Nisigandha Bhuyan

Moral imagination and moral courage are vital themes in business ethics education, yet their intimate relationship has been a subject of little conceptual study. This paper argues, following Kant as well as the insights of social psychology, that moral courage provides the key constitutive condition for moral imagination to work, particularly in business settings. On the other hand, while thinkers of moral imagination such as Patricia Werhane write admiringly of moral courage from time to time, they spend little time on developing the latter concept in its intimate and constitutive relationship with moral imagination. This paper proposes that the pedagogical approaches of moral imagination and moral courage should be integrated with special reference to Mary Gentile’s Giving Voice to Values Approach, a pedagogical method which provides the crucial tools to build the ‘moral muscle’ for exercising ethical action in hierarchically organized firms.

This paper presents an alternative concept of excellence in business, which builds upon the conventional notion of excellence as being in harmony with profit. Although the notion of an enduring harmony (or what we call the convergence thesis) between long-term profit and excellence is favoured by many thinkers, the premise neglects the disruptive force of the autonomous pursuit of excellence in theory and constrains it in practice. Further, autonomous excellence, a key condition of a genuine practice, is structurally weakened by the fact that businesses are heavily reliant on market approval to sustain themselves, irreversibly damaging their status as genuine practices. We argue that the autonomous pursuit of excellence requires not only recognizing but also actively strengthening a contingent relationship between internal and external goods, so that internal goods such as the excellence of the product can achieve maximum autonomy from the pressures of external goods. Such a risk-oriented approach may appear antagonistic to business but finds expression in the insight of key business visionaries such as Steve Jobs and Henry Ford that major technological advancements rarely find themselves in consonance with existing market standards and thus require a courageous break from 'market excellence'.

This paper argues that a proper evaluation of the notion of efficiency in business ethics requires that we separate efficiency qua human good from the originally value-neutral sense of the term. The adverse consequences of hyper-efficiency consist in paradoxically causing greater inefficiencies (‘perversity’) as well as a negative impact on the human capacities to pursue various forms of excellence (‘jeopardy’). In contrast to its negative consequences, the precious good of efficiency can be formulated in terms of Alasdair MacIntyre’s influential practice-institution framework. The paper proposes that efficiency be defined in terms of the kind of success towards which it aims; while it never quite reaches the status of an internal good, efficiency fluctuates between being an external good proper and what we call a paradoxical good, with attributes of both internal and external goods. The archetype of a paradoxical good is the good of success qua victory in the domain of sports, which shares attributes of internal goods (since it is defined as a necessary and desirable goal by the practice itself) and external goods (since victory for one implies the defeat of another, a zero-sum logic). The paper fleshes out the consequences of this paradox in MacIntyre’s framework by proposing a three-stage model of success and efficiency for various practices.

There is considerable consensus on the idea that Aristotelian virtue ethics advocates moral realism. In numerous works, the well-known business ethicist Edwin Hartman grapples with reconciling the unitary vision of life that a particular kind of moral realism advocates and the pluralist respect for diverse cultures and belief systems that comprise our world. This paper closely follows Hartman's efforts to reconcile his liberal values with his guarded support for Aristotelian moral realism. We argue that the realist interpretation of Aristotle's function argument can be employed to strengthen Hartman's critique of the concept of Homo economicus, which is often posited by its proponents and critics alike as the only viable position for a business manager. Drawing from Aristotle, the paper posits a novel notion of species-excellence as the ultimate telos of human life and an objective basis for a critique of Homo economicus.

This paper argues that business ethics would enhance its relevance if it is ceases to be a moralizing discourse and instead becomes a mediating discourse between conflicting and multiple interests. Yet business ethics can be relevant as a mediating discourse only if it acknowledges the “embedded” nature of market. To clarify this point, the paper draws from Freeman’s theory of narrative cores, Rehg’s Problem-based Approach and De George’s vision of business ethics as an interdisciplinary field composed of descriptive, managerial and normative components. Finally, we argue for the relevance of the case study, whose juxtaposition of “bi-polar” or irreconcilable dichotomies makes it a vital pedagogical tool for our proposed reconfiguration of business ethics as an interdisciplinary, mediating field of enquiry.