Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-p5m67 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-22T06:28:28.271Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What's the Point of a Business Ethics Course?*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2015

Ronald F. Duska
Ronald F. Duska*
Affiliation:
Rosemont College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The paper argues that the point of a business ethics course is to improve behavior in business, and that an essential ingredient in that improved behavior is knowing what's right or wrong. To make that claim, the paper attempts to dispose of three arguments which support the contrary claim, that business ethics courses are useless. First, it is argued that morals can't be taught, since they only result from training. Second, it is argued that such courses are unnecessary because business executives already know right from wrong. Third, it is argued that ethical knowledge is impossible, so there is nothing to teach. The first two arguments are dealt with briefly, and the third is addressed extensively. The paper argues that the scepticism about ethical knowledge is part of a pervasive “relativism” in our society, but shows that such a relativism/scepticism is untenable and indicates how ethical knowledge is possible. If, then, knowledge of right and wrong is an essential ingredient for improving business behavior, and such knowledge can be imparted in an ethics course, there is some point to teaching business ethics.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Business Ethics Quarterly , Volume 1 , Issue 4 , October 1991 , pp. 335 - 354
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Business Ethics 1991

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Benhabib, Seyla, “Feminism and the Question of Postmodernism,” A paper delivered at the Greater Philadelphia Philosophy Consortium, 1990.Google Scholar
Bennett, Jonathan, “The Conscience of Huckleberry Finn,” Philosophy 49 (Cambridge University Press, 1974), pp. 123–34.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Richard, Beyond Relativism and Objectivism (Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983).Google Scholar
Bloom, Allan, The Closing of the American Mind (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987).Google Scholar
Brandt, RichardEthical Theory (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1959).Google Scholar
Derry, Robin, and Green, Ronald, “Ethical Theory in Business Ethics: A Critical Assessment” a paper delivered at the Business Ethics Society's annual meeting, 1989.Google Scholar
Englehardt, Jr., Tristram, H., “Applied Philosophy in the Post-Modern Age: An Augury,” Journal of Social Philosophy Volume XX, #1, 2, Spring/Fall 1989, pp. 42–49.Google Scholar
Hospers, John, Human Conduct (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1961).Google Scholar
James, William, “The Moral Philosopher and-the Moral Life,” Essays in Pragmatism (New York: Haffner, 1948).Google Scholar
Kristol, Irving, “Ethics, Anyone? Or Morals?” The Wall Street Journal, September 15, 1987.Google Scholar
Levin, Michael, “Ethics Courses: Useless,” The New York Times, November 25, 1989.Google Scholar
Midgley, Mary, Heart and Mind: The Varieties of Moral Experience, (New York, St. Martin's Press, 1981).Google Scholar
Sommers, Christina, “Philosophers Against the Family,” Vice and Virtue in Everyday Life, ed. by Sommers and Sommers, (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1989).Google Scholar