Theonomous Business Ethics

Abstract

In this paper I engage the theonomous ethics of Paul Tillich to argue that morality is a matter of conviction and concern not determination of right or wrong, and moral imperative is not about doing what “right” is, rather it is the self-actualisation of individual through her intersubjective relationships. The motivational force behind self-actualisation stems from the strength of one’s hold on “ultimate concern”, and not the content of “ultimate concern” that maybe referred to by various names including God. The ultimacy and unconditionality of “ultimate concern” gives morality its religious character and imperativeness. The paper suggests that business should provide an environment in which individual’s moral motivational force can be strengthened through removal of the impediments that weaken one’s hold on “ultimate concern”.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Marcel writes: “nothing could be more fallacious than the idea of a sort of nakedness of being which exists before qualities and properties and which is later to be clothed by them” (Marcel 1965, p. 23).

  2. 2.

    Tillich describes correlation as the “interdependence of two independent factors, for example the correlation between existential questions and theological answers” (Tillich 1964d, p. 13)..

  3. 3.

    Nietzsche attributed ethical nihilism to the death of God, as absolute foundation for values.

  4. 4.

    Tillich holds the view that “every constructive philosophy and theology unites essentialist and existentialist elements”, so it is crucial to understand our essential nature, indeed as a critique of many existential philosophers; he notes that “one has misunderstood existentialism if one uses it without reference to its opposite”, essentialism (Tillich 1962, p. 42).

  5. 5.

    “The liberation given to man by technical possibilities turns into enslavement to technical actuality” (Tillich 1964c, p. 74), as a result, “man, for whom all this was invented as a means, becomes a means himself” (Tillich 1952, p. 138).

  6. 6.

    Tillich writes: “The man-created world of objects has drawn into itself him who created it and who now loses his subjectivity in it. He has sacrificed himself to his own productions” (Tillich 1952, p. 138).

  7. 7.

    Tillich points out that, by absolute, he does not refer to “an absolute thing” such as how God is thought of by many; rather to “something that resists the stream of relativities” (Tillich 1967, p. chap.2 para.8).

  8. 8.

    Even in the activity of the most secular of our enterprises, that of scientific enquiry, Gilkey (1970, p. 40) argues, we can observe a dimension of ultimacy or of unconditioned, and this is despite the tendency and the character of our modern society to reject a “meaningful dimension of ultimacy”. Gilkey writes: “… ironically, science as a human endeavour depends for its very achievement of objectivity and rationality on a deep, and in relation to other passions, an ultimate passion among the scientists to find and adhere to the truth” (Gilkey 1970, p. 49).

  9. 9.

    Tillich points out that, from a theological point of view, a preliminary concern is a medium or vehicle pointing to what is beyond itself, to the ultimate concern. For example, a religious relic is a preliminary concern pointing to the transcendence, but becomes an object of idolatry if taken as the ultimate itself.

  10. 10.

    Understanding this distinction provides a criterion for determining the true ultimacy from false ones, since “the term ‘ultimate concern’ unites the subjective and the objective” act of concern (Tillich 1957, p. 10). The subjective side is the act of ultimate concern, which directed towards the objective, namely the ‘ultimate’ itself.

  11. 11.

    Tillich writes: “We can only point to [Ultimate Concern]. People have made it known; and we can find it in ourselves. There is no external evidence for it…” (Tillich 1965, p. 2nd. dialogue).

  12. 12.

    Max Weber’s combination of “ethics of responsibility” and “ethics of conviction” is probably a reasonable fit under this category.

  13. 13.

    (From ‘What is Religion?’ by Paul Tillich, as quoted in O'Keeffe 1982, p. 139).

  14. 14.

    Love is the key factor here, as ethics is nothing but “the expression of the ways in which love embodies itself, and life is maintained and saved” (Tillich 1995, p. 95).

  15. 15.

