David. 2005. Some questions for my Levinasian friends. In Addressing Levinas, ed. Eric Sean Nelson, Antje Kapust, and Kent Still, 152–169. Illinoise: Northwestern University Press.CrossRef

Wray-Bliss, Edward. 2011. Business ethics. In In Key Concepts in Critical Management Studies, edited by Pauline Maclaran mark Tadajewski. Elizabeth Parsons, Martin Parker: SAGE Publications.

Titel: Levinas, Weber, and a Hybrid Framework for Business Ethics
verfasst von: Payman Tajalli
Steven Segal
Publikationsdatum: 12.09.2018
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: Philosophy of Management / Ausgabe 1/2019
Print ISSN: 1740-3812
Elektronische ISSN: 2052-9597
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-018-0100-7

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2019

Horizontal Unfairness and Retrospective Sensemaking

The Philosophy of Theory U: A Critical Examination

When Relationships are Broken: Restorative Justice under a Levinasian Approach

Editorial

Corporate Social Responsibility and Dehumanization

The “Freely Adaptive System”. Application of this Cybernetic Model to an Organization Formed by Two Dynamic Human Systems