Is Business Ethics Different From Philosophy?
  • Artemis
    1.9k
    Based on a recent discussion with @Mark Dennis, I was wondering what other people might add to this conversation.

    Mark suggested:
    Also it isn’t wrong to say that not all business ethics is applied ethics because first you have to agree that all of our business ethics is actually ethical in the first place. — Mark Dennis

    Now, I'm not so sure I follow the logic or agree with the conclusion here, but it did get me thinking:

    Are there ways in which applied ethics, and in this case business ethics, can veer so far off track so as not to be considered philosophy anymore?

    Does something have to be ethical (which I take to be commonly understood as "ethically correct" or "right") in order to exist under the purview of the Study of Ethics?

    Or is that just politicizing philosophy and basically saying that if I really disagree with X, then therefore I won't consider it philosophy anymore?

    Or is it something else entirely?

    (Also, apologies to the mods and @Pfhorrest for getting off track in the education thread. I am not a goader or interrogator, but I am a person who likes to see where a conversation can/will lead. Most people here are cool with that and --I think-- are similarly inclined. In any case, here's a new thread to keep the forum neat. :wink: )
    Artemis Options
  • Artemis
    1.9k
    ↪Artemis “Also it isn’t wrong to say that not all business ethics is applied ethics because first you have to agree that all of our business ethics is actually ethical in the first place.” Okay, so are you saying that trickledown, middleground and trickleup economics are all ethically valid just because they are all attempts at applied business ethics? Or can we debate which of the three options is more ethical? If we can debate them, then how is it wrong for me to suggest that I don’t believe they are all ethical? There is a distinct difference between saying something is an attempt at an ethical business model and saying it actually is ethical.

    If you’re not inferring I’m lying then why the interrogation and why aren’t you putting anyone else here under scrutiny? We both know full well you’re entire argument is a veiled ad hom attack for no other reason than to troll someone whom you 1, know nothing about, 2, can verify absolutely nothing about. If you weren’t inferring this then why the 3rd degree and the unfounded skepticism?     — Mark Dennis

    I'll answer this here so as not to further hijack the education discussion.

    Your first paragraph tells me that you still don't really get it. The study of ethics does not only discuss things that are known to be (or presumed to be) ethical. It much more importantly addresses the very types of concerns you raise. When is something ethical? Is X unethical? What does it mean for X to be ethical or not. I'm really quite surprised that you seem to think Ethics, applied and otherwise, would only tackle issues that have already been solved.

    As to your 2nd paragraph, I've repeatedly told you that I'm not out to do anything to you. I was/am in theoretical disagreement with you about what constitutes applied ethics.

    From my vantage point, I started off being interested in what your area of expertise might be, just as a general friendly inquiry. Then I tried goodheartedly to tease you about your vague answer. Then I was just amused and bemused at your increasing hostility toward my rather benign questions/theoretical disagreement.

    But I'm sure now you'll tell me yet again what nefarious intents I actually have, because you seem to think you know my own mind so much better than I do. :brow:
    Artemis Options
  • deletedmemberMD
    588
    Nope, not biting.
    deletedmemberMD Options
  • Baden
    16.3k
    Maybe best to continue your argument by PM if necessary. At this point, I don't think anyone else cares.
    Baden Options
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet