Gauguin’s Lucky Escape

This chapter tackles Bernard Williams’s argument in his ‘Moral Luck’. Despite some relatively superficial similarities between him and Nagel, Williams’s critical targets differ from Nagel and those who have continued to worry about resultant luck, because Williams is mainly concerned about an agent’s prospects for escaping a Kantian version of morality that he described as the ‘morality system’ by undertaking projects whose success depends on luck. It is suggested that it is difficult to find an interpretation of Williams’s position that does full justice to his various desiderata. Seven interpretations are considered, and the most promising of them makes an agent a beneficiary of moral luck if her acts succeed in transforming her perspective in such a way that she is immune to a certain form of regret for the consequences of what she has done. It is contended that this interpretation does not provide a convincing assault on the morality system, as Williams does not have enough to say about the differences between agents who have genuinely escaped the authority of ordinary morality and agents who have simply decided to ignore morality. Williams’s arguments can be interpreted as providing a model of responsibility which rivals the Restricted Account, but it is argued here that the Restricted Account provides the better way forward.

On the Analogy Between Business and Sport: Towards an Aristotelian Response to The Market Failures Approach to Business Ethics

This paper explores the notion that business calls for an adversarial ethic, akin to that of sport. On this view, because of their competitive structure, both sport and business call for behaviours that are contrary to ‘ordinary morality’, and yet are ultimately justified because of the goods they facilitate. I develop three objections to this analogy. Firstly, there is an important qualitative difference between harms risked voluntarily and harms risked involuntarily. Secondly, the goods achieved by adversarial relationships in sport go beyond the function of sport, i.e. to entertain audiences. Thirdly, the most plausible account of the athlete’s motivational development starts with their love of the sport, which can explain a commitment to the sporting ethics in a way that is not paralleled in business. I close by drawing attention to the ways in which an Aristotelian conception of business ethics may be able to accommodate these objections.

Correction to: Food Vendor Beware! On Ordinary Morality and Unhealthy Marketing

The title of the article in the initial online publication was mixed up with copy editing information. The original article has been corrected.

Food Vendor Beware! On Ordinary Morality and Unhealthy Marketing

Food and beverage firms are frequently criticised for their impact on the spread of non-communicable diseases like obesity and diabetes type 2. In this article we explore under what conditions the sales and marketing of unhealthy food and beverage products is irresponsible. Starting from the notion of ordinary morality we argue that firms have a duty to respect people’s autonomy and adhere to the principle of non-maleficence in both market and non-market environments. We show how these considerations are relevant when thinking about immoral behaviour in the food and beverage industry, and identify under what conditions sales and marketing of unhealthy foods and beverages to adults and children is wrong. Based on this analysis we argue that firms should take into account: whether consumers are able to identify manipulative marketing, the degree of manipulation, as well as the negative impact a product has on health. We hold that for the food industry to act responsible it should re-evaluate the marketing of unhealthy products to adults and refrain from marketing to children. We conclude this study by making several recommendations on how the food industry should interact with consumers and highlight what changes need to be made in corporate practice.

“Self-sacrifice” as an accidental outcome of extreme within-group mutualism

Whitehouse [target article] makes no room for evolutionary approaches to extreme behaviors based on partner choice and mutualism, which have been convincingly invoked to make sense of ordinary morality. Extended to intergroup warfare, these evolutionary mechanisms may play a pivotal role in explaining the existence of extreme – though not functionally sacrificial – behaviors, benefiting non-kin fellow fighters, together with the distinctive phenomenology those behaviors display.

Professional ethics

Professional ethics is concerned with the values appropriate to certain kinds of occupational activity, such as medicine and law, which have been defined traditionally in terms of a body of knowledge and an ideal of service to the community; and in which individual professionals have a high degree of autonomy in their practice. The class of occupations aiming to achieve recognition as professions has increased to include, for example, nursing, while at the same time social and political developments have led to criticism of and challenge to the concepts of professions and professionalism. Problems in professional ethics include both regulation of the professional-client relationship and the role and status of professions in society. A central question for ethics is whether there are values or virtues specific to particular professions or whether the standards of ordinary morality are applicable.

“Self-sacrifice” as an accidental outcome of extreme within-group mutualism

Whitehouse makes no room for evolutionary approaches to extreme behaviors based on partner choice and mutualism, which have been convincingly invoked to make sense of ordinary morality. Extended to intergroup warfare, these evolutionary mechanisms may play a pivotal role in explaining the existence of extreme – though not functionally sacrificial – behaviors, benefiting non-kin fellow fighters, together with the distinctive phenomenology those behaviors display.

The Responsibilities and Role of Business in Relation to Society: Back to Basics?

ABSTRACT:In this address, I outline a “back to basics” approach to specifying the responsibilities and role of business in relation to society. Three “basics” comprise the approach. The first is arguing that basic principles of ordinary morality, such as a duty not to harm, provide an adequate basis for specifying the responsibilities of business managers. The second is framing the role of business in society by looking to the values realized by the basic building blocks of contemporary economic activity, i.e., markets and firms. The third is making explicit the basic institutions that structure the background against which business operates. The aim is to develop a plausible framework for managerial decision making that respects the fact of value pluralism in a global economy and that fosters meaningful criticism of current business practices while remaining sufficiently grounded in contemporary circumstances so as to be relevant for managers.