Elementy kantyzmu w myśli Normana Bowiego oraz R. Edwarda Freemana

• Authors: Dominik Stanny

Title variants

EN

Kantian Aspects of Norman Bowie and R. Edward Freeman Business Ethics

• Languages of publication: PL

Abstracts

EN

The aim of the article is to present the Kantian aspects of N. Bowie and R.E. Freeman business ethics. Both authors are well-known in English-area business ethics as the thinkers working on stakeholder theory. R.E. Freeman, a founder of the stakeholder theory, stated the position called “Kantian capitalism” in 1988-1993. N. Bowie has been working on Kantian business ethics since 90‘s till now. R.E. Freeman uses the second formulation of categorical imperative to redefine the aim of the corporation. According to him the traditional definition is false, because it treats stakeholders (excluding shareholders) as means to profi t (as a traditional firm’s aim). Thus, he defines the new aim as acting for interest of all stakeholders. However, this position is sensitive to strong objections what probably caused the author himself to reject it. Furthermore, Freeman’s position seems to be rather utilitarian than Kantian: acting for other’s interest as an aim of morally good company, weighing and sacrificing interest as a method of morally good acting. N. Bowie’s application of Kantian ideas is wider and more systematic than Freeman’s approach. Nonetheless, it is also sensitive to many particular objections, especially misunderstanding of Kantian ideas. Bowie rejects the idea of purity of motive in Kantian ethics in order to justify the possibility of rational Kantian ethics application to area of business. Finally, making the possibility of application seems to be a proof for economical usefulness of Kantian ethics what makes this position close to utilitarianism too (like in Freeman case).

Keywords

EN

stakeholder; stakeholder theory; R.E. Freeman; N. Bowie; I. Kant; Kantianism; utilitarianism

• Publisher: Instytut Filozofii i Socjologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk / Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
• Journal: Prakseologia
• Year: 2009
• Issue: 149
• Pages: 89-105

Contributors

author

Dominik Stanny

• Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski, Katedra Etyki Społecznej i Politycznej, al. Racławickie 14, 20-950 Lublin

References

• Bowie N. 1999. Business Ethics: A Kantian Perspective. Malden MA: Blackwell Publishing.
• Bowie N. 2003. A Kantian Approach to Business Ethics. “A Companion to Business Ethics” Malden MA: Blackwell Publishing: 3–16.
• Ciulla J.B. 2001, Book review: Business Ethics: A Kantian Perspective. „Business Ethics Quarterly” 11: 225–231. Cooper S. 2004. Corporate Social Performance: A Stakeholder Approach. Ashgate Publishing.
• Evan W.E., R.E. Freeman 1995. A Stakeholder Theory of the Modern Corporation: Kantian Capitalism. „Business Ethics: Readings and Cases in Corporate Morality” (eds. W.M. Hoffman, R.E. Frederick) New York: McGraw-Hill: 145–154. (przedrukowane z tekstu o tym samym tytule wydrukowanym w 1988 w “Ethical Theories and Business” (eds. T.L. Beuachamp, N. Bowie) Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prenitice Hall).
• Freeman R.E. 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman.
• Freeman R.E., D.R. Gilbert Jr. 1987. Managing Stakeholder Relationships. “Business and Society: Dimensions of Conflict and Cooperation” (eds. S. Prakash Sethi, Cecilia M. Falbe) 397–423.
• Friedman M. 1999. Społeczna odpowiedzialność biznesu to zwiększanie zysków. „Wprowadzenie do etyki biznesu” (red. G.D. Chryssides, J.H. Kaler). Warszawa: WN PWN.
• Goodpaster K.E., G. Atkinson 1992. Stakeholders, Individual Rights and the Common Good. “National Forum”, 72: 14–17.
• Hasnas J. 1998. The normative theories of business ethics: a guide for the perplexed. „Business Ethics Quarterly” 8: 19–42.
• Hendry J. 2001, Economic contracts versus social relationships as a foundation for normative stakeholder theory. “Business Ethics: A European Review” 10: 223–232.
• Höffe O. 2003. Immanuel Kant. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
• Jackson J. 1999. Biznes i moralność. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
• Kant I. 1995. O porzekadle: to może być słuszne w teorii, ale nic nie jest warte w praktyce. Do wiecznego pokoju. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Comer.
• Kant I. 2001. Uzasadnienie metafizyki moralności. Kęty: Wydawnictwo Antyk.
• Marcoux A.M. 2003. A Fiduciary Argument Against Stakeholder Theory. “Business Ethics Quarterly” 13: 1–24.
• Marcoux A.M. 1998. Who are the Stakeholders? The Failure of the Stakeholder–AsContractor View. “Business & Professional Ethics Journal” 17: 79–109.
• O’Neill O. 1998. Etyka kantowska. “Przewodnik po etyce”. Warszawa: Książka i Wiedza: 214–225.
• Sternberg E. 1997. The Defects of Stakeholder Theory. “Corporate Governance: An International Review” 5: 3–10.
• Wojtyła K. 1986. Wykłady lubelskie. Lublin: Wydawnictwo TN KUL.