    The moral law “is the expression of what man essentially is and therefore ought to be, but what he actually is not, as the law shows to him” (Tillich 1995, p. 53).

  16. 16.

    Tillich writes: “… sin is separation. To be in the state of sin is to be in the state of separation” (Tillich 1955b, p. chap.19 para.15) and “… sin does not mean an immoral act….?” (Tillich 1955b, p. chap.19 para.14).

  17. 17.

    Tillich writes: “In our tendency to abuse and destroy others, there is an open or hidden tendency to abuse and to destroy ourselves. Cruelty towards others is always also cruelty towards ourselves” (Tillich 1955b, p. chap.19 para.10).

  18. 18.

    This is in contrast to ethical philosophies that see the moral aim as providing the maximum amount of pleasure or utility, taking the moral act itself to be the moral imperative; but on Tillich’s account, achieving maximum amount of good or pleasure through an act does not provide the imperativeness to commit the act in the first place.

  19. 19.

    “[M]eaningful existential relationship is always supported by social relationships”. Tillich (1981, p. 188)

  20. 20.

    Taylor arrives at this conclusion in reading the third volume of Tillich’s Systematic Theology.

  21. 21.

    Tillich writes: “Justice is always violated if men are dealt with as if they were things.... it contradicts the justice of being, the intrinsic claim of every person to be considered a person” (Tillich 1954, p. 60).

  22. 22.

    (‘The Socialist Decision (1933), p.140’ as quoted by Taylor 2009, p. 203).

  23. 23.

    We should bear in mind that Tillich talks about reunion of the parties, not union, because there has to be a prior unity and belongingness between the parties without which unity cannot come about. Tillich maintains that “love cannot be described as the union of the strange but as the reunion of the estranged. Estrangement presupposes original oneness” (Tillich 1954, p. 25).

  24. 24.

    Love here is not the sentimental or emotional type because “if love is emotional, how can it be demanded? Emotions cannot be demanded”, (Tillich 1954, p. 4) however, “acts of love must have an emotional background” so that feeling and desire lead into action (Novak 1986, p. 450).

  25. 25.

    Agape refers to the transcendental aspect of love, it “is the quality within love which prevents the other forms of love from becoming distorted into selfishness” (Tillich 1994, p. 249).

  26. 26.

    In a similar connection Tillich writes: “But a spiritual center cannot be produced intentionally, and the attempt to produce it only produces deeper anxiety” (Tillich 1952, p. 48).

  27. 27.

    The root of ambiguity of life is the existence and separation of the elements of essential and existential (Tillich 1964c, pp. 114–115).

References

  1. Allen, M.R.D. 2019. God, ontology and management: A philosophical praxis. Philosophy of Management 18 (3): 303–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bauman, Z. 1993. Postmodern ethics. Cambridge: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Beauchamp, T. L. (2005). The Nature of Applied Ethics. In R. G. Frey & C. H. Wellman (Eds.), A Companion to Applied Ethics (pp. 1-16): Blackwell Reference Online.

  4. Beck, M. 1946. Existentialism, rationalism, and Christian faith. The Journal of Religion 26 (4): 283–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Beck, R. 2004. The function of religious belief: Defensive versus existential religion. Journal of Psychology and Christianity 23 (3): 208–218.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Beltramini, E. 2019. God and modernity in management studies. A case of theological social theory. Philosophy of Management 18 (3): 331–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Boda, Z., and L. Zsolnai. 2016. The failure of business ethics. Society and Business Review 11 (1): 93–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bouckaert, L. (2006). The Ethics Management Paradox. In L. Zsolnai (Ed.), Interdisciplinary Yearbook of Business Ethics (Vol. 1, pp. 199-202). Oxford: Peter Lang.

