Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T04:52:31.410Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cognitive Pathology and Moral Judgment in Managers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2015

Eleonora Curlo  and
Alan Strudler
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

We examine the moral and managerial significance of some empirical studies in cognitive psychology. We suggest that these results may plausibly be interpreted as expressing deontological commitments of experimental subjects, even though psychologists who discuss the results seem to suppose that they show that people are irrational consequentialists. We argue that the plausibility of our interpretation suggests how managers who wish to take seriously entrenched social views on morality might best craft corporate policy on corporate responsibility, and we suggest that the form of argument we employ may be regarded as a kind of appeal to reflective equilibrium.

Type
Articles
Information
Business Ethics Quarterly , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , October 1997 , pp. 27 - 39
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Business Ethics 1997

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

Baron, Jonathan. (1994). “Nonconsequentialist Decisions,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 17, 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bazerman, Max H. (1994). Judgment in Managerial Decision Making (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
Chase Manhattan Bank. (1993). Chase Manhattan Corporate Responsibility Annual Report.Google Scholar
Cohen, L. Jonathan. (1981). “Can Human Irrationality Be Experimentally Demonstrated?”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 4, 317–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darley, John M. and Schultz, Thomas R. (1990). “Moral Rules: Their Content and Acquisition,” Annual Review of Psychology 41, 525–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donagan, Alan. (1977). The Theory of Morality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donaldson, Thomas. (1994). “The Perils of Multinationals’ Largess,” Business Ethics Quarterly 4, 367–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donaldson, Thomas. (1989). The Ethics of International Business. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Donaldson, Thomas. (1982). Corporations and Morality. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Kagan, Shelly. (1989). The Limits of Morality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel. (1994). “The Cognitive Psychology of Consequences and Moral Intuition.” (ms.) Psychology Dept., Princeton University.Google Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, Knetsch, Jack L., and Thaler, Richard H. (1990). “Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem,” Journal of Political Economy 98, 1325–1348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamm, Frances. (1994). Morality, Mortality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kirk, Kenneth E. (1927). Conscience and Its Problems. London, Longmans.Google Scholar
Nagel, Thomas. (1986). The View From Nowhere. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nagel, Thomas. (1995). Other Minds. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parfit, Derek. (1984). Reasons and Persons. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Scheffler, Samuel. (1995). “Individual Responsibility in a Global Age,” Social Policy and Philosophy 112, 219–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, Amos and Kahneman, Daniel. (1974). “Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,” Science 185, 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar