IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/buetqu/v12y2002i01p73-82_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Alternative Approaches to Applied Ethics: A Response to Carson’s Critique

Author

Listed:
  • Holley, David M.

Abstract

Tom Carson’s recent paper on “Deception and Withholding Information in Sales†contains a critique of my contribution to sales ethics. In this response I outline the approach I develop in two earlier papers and address the four criticisms Carson makes. These criticisms are largely based on a misunderstanding of my position. I suggest that our fundamentally different approaches to applied ethics may lie at the root of Carson’s misunderstanding. Carson uses what I call a theory-application model in which the search for justification in terms of fundamental rules is central, while I attempt to contextualize ethical judgments and consider alternative ways of structuring social roles. In contrasting these approaches I raise the question of which way of doing applied ethics is likely to be more fruitful.

Suggested Citation

  • Holley, David M., 2002. "Alternative Approaches to Applied Ethics: A Response to Carson’s Critique," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(1), pages 73-82, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:buetqu:v:12:y:2002:i:01:p:73-82_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1052150X00001706/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. James J. Delaney & David Martin, 2017. "Therapy, Enhancement, and Medicine: Challenges for the Doctor–Patient Relationship and Patient Safety," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 146(4), pages 831-844, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:buetqu:v:12:y:2002:i:01:p:73-82_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/beq .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.