  9. Child, J., and S. Rodrigues. 2003. International crisis of confidence in corporations. Journal of Management and Governance 7 (3): 233–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Clary, B.J. 1994. Paul Tillich on the institutions of capitalism. Review of Social Economy 52 (3): 361–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cohan, J.A. 2002. “I Didn’t know” and “I was only doing my job”: Has corporate governance careened out of control? A case study of Enron’s information myopia. Journal of Business Ethics 40: 275–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Collste, G. 2007. Perspectives on Applied Ethics. 109. Retrieved from http://liu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:259464/FULLTEXT01.pdf.

  13. Cortez, F.G.F. 2015. Critical business ethics: Contributions and challenges. Kritike 9 (2): 98–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Debnath, S.C., S.R. Tandon, and B.B. Lee. 2018. Profit maximization versus stakeholders¡¯ view of corporate social responsibility: An experiential exercise on ethics and social responsibility for business school courses. International Journal of Business Administration 9 (6): 69–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. DeGeorge, R.T. 2006. The relevance of philosophy to business ethics: A response to Rorty's “is philosophy relevant to applied ethics?”. Business Ethics Quarterly 16 (3): 381–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Dorrien, G., K.E. Robson, J.E. Faulconer, and D.G. Sapp. 2007. A dialogue on myth theology. In Mormonism in dialogue with contemporary christian theologies, ed. D.L. Paulsen and D.W. Musser. Macon: Mercer University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Eabrasu, M. 2019. Gods are still in business-introduction to the symposium: God and management. Philosophy of Management 18 (3): 293–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Freeman, R. E. (2011). Business Ethics and Continental Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  19. Gilkey, L. 1970. Religion and the Scienific future reflections on myth, science and theology. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Graber, G. 1973. The Metaethics of Paul Tillich. Journal of Religious Ethics 1 (1): 113–133.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hummel, G. 1987. Morality and beyond: Anthropology and new ethics in Tomorrow's information society. In Being and doing, ed. J.J. Carey, 125–154. Macon: Mercer University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ismaeel, M. 2019. God is greater: Believing in the unseen and the expansion of management responsibility. Philosophy of Management 18 (3): 347–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Jones, C., M. Parker, and R.t. Bos. 2005. For business ethics. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kasser, T. 2002. The high price of materialism. Cambridge: MIT press.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kegley, C.W., and R.W. Bretall. 1952. The Theology of Paul Tillich. New York: Mcmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kierkegaard, S. (2009). Kierkegaard: Concluding unscientific postscript. Cambridge University Press.

  27. MacMillan, S., A.R. Yue, and A.J. Mills. 2012. Both how and why: Considering existentialism as a philosophy of work and management. Philosophy of Management 11 (3): 27–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Marcel, G. 1965. The mystery of being: Faith and reality. Chicago: Henry Regnery Company.

    Google Scholar 

  29. McKenna, R.J., and E.E. Tsahuridu. 2001. Must managers leave ethics at home? Economics and moral anomie in business organisations. Philosophy of Management 1 (3): 67–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Midgley, L.C. 1962. Paul Tillich's new science of values. The Western Political Quarterly 15 (2): 235–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Midgley, L.C. 1967. Ultimate concern and politics: A critical Exmination of Paul Tillichs political theology. The Western Political Quarterly 20 (1): 31–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Muers, R., and N. Burton. 2019. Can we take the religion out of religious decision-making? The case of Quaker business method. Philosophy of Management 18 (3): 363–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Noel-Lemaitre, C., and S. Le Loarne-Lemaire. 2012. Human resource management and distress at work: What managers could learn from the spirituality of work in Simone Weil’s philosophy. Philosophy of Management 11 (2): 63–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Novak, D. 1986. Theonomous ethics: A defense and a critique of Tillich. Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal 69 (4): 436–463.

