IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/buetqu/v4y1994i04p423-429_01.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

In Defense of a Paradox

Author

Listed:
  • Goodpaster, Kenneth E.
  • Holloran, Thomas E.

Abstract

Our approach in this response is as follows. In § 1, we try to identify accurately Boatright’s central claims—both about Goodpaster’s original paper and about matters of substance independent of that paper. In § 2 and 3, we discuss the plausibility of those claims, first from a legal point of view and then from a moral point of view. Finally, in § 4, we defend the concept of paradox (and, in particular, the Stakeholder Paradox) as a limitation on practical reason which is not necessarily to be lamented. In fact, we believe, some paradoxes are better preserved from rather than guided toward resolution.

Suggested Citation

  • Goodpaster, Kenneth E. & Holloran, Thomas E., 1994. "In Defense of a Paradox," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(4), pages 423-429, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:buetqu:v:4:y:1994:i:04:p:423-429_01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1052150X00012197/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. Silvana Signori & Leire San-Jose & Jose Luis Retolaza & Gianfranco Rusconi, 2021. "Stakeholder Value Creation: Comparing ESG and Value Added in European Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-16, January.
    2. Denise Baden & Ian Harwood, 2013. "Terminology Matters: A Critical Exploration of Corporate Social Responsibility Terms," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 116(3), pages 615-627, September.
    3. Andrew C. Wicks & Patricia H. Werhane & Heather Elms & John Nolan, 2021. "Spheres of Influence: A Walzerian Approach to Business Ethics," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 174(1), pages 1-14, November.

    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:4:y:1994:i:04:p:423-429_01. 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.