The value of indeterminate business ethics
In his essay titled “Ill-Founded Criticisms of Business Ethics”, Vidya (2017) responds to four common criticisms of business ethics. One of these criticisms is that it’s “indeterminate”, i.e. there are no correct answers. The argument is as follows: Business ethicists disagree over first principles. If theorists in a field disagree over first principles, then determinate answers cannot be reached. If determinate answers cannot be reached in a field of inquiry, then that field of inquiry is without value. Therefore, business ethics is without value. Vaidya addresses this criticism as a misconception. He first shows the flaws in this argument by applying it to other fields of study that are not considered indeterminate. Then he breaks down and responds to specific premises of the argument. In this essay I will examine Vaidya’s response to this criticism, and then explain why I agree with Vaidya on this issue.
Vaidya responds to this argument by applying it to a field that is not criticized for being indeterminate and showing the contradiction. Vaidya reformulates the argument using economics instead of business ethics. The economics version of the argument goes as follows: Economists disagree over first principles. If theorists in a field disagree over first principles, then determinate answers cannot be reached. If determinate answers cannot be reached in a field of inquiry, then that field of inquiry is without value. Therefore, economics is without value. Before examining the premises, Vaidya notes that many who would support this form of argument for business ethics would not feel so comfortable applying the same form of argument to economics. As to the premises, Vaidya points out the flaws in premises (2) and (3). In premise (2), it is not true that no determinate answers can be reached if some theorists disagree on first principles. As Vaidya puts it, “Economists, for example, may disagree in fundamental ways about human rationality, the tendency of markets to settle equilibria, or government intervention, but nonetheless converge on specific issues” (p. 5). As for premise (3), it is not true that no value can be found in a field of inquiry if determinate answers cannot be reached. As Vaidya points out, “debates about principles and methodologies are valuable insofar as they lead to clarification, resolution, and innovation” (p. 5).
In my opinion, Vaidya’s response correctly identifies flaws in the argument that business ethics is indeterminate, and I agree with his counter-argument. The strongest part of his counter-argument is his refutation of premise (2), where he dismantles the logical proposition that disagreement over first principles by some theorists leads to all inquiries not having determinate answers. This is an example of the fallacy of composition [cite]. It misses the obvious detail that while some things might not have solid answers, general issues can be agreed upon, thereby providing value as a field of study.
In conclusion, we have examined the argument that business ethics is indeterminate, Vaidya’s counter-argument, and why I agree with his counterargument. Vaidya responds by casting doubt on the original argument by applying the same form of argument to economics. He follows with a two-pronged counterargument that disputes that there are no determinate answers, and even if that was the case it would not mean there’s no value to the field of business ethics. Finally, I explained why I agree with Vaidya’s counterargument and invoke the fallacy of composition. The critic’s initial argument commits a logical fallacy by conflating some theorists disagreeing with all theorists disagreeing on first principles and drawing conclusions based on the latter.
References:
- Anand J. Vaidya, “Ill-Founded Criticisms of Business Ethics” Allhoff, F., Sager, A., Vaidya, A. J. (Eds.) (2017). Business in Ethical Focus(2nd ed.). Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press.
- Vaidya, A. J. (2017). Ill-Founded Criticisms of Business Ethics. In Business in Ethical Focus (2nd ed., pp. 4–9). essay, Broadview Press.