IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/mlucee/202001.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Das Moralparadoxon der Moderne: Ordonomische Überlegungen zur modernen Ethik als Ethik der Moderne

Author

Listed:
  • Pies, Ingo

Abstract

Das Moralparadoxon der Moderne besteht darin, dass die moderne (Welt-)Gesellschaft - wie keine Gesellschaftsformation vor ihr - wichtige moralische Anliegen verwirklichen kann und ansatzweise auch tatsächlich verwirklicht, während sie - wie keine Gesellschaftsformation vor ihr - auf moralische Vorbehalte stößt, die bis zur radikalen Ablehnung ihrer Funktionslogik reichen können. Das Forschungsprogramm der Ordonomik interpretiert dieses Paradoxon als das Ergebnis einer Moralkonfusion, die primär dadurch zustande kommt, dass die auf systemischen Wettbewerbsanreizen basierende Funktionsweise der modernen Gesellschaft in weiten Teilen der Bevölkerung unverstanden geblieben ist. Nach ordonomischem Verständnis gehört es zu den wichtigsten Aufgaben der Ordnungsethik, einer verfehlten Anwendung handlungslogischer Zurechnungsmodi entgegenzuwirken und durch geeignete Aufklärungs- sowie Steuerungsargumente konstruktiv daran mitzuwirken, Sozialstruktur und Semantik wechselseitig aneinander anzupassen, damit gesellschaftliche Lernprozesse zur Verwirklichung moralischer Anliegen besser gelingen.

Suggested Citation

  • Pies, Ingo, 2020. "Das Moralparadoxon der Moderne: Ordonomische Überlegungen zur modernen Ethik als Ethik der Moderne," Discussion Papers 2020-01, Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg, Chair of Economic Ethics.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:mlucee:202001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/215848/1/1691159816.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anderson, Elizabeth, 1990. "The Ethical Limitations of the Market," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(2), pages 179-205, October.
    2. Pies, Ingo, 2017. "Ordonomik als Methode zur Generierung von Überbietungsargumenten – Eine Illustration anhand der Flüchtlings(politik)debatte," Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Unternehmensethik - Journal for Business, Economics & Ethics, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 18(2), pages 171-200.
    3. Luigino Bruni & Robert Sugden, 2013. "Reclaiming Virtue Ethics for Economics," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 27(4), pages 141-164, Fall.
    4. Kelly, Daniel & Morar, Nicolae, 2014. "Against the Yuck Factor: On the Ideal Role of Disgust in Society," Utilitas, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(2), pages 153-177, June.
    5. Goldschmidt Nils & Sendker Michael, 2016. "Die moralischen Grenzen des Marktes," ORDO. Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, De Gruyter, vol. 67(1), pages 528-530, May.
    6. Satz, Debra, 2010. "Why Some Things Should Not Be for Sale: The Moral Limits of Markets," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195311594.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Pies, Ingo, 2020. "Tote durch Tabus: Ordonomische Beobachtungen und Reflexionen zu Moral und Ethik in der Corona-Krise," Discussion Papers 2020-05, Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg, Chair of Economic Ethics.
    2. Pies Ingo, 2019. "Donald Blacks Moralsoziologie," Journal for Markets and Ethics, Sciendo, vol. 7(2), pages 51-63, December.
    3. Pies, Ingo, 2021. "Diskursversagen durch moralische Vor- und Fehl-Urteile: Die ordonomische Perspektive," Discussion Papers 2021-06, Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg, Chair of Economic Ethics.
    4. Pies, Ingo, 2021. "Kapitalismus als System zur Verwirklichung moralischer Anliegen - Ordonomische Denkanstöße," Discussion Papers 2021-01, Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg, Chair of Economic Ethics.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bjorn Bartling & Ernst Fehr & Yagiz ozdemir, 2023. "Does Market Interaction Erode Moral Values?," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 105(1), pages 226-235, January.
    2. Benistant, Julien & Galeotti, Fabio & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2022. "Competition, information, and the erosion of morals," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 204(C), pages 148-163.
    3. Federica Nalli, 2023. "What Mutual Assistance Is, and What It Could Be in the Contemporary World," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 182(4), pages 1041-1053, February.
    4. Bartling, Björn & Özdemir, Yagiz, 2023. "The limits to moral erosion in markets: Social norms and the replacement excuse," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 143-160.
    5. Luigino Bruni & Paolo Santori, 2022. "The Illusion of Merit and the Demons of Economic Meritocracy: Which are the Legitimate Expectations of the Market?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 176(3), pages 415-427, March.
    6. Greiff, Matthias & Rusch, Hannes, 2022. "Sharing responsibility for the good," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    7. Beckert, Jens, 2011. "Die Sittlichkeit der Wirtschaft: Von Effizienz- und Differenzierungstheorien zu einer Theorie wirtschaftlicher Felder," MPIfG Working Paper 11/8, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    8. Vida Panitch, 2020. "Liberalism, commodification, and justice," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 19(1), pages 62-82, February.
    9. Jason Monios, 2023. "The Moral Limits of Market-Based Mechanisms: An Application to the International Maritime Sector," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 187(2), pages 283-299, October.
    10. Ian Loader & Adam White, 2017. "How can we better align private security with the public interest? Towards a civilizing model of regulation," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(2), pages 166-184, June.
    11. Andrea Isoni & Robert Sugden & Jiwei Zheng, 2018. "The Pizza Night Game: Efficiency, Conflict and Inequality in Tacit Bargaining Games with Focal Points," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 18-01, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    12. Kader, Haithem, 2021. "Human well-being, morality and the economy: an Islamic perspective," Islamic Economic Studies, The Islamic Research and Training Institute (IRTI), vol. 28, pages 102-123.
    13. Vipul Bhatt & Masao Ogaki & Yuichi Yaguchi, 2017. "Introducing Virtue Ethics into Normative Economics for Models with Endogenous Preferences," RCER Working Papers 600, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
    14. Guilhem Lecouteux, 2018. "What does “we” want? Team Reasoning, Game Theory, and Unselfish Behaviours," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 128(3), pages 311-332.
    15. Casella, Alessandra & Turban, Sébastien, 2014. "Democracy undone. Systematic minority advantage in competitive vote markets," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 47-70.
    16. Katharina Huesmann & Achim Wambach, 2015. "Constraints on Matching Markets Based on Moral Concerns," CESifo Working Paper Series 5356, CESifo.
    17. Alshamy, Yahya & Coyne, Christopher J. & Goodman, Nathan, 2023. "Noxious government markets: Evidence from the international arms trade," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 87-99.
    18. Gregory J. Robson, 2023. "How to Object to the Profit System (and How Not To)," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 188(2), pages 205-219, November.
    19. Kapetaniou, Chrystalla & Lee, Soo Hee, 2017. "A framework for assessing the performance of universities: The case of Cyprus," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 169-180.
    20. Della Giusta, Marina & Di Tommaso, Maria Laura & Jewell, Sarah & Bettio, Francesca, 2019. "Quashing Demand Criminalizing Clients? Evidence from the UK," IZA Discussion Papers 12405, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    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:zbw:mlucee:202001. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/wwhalde.html .

    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.