Corporate Moral Duties: Consequentialism, Collective Moral Agency and the “Ought” Implies “Can” Maxim
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18533/ijbsr.v3i11.337Keywords:
corporations, moral obligation, consequentialist duty, moral agency, “ought” implies “can”Abstract
The claim according to which corporations are morally responsible is a controversial one. At the same time, it is nowadays common to assign moral duties to companies, especially in work confronting the business and human rights issue. Can companies bear moral duties without being morally responsible? This article presents three different accounts of the duty to follow the course of action with the best consequences (consequentialist duty). The ascription of that duty to business is compatible with the claim that, by not being volitional agents, companies are not morally responsible for anything they do. The paper also addresses two possible objections against the claim that companies bear the duty of taking the course of action with the best consequences. These objections state that corporations are incapable of acting, be it in a general way (i.e. corporations do not possess the moral status of agents), be it regarding particular acts (the objection grounded on the “ought” implies “can” maxim).References
Arnold DG, 2006. Corporate moral agency Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 30: 279-291.
Arnold DG, 2010. Transnational corporations and the duty to respect basic human rights. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20: 371-99.
Austin JL 1956-1957. A plea for excuses. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 57: 1-30.
Bilchitz D, 2010. Do corporations have positive fundamental rights obligations? Theoria: A Journal of Social & Political Theory, 57:1-35.
Corlett JA, 2001. Collective moral responsibility. Journal of Social Philosophy, 32: 573-584.
Copp D, 2007. The collective moral autonomy thesis. Journal of Social Philosophy, 38: 369-388.
Copp D, 2008. ‘Ought’ implies ‘can’ and the derivation of the principle of alternate possibilities. Analysis, 68: 67-75.
Driver J, 2012. What the objective standard is good for. In Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics. Volume 2. Edited by Mark Timmons. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 28-44.
French, PA, 1979. The corporation as a moral person. American Philosophical Quarterly, 16: 207-215.
Graham PA, 2010. In defense of objectivism about moral obligation. Ethics, 121: 88-115.
Graham PA, 2011. ‘Ought’ and ability. Philosophical Review, 120: 337-382.
Howard-Snyder F, 2006. “Cannot” implies “not ought”. Philosophical Studies, 130: 233-246.
Jackson F, 1991. Decision-theoretic consequentialism and the nearest and dearest objection. Ethics, 101: 461-482.
Kagan S, 2011. Do I make a difference? Philosophy & Public Affairs, 39: 105-141.
Keeley M, 1981. Organizations as non-persons. Journal of Value Inquiry, 15: 149-155.
Killoren D, Williams B, 2013. Group agency and overdetermination. Ethical Theory Moral Practice, 16: 295-307.
Lawford-Smith H, 2012. The feasibility of collectives' actions. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 90: 453-467.
Mäkelä P, 2007. Collective agents and moral responsibility. Journal of Social Philosophy, 38: 456-468.
Mason E, 2012. Objectivism and prospectivism about rightness. Journal of Ethics & Social Philosophy, 7: 2-21.
Ostrom E. 1990. Governing the Commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pettit P, 2007. Responsibility incorporated. Ethics, 117: 171-201.
Portmore DW, 2007. Consequentializing moral theories. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 88: 39-73.
Railton P, 1984. Alienation, consequentialism, and the demands of morality Philosophy & Public Affairs, 13: 134-171.
Rivera-López E, 2006. Can there be full excuses for morally wrong actions? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 53: 124-142.
Stern R, 2004. Does ‘ought’ imply ‘can’? And did Kant think it does? Utilitas, 16: 42-61.
Streumer B, 2007. Reasons and impossibility. Philosophical Studies, 136: 351-384.
United Nations, 2008. Protect, respect and remedy: a framework for business and human rights. Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises, John Ruggie, A/HRC/8/5. Human Rights Council, Eighth session [http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G08/128/61/PDF/G0812861.pdf?OpenElement]
van de Poel I, 2011. The relation between forward-looking and backward-looking responsibility. In Moral Responsibility: beyond free will and determinism. Edited by Vincent N, van de Poel I, van den Hoven J. Dordrecht: Springer, 37-52.
Velasquez M, 2003. Debunking corporate moral responsibility. Ethics, 13: 531-562.
Vranas PBM, 2007. I ought, therefore I can. Philosophical Studies, 136: 167-216.
Wettstein F, 2010. For better or for worse: corporate responsibility beyond “do no harm”. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20: 275-83.
Wettstein F, 2012. Silence as complicity: elements of a corporate duty to speak out against the violation of human rights. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22: 37-61.
Wood S, 2012. The case for leverage-based corporate human rights responsibility. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22: 63-98.
Zimmerman MJ, 2004. Another plea for excuses. American Philosophical Quarterly, 41: 259-266.
Zimmerman MJ, 2006. Is moral obligation objective or subjective? Utilitas, 18: 329-361.
Zimmerman MJ, 2008 Living with Uncertainty: the moral significance of ignorance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
