Advertisement

Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 105, Issue 2, pp 163–174 | Cite as

Hume’s Theory of Business Ethics Revisited

  • William Kline
Article

Abstract

Hume’s examination of the conventions of property, trade, and contract addresses the moral foundations that make business possible. In this light, Hume’s theory of justice is also a foundational work in business ethics. In Hume’s analysis of these conventions, both philosophers and game theorists have correctly identified “proto” game-theoretic elements. One of the few attempts to offer a Humean theory of business ethics rests on this game-theoretic interpretation of Hume’s argument. This article argues that game-theoretic reasoning is only one part of a Humean business ethics and this can be shown by further analyzing Hume’s theory of justice. As we examine his theory, it becomes clear that Hume is not trying to show how it is always rational to respect the rules of business. Hume is not engaging in, or attempting, a reconciliation project and neither is a Humean business ethics. The final section of the article is a brief Humean analysis of the effectiveness of codes of ethics. The purpose of this section is not to decide the issue but to show how a Humean approach is both useful, relevant, and involves more than reconciling rationality and morality.

Keywords

Codes of ethics Compliance Convention Game theory Hume Humean business ethics Justice Reconciliation project Self-interest Sensible knave 

References

  1. Adam, M. A., & Rachman-Moore, D. (2004). The methods used to implement an ethical code of conduct and employee attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics, 54, 225–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books Inc.Google Scholar
  3. Baier, A. (1991). A progress of sentiments: Reflections on Hume’s treatise. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Baron, M. (1982). Hume’s noble lie: An account of his artificial virtues. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 12(3), 539–555.Google Scholar
  5. Binmore, K. (1996). Right or seemly? Analyse & Kritik, 18, 67–80.Google Scholar
  6. Charron, W. C. (1980). Convention, games of strategy, and Hume’s philosophy of law and government. American Philosophical Quarterly, 17, 327–334.Google Scholar
  7. Chonko, L. B., Wotruba, T. R., & Loe, T. (2003). Ethics codes familiarity and usefulness: Views on idealist and relativist managers under conditions of turbulence. Journal of Business Ethics, 42, 237–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Darwall, S. (1993). Motive and obligation in Hume’s ethics. Nous, 27(4), 415–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Duska, R. F. (1990). Whistleblowing and employee loyalty. In J. R. Desjardins & J. J. McCall (Eds.), Contemporary issues in business ethics (pp. 142–147). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  10. Gauthier, D. (1979). David Hume: Contractarian. Philosophical Review, 88, 3–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243–1248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hume, D. (1975). In L. A. Selby-Bigge (Ed.), Enquiries concerning human understanding and concerning the principles of morals (3rd ed.). Revised by P. H. Nidditch (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
  13. Hume, D. (1978). In L. A. Selby-Bigge (Ed.), A treatise of human nature (2d ed.). Revised by P. H. Nidditch (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
  14. Hume, D. (1985a). Of the origin of Government. In E. F. Miller (Ed.), Essays, moral, political, and literary (pp. 37–41). Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund Inc.Google Scholar
  15. Hume, D. (1985b). The sceptic. In E. F. Miller (Ed.), Essays, moral, political, and literary (pp. 159–180). Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund Inc.Google Scholar
  16. Kavka, G. S. (1985). The reconciliation project. In D. Copp & D. Zimmerman (Eds.), Morality reason and truth (pp. 297–319). Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld.Google Scholar
  17. Keynes, J. M. (1936). General theory of employment interest and money. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.Google Scholar
  18. Kline, W. (2006). Business ethics from the internal point of view. Journal of Business Ethics, 64(1), 57–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kline, W. (2009). Business as an ethical standard. Journal of Private Enterprise, 24(2), 35–48.Google Scholar
  20. Kripke, S. (1982). Wittgenstein on rules and private language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Lewis, D. (1969). Convention: A philosophical study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Luce, D. R., & Raiffa, H. (1957). Games and decisions: Introduction and critical survey. New York: Dover Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  23. Mackie, J. L. (1980). Hume’s moral theory. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Marnburg, E. (2000). The behavioral effects of corporate ethical codes: Empirical findings and discussion. Business Ethics: A European Review, 9(3), 200–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Postema, G. J. (1986). Bentham and the common law tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Rawls, J. (1955). Two concepts of rules. Philosophical Review, 64, 3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rose, C. M. (1985). Possession as the origin of property. University of Chicago Law Review, 52(1), 73–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sayre-McCord, G. (1994). On why Hume’s “general point of view” isn’t ideal—And shouldn’t be. Social Philosophy and Policy, 11(1), 202–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schelling, T. (1980). The strategy of conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Schwartz, M. (2004). Effective corporate codes of ethics: Perceptions of code users. Journal of Business Ethics, 55, 323–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schwartz, M., Dunfee, T., & Kline, M. (2005). Tone at the top: An ethics code for directors? Journal of Business Ethics, 58, 79–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Skyrms, B. (2008). Trust, risk, and the social contract. Synthese, 160, 21–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Solomon, R. (1999). A better way to think about business: How personal integrity leads to corporate success. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Spurgin, E. W. (2004). Looking for answers in all the wrong places. Business Ethics Quarterly, 14(2), 293–313.Google Scholar
  35. Stevens, B. (2008). Corporate ethical codes: Effective instruments for influencing behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 78, 601–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stroud, B. (1977). Hume. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sugden, R. (2004). The economics of rights, co-operation and welfare. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sugden, R. (2008). David Hume’s treatise of human nature. Topoi, 27, 153–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Taylor, J. (1998). Justice and the foundations of social morality in Hume’s treatise. Hume Studies, 24(1), 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Trevino, L. K., Weaver, G. R., Gibson, D., & Toeffler, B. L. (1999). Managing ethics and legal compliance: What works and what hurts. California Management Review, 41(2), 131–151.Google Scholar
  41. Vanderschraaf, P. (1999). Hume’s game-theoretic business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 9(1), 47–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Weeks, W. A., & Nantel, J. (1992). Corporate codes of ethics and sales force behavior: A case study. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 753–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wolf, N. (1992). The beauty myth: How images of beauty are used against women. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  44. Wotruba, T. R. (1995). A comprehensive framework for the analysis of ethical behavior with a focus on sales organizations. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 10(Spring), 29–42.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Liberal and Integrative StudiesUniversity of IllinoisSpringfieldUSA
  2. 2.SpringfieldUSA

Personalised recommendations