Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T12:50:54.659Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Toward a New Understanding of Moral Pluralism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2015

Rogene A. Buchholz  and
Sandra B. Rosenthal
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The current literature in business ethics is tending toward an unacknowledged moral pluralism, with all the problems this position entails. An adequate moral pluralism cannot be achieved by a synthesis of existing theoretical alternatives for moral action. Rather, what is needed is a radical reconstruction of the understanding of the moral situation that undercuts some of the traditional dichotomies, provides a solid philosophical grounding which is inherently pluralistic, and offers a new understanding of what it is to think morally. The philosophical position of American pragmatism, as briefly sketched in this paper, offers one such possible reconstruction.

Type
Articles
Information
Business Ethics Quarterly , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , July 1996 , pp. 263 - 275
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Business Ethics 1996

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

Beauchamp, T. L. & Bowie, N.E. 1993. Ethical Theory and Business (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Boatright, J. R. 1993. Ethics and the Conduct of Business. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Callicott, J. B. 1990. “The Case Against Moral Pluralism.” Environmental Ethics, vol. 12, pp. 99‐124.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. 1978. “Ethics.” In Boydston, J. A. (ed.). The Middle Works, Vol. 5. Carbondale and Edwardsville: University of Southern Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. 1983. “Human Nature and Conduct.” In Boydston, J. A. (ed.). The Middle Works, Vol. 14. Carbondale and Edwardsville: University of Southern Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. 1984a. “The Public and its Problems.” In Boydston, J. A. (ed.). The Later Works, Vol. 2. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. 1984a. “The Quest for Certainty.” In Boydston, J. A. (ed.). The Later Works, Vol. 4. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. 1986. “The Theory of Inquiry.” In Boydston, J. A. (ed.). The Later Works, Vol. 12. Carbondale and Edwardsville: University of Southern Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. 1987. “Authority and Social Change.” In Boydston, J. A. (ed.). The Later Works, Vol. 11. Carbondale and Edwardsville: University of Southern Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Donaldson, T. & Werhane, P. H. 1993. Ethical Issues in Business: A Philosophical Approach (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Mead, G.H. 1934. Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mead, G. H. 1964. “Natural Rights and the Theory of the Political Institution.” In Beck, A. (ed.). Selected Writings.” New York: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, Sandra B. 1986. Speculative Pragmatism. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. Paperback edition LaSalle, IL: Open Court Publishing Co., 1990.Google Scholar
Velasquez, M. G. 1992. Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases (3rd ed.) Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Wenz, P. S. 1993. “Minimal, Moderate, and Extreme Moral Pluralism.” Environmental Ethics, vol. 15, pp. 61‐74.Google Scholar
Weston, A. 1991. “Comment: On Callicott's Case Against Pluralism. Environmental Ethics, vol. 13, pp. 283‐86.Google Scholar