“Ought” implies “can”, or, the moral relevance of a theory of the firm
Since ought implies can, i.e., one cannot be obligated to do what one cannot do, the question of corporate responsibility cannot be discussed intelligibly without an inquiry into the range of corporate or managerial discretion. Hence, the moral relevance of a theory of the firm. Within classical or...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Electronic Article |
Language: | English |
Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
Journals Online & Print: | |
Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
Published: |
Springer
1988
|
In: |
Journal of business ethics
Year: 1988, Volume: 7, Issue: 1, Pages: 23-28 |
Further subjects: | B
Corporate Responsibility
B Capitalist Society B Managerial Discretion B Economic Theory B Economic Growth |
Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
Summary: | Since ought implies can, i.e., one cannot be obligated to do what one cannot do, the question of corporate responsibility cannot be discussed intelligibly without an inquiry into the range of corporate or managerial discretion. Hence, the moral relevance of a theory of the firm. Within classical or neo-classical economic theory, for instance, firms which act other than to maximize profit are eliminated. They cannot do otherwise, and thus either have no obligations at all or only the duty to maximize profit. The thesis of the Managerial Revolution, if true, establishes only that management is free from direct stockholder control. By asserting that corporations have responsibilities to do other than maximize profit, philosophers assume a wide degree of managerial discretion, without considering recent developments in the theory of the firm which suggest that new incentives and constraints radically restrict managerial liberty in a capitalist society. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1573-0697 |
Contains: | Enthalten in: Journal of business ethics
|
Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1007/BF00381994 |