Universal Ideology & Ethical Strategy

  • Alan E. SingerEmail author
Part of the Ethical Economy book series (SEEP, volume 51)


Ideology has been described as a framework of ideas used to explain values and purposes. Accordingly, one might consider the possibility of constructing a universal ideology, that is, a framework of ideas that can be used to explain all values and purposes, but especially those most relevant to business ethics. A conceptual framework that meets that description is duly set out in this paper. It is comprised of four partitioned sets of concepts: ethical-theories, human-goods, market-limitations and other bi-polar components. In the spirit of philosophical pragmatism, the framework enables its users to generate systematic explanations and justifications of ethical strategies in business. It might also be used as a tool for a type of moral-diplomacy, where the intention is to promote the radical center and business strategies that compensate for selected market-limitations.


Corporate Social Responsibility Business Ethic Moral Philosophy Moral Theory Human Good 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Adler, J. 2002. Belief’s own ethics. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bauman, Z., and C. Bordoni. 2014. State of crisis. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  3. Dennett, D. 1997. Cog as a thought experiment. Robotics & Autonomous Systems 20: 251–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Derbyshire, J. 2006, August 28. In What is left? What is right? Does it matter?, The American Conservative. Google Scholar
  5. Etzioni, A. 1988. The moral dimension: Towards a new economics. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  6. Grayling, A. 1990. Comment made by Professor Anthony Grayling in Global Capitalism (a BBC TV broadcast).Google Scholar
  7. Greene, J. 2013. Moral tribes: Emotion, reason and the gap between us and them. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  8. Heath, J. 2006. Business ethics without stakeholders. Business Ethics Quarterly 16: 533–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hiwaki, K. 2014. Own culture-based integral education for a viable human future. Human Systems Management 33: 121–138.Google Scholar
  10. Littelton, A. 1938. A substitute for stated capital. Harvard Business Review 17(1): 75–84.Google Scholar
  11. Lodge, G., and E. Vogel. 1987. Ideology and national competitiveness. Boston: HBS Press.Google Scholar
  12. Prakash-Sethi, S. 2003. Globalization and the good corporation. Journal of Business Ethics 43(1): 21–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rosenthal, S., and R. Buchholtz. 2000. Rethinking business ethics: A pragmatic approach. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Sachdeva, S., R. Iliev, and D. Medin. 2009. Sinning saints and saintly sinners: The paradox of moral self-regulation. Psychological Science 20(4): 523–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sen, A. 1993. Does business ethics make economic sense? Business Ethics Quarterly 3(1): 45–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Singer, A.E. 1994. Strategy as moral philosophy. Strategic Management Journal 15: 191–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Singer, A.E. 2010. Integrating ethics and strategy: A pragmatic approach. Journal of Business Ethics 92(4): 479–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Singer, A.E. 2013. Teaching ethics cases: A pragmatic approach. Business Ethics: A European Review 22(1): 16–31. doi: 10.1111/beer.12004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Soule, E. 2002. Management moral strategies: In search of a few good principles. Academy of Management Review 27(1): 114–124.Google Scholar
  20. Weiss, P. 2006, August 28. In What is left? What is right? Does it matter? ed. The American Conservative.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ManagementAppalachian State UniversityBooneUSA

Personalised recommendations