In Defense of a Paradox

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 a...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Authors: Goodpaster, Kenneth E. (Author) ; Holloran, Thomas E. (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: Cambridge Univ. Press 1994
In: Business ethics quarterly
Year: 1994, Volume: 4, Issue: 4, Pages: 423-429
Online Access: Volltext (JSTOR)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)

MARC

LEADER 00000naa a22000002 4500
001 1824191367
003 DE-627
005 20221202052623.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 221202s1994 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.2307/3857341  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)1824191367 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1824191367 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Goodpaster, Kenneth E.  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
109 |a Goodpaster, Kenneth E.  |a Goodpaster, Kenneth  |a Goodpaster, Ken 
245 1 0 |a In Defense of a Paradox 
264 1 |c 1994 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a 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. 
700 1 |a Holloran, Thomas E.  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Business ethics quarterly  |d Cambridge : Cambridge Univ. Press, 1991  |g 4(1994), 4, Seite 423-429  |w (DE-627)341900230  |w (DE-600)2069764-8  |w (DE-576)273911066  |x 2153-3326  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:4  |g year:1994  |g number:4  |g pages:423-429 
856 |3 Volltext  |u http://www.jstor.org/stable/3857341  |x JSTOR 
856 4 0 |u https://doi.org/10.2307/3857341  |x Resolving-System  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
856 4 0 |u https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/business-ethics-quarterly/article/abs/in-defense-of-a-paradox/DEE3224F84C2DF3C7EB09235A67A9DFB  |x Verlag  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
935 |a mteo 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
ITA |a 1  |t 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 4223009540 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1824191367 
LOK |0 005 20221202052623 
LOK |0 008 221202||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-Tue135)IxTheo#2022-11-29#8DED9AE7490CB3E92604E7CD3431FE6B17B85AF2 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-Tue135  |c DE-627  |d DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 866   |x JSTOR#http://www.jstor.org/stable/3857341 
LOK |0 935   |a ixzs  |a ixrk  |a zota 
ORI |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw