Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T09:24:05.208Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Naturalism and Business Ethics: Inevitable Foes or Possible Allies?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2015

Timothy L. Fort
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Articles
Information
Business Ethics Quarterly , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , July 1997 , pp. 145 - 155
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Business Ethics 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Frederick, William C., Values, Nature and Culture in the American Corporation 246 (1995).Google Scholar
2Id. at 16 citing Milton, Rokeach, The Nature of Human Values (1973)Google Scholar
3Id. at 17 citing Ayres, Clarence E., The Value Economy, in Lepley, Ray (ed.) Value: A Cooperative Inquiry 43 (1949).Google Scholar
4Id. at 17–18citing Dewey, John, Theory of Valuation, International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, vol II, no 4 (1939).Google Scholar
5Id. at 19 citing anthropologists Kluckhohn, Florence and Strodtbeck, Frederick L., Variations in Value Orientations (1961).Google Scholar
6Id. at 20.Google Scholar
7Donaldson, Thomas & Dunfee, Thomas., Toward a Unified Conception of Business Ethics; Integrative Social Contracts Theory 19 Acad. Mgmt. Rev. 252, 273–274, 278 (1994).Google Scholar
8Frederick, supra note 1, at 271.Google Scholar
9Thomas, Donaldson, When Integration Fails, 4 Business Ethics Quarterly 157 (1994).Google Scholar
10Barth, Karl, Church Dogmatics Vol III, 1 (1936).Google Scholar
11See generally, Wolfhart, Pennenberg, Toward a Theology of Nature: Essays on Science and Faith (Ted Peters ed.) (1993).Google Scholar
12Id. at 2 (Editor’s Preface).Google Scholar
13Id. at 15–28.Google Scholar
14Frederick, , supra note 1, at 9.Google Scholar
15Frederick, William C., Anchoring Values in Nature: Toward a Theory of Business Values, 2 Bus Ethics Quart. 283, 286 (1992).Google Scholar
16Id. at 293.Google Scholar
17Novak, Michael, for instance, took a tri-partite division of capitalist society from sociologist Daniel Bell, who argued (similar to Frederick) that the three sectors are mutually contradictory. See Michael, Novak, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism (1982) and Gary, Dorrien, The Neoconservative Mind: Politics, Culture and the War of Ideology 224–237 (1993).Google Scholar
18Frederick, , supra note 1, at 42–43.Google Scholar
19There may be other things with which all global communities contend, but nature is surely one.Google Scholar
20Frederick, , supra note 15, at 295.Google Scholar
21Id.Google Scholar
22For Frederick, linkages are the interconnections that weave the ecological networks of life. These “give life, provide shelter, create safety nets, extend the realizations of genetic potentialities, permit an efflorescence of life forms, succor collectivities of organic beings, and regularize and pattern the interactions that life units have with and within their oftentimes threatening environments.” Id. at 137.Google Scholar
23Frederick argues that the very energy flows of the universe produce an “astonishing mosaic of physical elements, chemical interactions, climatological processes, wave phenomena, nested linkages, attractant and repelling forces, energy-to-matter and matter-to-energy transitions, sentient and non-sentient forms, conscious and unconscious entities, mobile and immobile forms of life, amphibious, airborne, and land-anchored creature...” Id. at 139. This diversity is not simply the “spice of life” but it is life. Id. at 142.Google Scholar
24Homeostatic succession refers to a process of change within a framework of continuity. While evolution presupposes continual change, homeostatic succession resists radical change that can undermine the process itself. Id. at 142–145.Google Scholar
25Community refers to a culmination of the interweaving of the other ecologizing factors. While present in other value clusters as well, within ecologizing, Frederick focuses on the extent to which community produces reproductive recognition, offspring-rearing, and group protection functions. Id. at 146.Google Scholar
26Id. at 161–162.Google Scholar
27Id. at 162.Google Scholar
28Id.Google Scholar
29Id.. at 57.Google Scholar
30Frederick, supra note 15, at 298.Google Scholar
31Frederick, supra note 1, at 165.Google Scholar
32Id. at 166.Google Scholar
33Id. at 172.Google Scholar
34Id. at 175.Google Scholar
35Id. at 185–197.Google Scholar
36Id. at 253–257.Google Scholar
37Id. at 257.Google Scholar
38Id. at 259–260.Google Scholar
39Id. at 260–261.Google Scholar
40Id. at 261.Google Scholar
41Id. at 262.Google Scholar
42See Fort, Timothy L., Presentation at the 1996 Society for Business Ethics Conference, Integrative Social Contracts Theory: Integrating ISCT and Mediating Institutions (manuscript on file with author).Google Scholar
43Frederick, , supra note 1, at 275, 289.Google Scholar
44See e.g., John, Finnis, Natural Law and Natural Rights (1980) and Fuller, Lon L., The Morality of Law (1960). Neither Finnis nor Fuller propose an absolute identity of particular rules in their natural law theories.Google Scholar