Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T20:19:45.745Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dialogue: The Confucian Critique of Rights-Based Business Ethics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 July 2015

Adam D. Bailey  and
Alan Strudler
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Must even Confucian rights skeptics—those who are, on account of their Confucian beliefs, skeptical of the existence of human rights, and believe that asserting or recognizing rights is morally wrong—concede that in the workplace, they are morally obligated to recognize rights? Alan Strudler has recently argued that such is the case. In this article, I argue that because Confucian rights skeptics locate wrongness in inconsistency with the idea of “Confucian community,” Confucian community should be viewed as a moral ideal. I then argue that Confucian rights skeptics ought to act in a manner that is consistent with this ideal, even when the ideal has not yet been realized, just as Kantians ought to act consistently with the Kantian kingdom of ends ideal. Accordingly, contrary to Strudler, I argue that Confucian rights skeptics need not concede that they are morally obligated to recognize rights in the workplace. This conclusion suggests the need for inquiry into the metaphysical foundations of these conflicting views. However, such inquiry is commonly thought to lie beyond the scope of philosophical business ethics proper. I conclude the article by suggesting a number of reasons for business ethicists to consider rejecting the prevalent narrow conception of the scope of the discipline.

In this discussion I explore challenges to a particular Confucian system of morality that generally eschews reliance on rights. I argue that such a system may at the same time both assert that there are moral problems with rights and assert that it is acceptable to invoke rights in limited contexts. Adam Bailey has objected that the position I defend is inconsistent. I answer Bailey’s objections.

Type
Articles
Information
Business Ethics Quarterly , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , October 2011 , pp. 661 - 677
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Business Ethics 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aquinas, Thomas. 1981. Summa Theologica. Notre Dame, Ind.: Christian Classics.Google Scholar
Arnold, Denis G., Robert, Audi, and Matt, Zwolinski. 2010. “Recent Work in Ethical Theory and Its Implications for Business Ethics,” Business Ethics Quarterly 20(4): 559–81.Google Scholar
Bauer, Joanne R., and Bell, Daniel A., eds. 1999. The East Asian Challenge for Human Rights. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brenkert, George G. 2010. “The Limits and Prospects of Business Ethics,” Business Ethics Quarterly 20(4): 703–09.Google Scholar
Cummiskey, David. 1990. “Kantian Consequentialism,” Ethics 100(3): 586–615.Google Scholar
de Bary, William Theodore. 1998. Asian Values and Human Rights: A Confucian Communitarian Perspective. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Dean, Richard. 2008. “Glasgow’s Conception of Kantian Humanity,” Journal of the History of Philosophy 46(2): 307–14.Google Scholar
Foot, Philippa. 1994a. “Killing and Letting Die,” in Killing and Letting Die, ed. Steinbock, B. and Norcross, A.. New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
Foot, Philippa. 1994b. “The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of the Double Effect,” in Killing and Letting Die, ed. Steinbock, B. and Norcross, A.. New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
Glasgow, Joshua M. 2007. “Kant’s Conception of Humanity,” Journal of the History of Philosophy 45(2): 291–308.Google Scholar
Hsieh, Nien-hê. 2009. “Does Global Business Have a Responsibility to Promote Just Institutions?,” Business Ethics Quarterly 19(2): 251–73.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1997. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, ed. and trans. Gregor, M.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mack, Eric. 2010. “The Natural Right of Property,” Social Philosophy and Policy 27(1): 53–78.Google Scholar
Mehmet, Ozay. 1999. “Cultural Relativism and Human Rights: The Debate Over Labour Standards and ‘Asian Values,’” in Towards a Fair Global Labour Market: Avoiding a New Slave Trade, ed. Mehmet, O. Mendes, E. and Sinding, R.. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rescher, Nicholas. 2001. Philosophical Reasoning: A Study in the Methodology of Philosophizing. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Richardson, Henry S. 1990. “Specifying Norms as a Way to Resolve Concrete Ethical Problems,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 19(4): 279–310.Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya K. 1997. Human Rights and Asian Values, Sixteenth Morgenthau Memorial Lecture on Ethics and Foreign Policy. New York: Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs.Google Scholar
Shun, Kwong-Loi, and Wong, David B., eds. 2004. Confucian Ethics: A Comparative Study of Self, Autonomy, and Community. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Singer, Peter. 1972. “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 1: 229–43.Google Scholar
Strudler, Alan. 2008. “Confucian Skepticism about Workplace Rights,” Business Ethics Quarterly 18(1): 67–83.Google Scholar
Sungmoon, Kim. 2009. “Self-Transformation and Civil Society: Lockean vs. Confucian,” Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 8(4): 383–401.Google Scholar
Thomson, Judit Jarvis. 1971. “A Defense of Abortion,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 1(1): 47–66.Google Scholar
Timmermann, Jens. 2006. “Value without Regress: Kant’s ‘Formula of Humanity’ Revisited,” European Journal of Philosophy 14(1): 69–93.Google Scholar
Wasserman, David, and Alan, Strudler. 2003. “Can a Nonconsequentialist Count Lives?,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 31(1): 71–94.Google Scholar
Wei-ming, Tu. 2002. “Confucianism and Liberalism,” Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 2(1): 1–20.Google Scholar
Werhane, Patricia H. 2010. “Principles and Practices for Corporate Responsibility,” Business Ethics Quarterly 20(4): 695–701.Google Scholar
Arnold, D. G., and Hartman, L. P.. 2006. “Worker Rights and Low Wage Industrialization: How to Avoid Sweatshops,” Human Rights Quarterly 28: 676–700.Google Scholar
Bailey, A. 2011. “Confucian-Based Rights Skepticism and Rights in the Workplace,” Business Ethics Quarterly 21(4) (October): 661–72.Google Scholar
Carasco, E. F., and Singh, J. B.. 2008. “Human Rights in Global Business Ethics Codes,” Business and Society Review 113: 347–74.Google Scholar
Feinberg, J. 1970. “The Nature and Value of Rights,” Journal of Value Inquiry 4: 263–67.Google Scholar
Ihara, C. 2004. “Are Individual Rights Necessary? A Confucian Perspective,” in Confucian Ethics: A Comparative Study of Self, Autonomy, and Community, ed. Shun, K.-L. and Wong, D. B.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. 1994. The Concept of Law, 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Maitland, I. 1989. “Rights in the Workplace: A Nozickian Argument,” Journal of Business Ethics 8: 951–54.Google Scholar
Schapiro, T. 2003. “Compliance, Complicity, and the Nature of Nonideal Conditions,” The Journal of Philosophy 100: 329–55.Google Scholar
Strudler, A. 2008. “Confucian Skepticism about Workplace Rights,” Business Ethics Quarterly 18: 67–83.Google Scholar
Williams, B. 1986. “Consequences,” London Review of Books 8: 7–8.Google Scholar