{"title":"探究价值:商业伦理中的实用主义转向","authors":"Henrik Rydenfelt","doi":"10.1007/s10551-024-05711-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>30 years ago, R. Edward Freeman levied an influential challenge against the “separation thesis”, which maintains that ethical and business concerns are distinct and separable. However, achieving an integration of empirical and normative research continues to pose significant challenges. In this article, it is argued that the tradition of philosophical pragmatism offers a pathway to bridge this divide. While Freeman’s critique is rooted in pragmatism, it falls short of fully embracing the pragmatist turn as advocated by Charles S. Peirce and John Dewey, who extended the methodologies of empirical inquiry to ethical issues. Typically, this pragmatist turn has been sidelined due to the formidable objection that norms and values cannot be empirically confirmed nor disconfirmed. This objection is critically examined, arguing that it is largely based on conceptions of science associated with positivism and logical empiricism, effectively challenged by pragmatism. Embracing a pragmatist perspective, it is argued, can substantially enhance both theoretical and empirical research within business ethics. This approach entails integrating observations that pertain to the values, norms and responsibilities of businesses. Conversely, with a comprehensive understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of such proposals, observations can help determine which ethical theories and perspectives best accommodate empirical findings. Additionally, pragmatism presents a novel approach to the role of business in society, enabling businesses to engage in democratic processes of inquiry into value.</p>","PeriodicalId":15279,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Business Ethics","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Inquiring Value: The Pragmatist Turn in Business Ethics\",\"authors\":\"Henrik Rydenfelt\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10551-024-05711-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>30 years ago, R. Edward Freeman levied an influential challenge against the “separation thesis”, which maintains that ethical and business concerns are distinct and separable. However, achieving an integration of empirical and normative research continues to pose significant challenges. In this article, it is argued that the tradition of philosophical pragmatism offers a pathway to bridge this divide. While Freeman’s critique is rooted in pragmatism, it falls short of fully embracing the pragmatist turn as advocated by Charles S. Peirce and John Dewey, who extended the methodologies of empirical inquiry to ethical issues. Typically, this pragmatist turn has been sidelined due to the formidable objection that norms and values cannot be empirically confirmed nor disconfirmed. This objection is critically examined, arguing that it is largely based on conceptions of science associated with positivism and logical empiricism, effectively challenged by pragmatism. Embracing a pragmatist perspective, it is argued, can substantially enhance both theoretical and empirical research within business ethics. This approach entails integrating observations that pertain to the values, norms and responsibilities of businesses. Conversely, with a comprehensive understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of such proposals, observations can help determine which ethical theories and perspectives best accommodate empirical findings. Additionally, pragmatism presents a novel approach to the role of business in society, enabling businesses to engage in democratic processes of inquiry into value.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15279,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Business Ethics\",\"volume\":\"35 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Business Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-024-05711-1\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Business Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-024-05711-1","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
30 年前,爱德华-弗里曼(R. Edward Freeman)对 "分离论 "提出了颇具影响力的质疑。然而,实现实证研究与规范研究的融合仍然是一项重大挑战。本文认为,哲学实用主义传统为弥合这一鸿沟提供了一条途径。虽然弗里曼的批评植根于实用主义,但它并没有完全接受查尔斯-皮尔斯(Charles S. Peirce)和约翰-杜威(John Dewey)所倡导的实用主义转向,他们将经验探究的方法论扩展到了伦理问题上。通常情况下,由于规范和价值观无法通过经验证实或否定这一令人生畏的反对意见,实用主义转向被搁置一旁。本文对这一反对意见进行了批判性研究,认为它主要是基于与实证主义和逻辑经验主义相关的科学概念,而实用主义则有效地挑战了这一概念。本文认为,从实用主义的角度出发,可以大大加强商业伦理的理论研究和实证研究。这种方法需要整合与企业的价值观、规范和责任有关的观点。反之,在全面了解这些建议的理论基础后,观察结果可以帮助确定哪些伦理理论和观点最适合实证研究结果。此外,实用主义为企业在社会中的作用提供了一种新的方法,使企业能够参与价值的民主调查过程。
Inquiring Value: The Pragmatist Turn in Business Ethics
30 years ago, R. Edward Freeman levied an influential challenge against the “separation thesis”, which maintains that ethical and business concerns are distinct and separable. However, achieving an integration of empirical and normative research continues to pose significant challenges. In this article, it is argued that the tradition of philosophical pragmatism offers a pathway to bridge this divide. While Freeman’s critique is rooted in pragmatism, it falls short of fully embracing the pragmatist turn as advocated by Charles S. Peirce and John Dewey, who extended the methodologies of empirical inquiry to ethical issues. Typically, this pragmatist turn has been sidelined due to the formidable objection that norms and values cannot be empirically confirmed nor disconfirmed. This objection is critically examined, arguing that it is largely based on conceptions of science associated with positivism and logical empiricism, effectively challenged by pragmatism. Embracing a pragmatist perspective, it is argued, can substantially enhance both theoretical and empirical research within business ethics. This approach entails integrating observations that pertain to the values, norms and responsibilities of businesses. Conversely, with a comprehensive understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of such proposals, observations can help determine which ethical theories and perspectives best accommodate empirical findings. Additionally, pragmatism presents a novel approach to the role of business in society, enabling businesses to engage in democratic processes of inquiry into value.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Business Ethics publishes only original articles from a wide variety of methodological and disciplinary perspectives concerning ethical issues related to business that bring something new or unique to the discourse in their field. Since its initiation in 1980, the editors have encouraged the broadest possible scope. The term `business'' is understood in a wide sense to include all systems involved in the exchange of goods and services, while `ethics'' is circumscribed as all human action aimed at securing a good life. Systems of production, consumption, marketing, advertising, social and economic accounting, labour relations, public relations and organisational behaviour are analysed from a moral viewpoint. The style and level of dialogue involve all who are interested in business ethics - the business community, universities, government agencies and consumer groups. Speculative philosophy as well as reports of empirical research are welcomed. In order to promote a dialogue between the various interested groups as much as possible, papers are presented in a style relatively free of specialist jargon.