    Google Scholar 

  35. O'Keeffe, T.M. 1982. The Metaethics of Paul Tillich: further reflections. Journal of Religious Ethics 10 (1): 135–143 Retrieved from.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Peltonen, T. 2019. Transcendence, consciousness and order: Towards a philosophical spirituality of organization in the footsteps of Plato and Eric Voegelin. Philosophy of Management 18 (3): 231–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Roberts, J. 2001. Corporate governance and the ethics of narcissus. Business Ethics Quarterly 11 (1): 109–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Sartre, J.-P. 1960. Existentialism is a humanism. In Existentialism, from Dostoevsky to Sartre, ed. W. Kaufmann, 287–311. New York: Meridian Books.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Shrum, L., N. Wong, F. Arif, S.K. Chugani, A. Gunz, T.M. Lowrey, et al. 2013. Reconceptualizing materialism as identity goal pursuits: Functions, processes, and consequences. Journal of Business Research 66 (8): 1179–1185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Sparks, J.R., and Y. Pan. 2010. Ethical judgments in business ethics research: Definition, and research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics 91 (3): 405–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Tajalli, P., and S. Segal. 2019. Levinas, weber, and a hybrid framework for business ethics. Philosophy of Management 18 (1): 71–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-018-0100-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Taylor, M.L. 2009. Tillich’s ethics: Between politics and ontology. In The Cambridge Companion to Paul Tillich, ed. R.R. Manning, 189–207. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Tillich, P. (1932). The Religious Situation: Henry Holt.

  44. Tillich, P. 1952. The courage to be. London: Collins Clear-Type Press.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Tillich, P. 1954. Love, power and justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Tillich, P. (1955a). The Escape from God. In J. Bushell (Ed.), The Shaking of the Foundations: Religion Online.

  47. Tillich, P. (1955b). The Shaking of the Foundations: Charles Scribner's Sons.

  48. Tillich, P. 1957. Dynamics of faith. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd..

    Google Scholar 

  49. Tillich, P. (1959a). Is a science of human values possible? In A. H. Maslow (Ed.), New Knowledge in Human Values (pp. 189-196): Harper and Row New York.

  50. Tillich, P. 1959b. Theology of culture. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Tillich, P. (1962). Existentialism, Psychotherapy, and the Nature of Man In S. Doniger (Ed.), The Nature Of Man In Theological And Psychological Perspective (pp. 42-52). New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers.

  52. Tillich, P. (1963). The Eternal Now (Lyceum Editions ed.). New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.

  53. Tillich, P. (1964a). Biblical Religion and the Search for Ultimate Reality: University of Chicago Press.

  54. Tillich, P. 1964b. Systematic theology, volume one. University of Chicago Press: James Nisbet & Co. Ltd.

  55. Tillich, P. 1964c. Systematic theology, volume three. London: James Nisbet & Co. Ltd..

    Google Scholar 

  56. Tillich, P. 1964d. Systematic theology, volume two. London: James Nisbet and Co. Ltd..

    Google Scholar 

  57. Tillich, P. 1965. In Ultimate concern - Tillich in dialogue, ed. D.M. Brown. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Tillich, P. 1967. In My search for absolutes, ed. T.A.W. Brock. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Tillich, P. (1981). The System of Sciences According to Objects and Methods. East Brunswick, N.J.: Associated University Presses, inc.

  60. Tillich, P. 1994. Ethical principles of ethical action. In From Christ to the world: Introductory readings in Christian ethics, ed. W.G. Boulton, T.D. Kennedy, and A. Verhey, 248–251. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Tillich, P. 1995. Morality and beyond. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Tillich, P., & Taylor, M. K. (1991). Paul Tillich: Theologian of the Boundaries: Fortress Press.

  63. Van Boven, L., and T. Gilovich. 2003. To do or to have? That is the question. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85 (6): 1193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Vogal, D. 1991. The ethical roots of business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly 1 (1): 101–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Payman Tajalli.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tajalli, P. Theonomous Business Ethics. Philosophy of Management 20, 57–73 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-020-00143-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Business ethics
  • Existentialism
  • Paul Tillich
  • Theonomy
  • Ultimate concern
  • Moral motivation