This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Moral Dilemmas in Business Ethics: From Decision Procedures to Edifying Perspectives

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Yotam Lurie ()
Robert Albin ()
Abstract

There have been many attempts during the history of applied ethics that have tried to develop a theory of moral reasoning. The goal of this paper is to explicate one aspect of the debate between various attempts of offering a specific method for resolving moral dilemmas. We contrast two kinds of deliberative methods: deliberative methods whose goal is decision-making and deliberative methods that are aimed at gaining edifying perspectives. The decision-making methods assessed include the traditional moral theories like utilitarianism and Kantianism, as well as second order principles, such as principlism and specified principlism. In light of this assessment, we suggest taking a closer look at two perceptive models, casuistry and particularism. These models are used for dealing with moral dilemmas that provide for edifying perspectives rather than decision-making. These perceptive models, though less scientific and not as good at prescribing an action, are more human in the sense that they enrich our moral sensibilities and enhance our understanding of the meaning of the situation. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10551-006-9134-1
File Format: text/html
File Function:
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Publisher Info
Article provided by Springer in its journal Journal of Business Ethics.

Volume (Year): 71 (2007)
Issue (Month): 2 (March)
Pages: 195-207
Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:71:y:2007:i:2:p:195-207

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=100281

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Christopher F. Baum).

Related research
Keywords: casuistry; decision theory; humanism; moral deliberation; particularism;

Cited by:
(explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)

  1. Paul Griseri, 2008. "In Defence of Principles? A Response to Lurie and Albin," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 83(4), pages 615-625, December. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  2. Chris Bell & Justin Hughes-Jones, 2008. "Power, Self-regulation and the Moralization of Behavior," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 83(3), pages 503-514, December. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? IDEAS also indexes books.

This page was last updated on 2009-12-10.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.