Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T17:39:21.651Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why Business Ethics Needs Rhetoric: An Aristotelian Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2015

Ronald F. Duska
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

If the ultimate purpose of ethical argument is to persuade people to act a certain way, the point of doing business ethics is to persuade others about what constitutes proper ethical behavior. Given that teleological perspective, the role of the business ethicist is to be an orator or rhetorician. Further, since one cannot expect more certitude than the subject warrants, from Aristotle’s perspective,while rhetoric is the most persuasive means of arguing, it is not scientific demonstration. Rhetoric uses examples and enthymemes. Such an approach answers the postmodern claim that ethical argument cannot lead to certitude and shows how the use of rhetoric helps avoid relativism and leads to more effective persuasion. According to Aristotle, rhetoric involves gaining truth with a “rough and general sketch.” This rhetorical approach allows the listener to “see as” the persuader sees, by attending to aspects of our shared experience and language. This mirrors insights of Kant’s reflexive judgment in his third critique as well as the later Wittgenstein, who compares ethics to aesthetics.

Keywords

Aristotleteleologypostmodern business ethicsbusiness ethics pedagogyethical persuasion
Type
Presidential Address
Information
Business Ethics Quarterly , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , January 2014 , pp. 119 - 134
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Business Ethics 2014

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

REFERENCES

Anscombe, G.E.M. 1958. “Modern Moral Philosophy,” Philosophy 33.Google Scholar
Aristotle, 1941. Rhetoric, in The Basic Works of Aristotle, trans. Rhys Roberts, W. ed. McKeon, Richard.New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Aristotle, 1962. Nichomachean Ethics, trans. Oswald, Martin.New York: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Arnold, Denis G., Audi, Robert, and Zwolinski, Matt. 2010. “Recent Work in Ethical Theory and Its Implications for Business Ethics,” Business Ethics Quarterly 20 (4): 559–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/beq201020438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Audi, Robert. 2012. “Virtue Ethics as a Resource in Business,” Business Ethics Quarterly 22 (2): 273–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/beq201222220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duska, Ronald F. 1993. “Aristotle: A Pre-modern Post-modern? Implications for Business Ethics,” Business Ethics Quarterly 3 (3): 227–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3857251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finnis, John. 1983. Fundamentals of Ethics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Green, Ronald M. 1993. “Business Ethics as a Postmodern Phenomenon,” Business Ethics Quarterly 3 (3): 219–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3857250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, Jurgen H. 1975. Legitimation Crisis. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Joseph, Heath, Moriarty, Jeffrey, and Norman, Wayne. 2010. “Business Ethics and (or as) Political Philosophy,” Business Ethics Quarterly 20 (3): 427–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/beq201020329Google Scholar
Koehn, Daryl. 2014. “Ethical Darkness Made Visible: Michael Moore’s Roger and Me,” in Aesthetics and Business Ethics, 83–101. Dordrecht: Springer, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolution, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lehman, Craig. 1992. “Takeovers and Takeover Defenses: Some Utilities of the Free Market,” in Newton, Lisa and Ford, Maureen, Taking Sides: Controversial Issues in Business Ethics, 23–35. Guilford, CT: Duskin Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Lyotard, Jean-Francois. 1984. The Posmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Lyotard, Jean-Francois. 1989a. The Lyotard Reader, ed. Benjamin, AndrewOxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lyotard, Jean-Francois. 1989b. “Universal History and Cultural Differences,” in The Lyotard Reader, ed. Benjamin, AndrewOxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
MacIntyre, Alisdaire.After Virtue, 2nd ed. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Lisa, Newton, and Ford, Maureen. 1992. Taking Sides: Controversial Issues in Business Ethics. Guilford, CT: Duskin Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Rand, Ayn. 1964. The Virtue of Selfishness. New York: Signet.Google Scholar
Rorty, Richard. 1979. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sison, Jose G., Hartman, Edwin M., and Fontrodona, Joan. 2012. “Reviving Tradition: Virtue and the Common Good in Business and Management,” Business Ethics Quarterly 22 (2): 207–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/beq201222217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werhane, Patricia. 1999. Moral Imagination and Management Decision Making. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1967. Philosophical Investigations, 2nd ed. New York: The Macmillan Company.Google Scholar
Wyschogrod, Edith. 1990. Saints and Postmodernism: Revisioning Moral Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar