v4 n2 Brennan and Jaworski Respond to Layman

“Klotzes and Glotzes, Semiotics and Embodying Normative Stances” by Jason Brennan and Peter Jaworski

A RESPONSE TO Daniel Layman (2016), “Expressive Objections to Markets: Normative, Not Symbolic”, Bus Ethics J Rev 4(1): 36–41.

Abstract: Daniel Layman’s “Expressive Objections to Markets: Normative, Not Symbolic” attempts to critique our recent paper debunking semiotic objections to commodification. Semiotic objections hold that commodifying certain goods and services is wrong because doing so expresses disrespect for the things in question. Layman claims instead that the problem is that such markets “embody” the “wrong norms” or the “wrong deliberative stance”. Given the length-requirements, we, at the moment, need to hear a lot more about the difference between “embodying” a norm, and expressing it. As far as we can tell at the moment, we’re suspicious that he might be begging the question, or just re-describing semiotic objections in a more obscure way.

To download the full PDF, click here: Brennan and Jaworski Respond to Layman.

v4n1 Layman on Brennan and Jaworski

“Expressive Objections to Markets: Normative, Not Symbolic” by Daniel Layman

A COMMENTARY ON Jason Brennan and Peter Jaworski (2015), “Markets Without Symbolic Limits,” Ethics 125(4): 1053–1077

Abstract:
Jason Brennan and Peter Jaworski reject expressive objections to markets on the grounds that (1) market symbolism is culturally contingent, and (2) contingent cultural symbols are less important than the benefits markets offer. I grant (1) and (2), but I deny that these points suffice as grounds to dismiss expressive critiques of markets. For many plausible expressive critiques of markets are not symbolic critiques at all. Rather, they are critiques grounded in the idea that some market transactions embody morally inappropriate normative stances toward the goods or services on offer.

To download the full PDF, click here: Layman on Brennan and Jaworski.

Welcome to Volume 4

Welcome to 2016, and to Volume 4 of the Business Ethics Journal Review. Volume 4 signals that we are now in our 4th year of publication. The fact that our experiment in shaking up academic business ethics publication is still running at this point is encouraging, in an era in which online publishing still hasn’t entirely taken hold in academia.

2015 saw a number of exciting events for BEJR. In early 2015, the editors founded the Journal Review Foundation, a non-profit corporation that now acts as BEJR’s publisher. This move helps to ensure a stable future for BEJR, and provides a legal entity to own BEJR’s intellectual property in perpetuity. The Foundation also provides a framework within which to expand activities beyond BEJR. Within the next month, the Foundation will be publishing a book (a collection of essays on social justice), and we are currently in talks regarding starting a second journal.

The editors also founded, in March of 2015, Business Ethics Highlights, a news and opinion aggregator, which has so far received tremendous feedback. In order to highlight how useful BEH could be in the classroom, we also published two relevant guides: “How Instructors Can Use Business Ethics Highlights” and “How Students Can Use Business Ethics Highlights.”

2015 also marked our first formal appearance at the annual meeting of the Society for Business Ethics. The Journal Review Foundation (and naturally BEJR) had a table in the “book room” at SBE, and co-editor Chris MacDonald used the opportunity to hand out printed copies of BEJR commentaries and to explain BEJR’s distinctive model to attendees.

So far, it looks like 2016 is off to a good start: the editors have a number of items in the pipeline, and our first Commentary of the year — a commentary on a recently-published book — will go online within a week. So stay tuned!

Call for Commentaries on BEQ’s “Best Articles 2014”

The Business Ethics Journal Review (BEJR), a venture in 21st century academic publishing, is inviting fresh submissions.

BEJR publishes refereed commentaries—short essays of up to 2000 words addressing critically an aspect of a recently published business ethics journal article or book.

The Editors are especially interested in inviting commentaries aimed at the winner of, and finalists for, the Business Ethics Quarterly “Best Article 2014” prize. Those articles are:

• Winner: Tae Wan Kim, “Decent Termination: A Moral Case for Severance Pay,” Business Ethics Quarterly 24, 2 (2014): 203-227.
  
• Finalist: Joshua Preiss, “Global Labor Justice and the Limits of Economic Analysis,” Business Ethics Quarterly 24, 1 (2014): 55-83.
  
• Finalist: Pablo Garcia-Ruiz and Carlos Rodriguez-Lluesma, “Consumption Practices: A Virtue Ethics Approach,” Business Ethics Quarterly 24, 4 (2014): 509-531.

v3n4: Hühn on Bevan and Werhane

“Adam Smith: 18th Century Sentimentalist or 20th Century Rationalist?” by Matthias Hühn

A COMMENTARY ON “The Inexorable Sociality of Commerce: The Individual and Others in Adam Smith,” by David Bevan and Patricia Werhane (J Bus Ethics 127(2)(2015): 327–335).
Abstract:
David Bevan and Patricia Werhane try to enlist Adam Smith’s support in countering the neoclassical narrative in business ethics and CSR. While I applaud their goal and also completely agree with their argument that Smith has been radically misinterpreted by the economics mainstream, I am not completely in agreement with how they argue. In short, I believe they also have uprooted Adam Smith and transformed him in parts into a 20th century philosopher. The 18th century Adam Smith would be a much more powerful advocate for ethics in business if he were accepted as the very eclectic 18th century philosopher that he was.

To download the full PDF, click here: Hühn on Bevan and Werhane.

v3n3: Lovett on May et al. on Business Ethics Education

“Evaluating a New Field of Research About the Influence of Business Ethics Education,” by Steven Lovett

A COMMENTARY ON “The Influence of Business Ethics Education on Moral Efficacy, Moral Meaningfulness, and Moral Courage: A Quasi-Experimental Study,” by Douglas R. May, Matthew T. Luth, and Catherine E. Schwoerer (J Bus Ethics 124(1) (2014): 67–80).

Abstract:

Douglas May, Matthew Luth, and Catherine Schwoerer identify and study an area that lacks empirical research, namely the effectiveness of teaching, and learning, business ethics, corporate social responsibility, and sustainability. The authors assess whether courses that teach ethical decision-making in business settings positively influence students’ moral efficacy, moral meaningfulness, and moral courage. Their findings demonstrate increases in the ethics education treatment group’s outcomes for each of the three variables. This experimental data is encouraging, but the definitional subjectivity of each variable, and the unique effects of various methods of instruction, should provide motivation for further research efforts.

To download the full PDF, click here: Lovett on May, Luth, and Schwoerer.

v3n2: Ohreen and Silovs on Pavlovich and Krahnke

“The Science of Creating Organizational Connectedness,” by David Ohreen and Jim Silovs

A COMMENTARY ON “Empathy, Connectedness and Organisation,” by Kathryn Pavlovich and Keiko Krahnke (J Bus Ethics 105(1) (2012): 131–137).

Abstract:
Pavlovich and Krahnke’s inclusion of neurological and psychological evidence to support organizational connectedness should be lauded. Unfortunately, we suggest a more fine-grained reading of the literature does not support their claim that empathy is critical to dissolving boundaries between employees and increasing altruism.

To download the full PDF, click here: Ohreen and Silovs on Pavlovich and Krahnke.

v3n1: Khan on Steinbauer et al. on Leadership Ethics

“The Merits of Self-Leadership” by Shazia Rehman Khan

A COMMENTARY ON “Ethical Leadership and Followers’ Moral Judgment: The Role of Followers’ Perceived Accountability and Self-leadership,” by Steinbauer et al (J Bus Ethics 120(3) (2014): 381-392).

Abstract: Steinbauer et al. (2014) examine how ethical leadership leads to improved moral judgment, and the role of followers’ perceived accountability and self-leadership. In this Commentary, I offer two critiques. First, I argue that the relationship that Steinbauer et al. propose between ethical leadership and self-leadership contains internal contradictions. Second, I argue that ethical leadership can have undesirable consequences for moral judgment and that self-leadership requires substantial freedom from an external authority. Thus, my arguments focus on Steinbauer et al.’s understanding of self-leadership and moral judgment in relation to ethical leadership.

To download the full PDF, click here: Khan on Steinbauer et al.

BEJR’s New Publisher: the Journal Review Foundation

BEJR is now in its third year of publishing, and we’ll be launching Volume 3 tomorrow with the publication of a commentary on leadership ethics by Shazia Khan, a PhD Candidate (Management) in the Management Sciences Department at the COMSATS Institute of Information Technology in Islamabad, Pakistan.

As we enter our third year, and as the popularity and influence of BEJR grow, it becomes increasingly important to ground the journal in a set of institutional arrangements that will provide it with a firm foundation. So starting with Volume 3, BEJR will now be published by the nonprofit Journal Review Foundation of the Americas, which was founded by BEJR‘s editors. Nothing is changing in terms of policies and practices, but having a formal, nonprofit entity act as BEJR‘s publisher should help provide a stable foundation for the future.

BEJR author Interview: Peter Jaworski

Peter Jaworski is Assistant Teaching Professor of Business Ethics in Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business. He’s the author of “Moving Beyond Market Failure: When the Failure is Government’s”, published in BEJR in February of 2013 and downloaded 300 times since then in PDF format.

BEJR co-editor, Alexei Marcoux, caught up with Peter to talk to him about his experience publishing in BEJR and his current projects.
__________
Alexei Marcoux: What inspired you to submit a Commentary to BEJR?

Peter Jaworski: I thought it would be a great way to engage with the literature. I didn’t have a significant criticism, just a small disagreement. I thought BEJR would be perfect for that. And I was right.

AM: Was your Commentary in BEJR part of a larger project? What was it?

PJ: In my case it was. I ended up writing a longer piece [Journal of Business Ethics, “An absurd tax on our fellows”] that expands on and refines my comments for BEJR. Reading the response to my Commentary gave me the opportunity to clarify my meaning and, I think, to more relevantly engage with the material. I’m still interested in that broader project — of discussing rent seeking and crony capitalism as a government failure, of more importance to our understanding of the professional obligations and role morality of politicians and government actors, rather than thinking of it as a problem for market actors.

AM: How did writing for BEJR fit into your workflow?

PJ: Sometimes, when reading an article, I write a few pages in response to that article. Like when you have a nagging criticism, or just a small worry, or what you hope is a clarification or better way of putting something. I think we all probably do that. That doesn’t always turn into a larger project. And with BEJR, it doesn’t have to be a bigger project. So it fit in brilliantly.

AM: What was the editorial experience like?

PJ: Is this where I say nice things about you and Chris? There’s some sort of journalistic problem with you asking me this question, I’m sure, but I’ll answer anyways: It was great. Feedback came quickly, a decision was faster than any place else I’ve ever submitted to, and the instructions were clear. A model for others to follow, I’d say.

AM: Did your Commentary get some attention on social media? We try hard to get the word out about everything we publish. Did it work?

PJ: Yes, some. I think a lot of people read it, and I did get more email on account of it than anything else I’ve published in an academic journal.

AM: BEJR published your Commentary on Joseph Heath in February of 2013, and less than a month later we published a Response from Heath. What was it like having Heath respond to your Commentary?

PJ: You know, Joe Heath really sparked a strong interest on my part in business ethics. He wasn’t alone, but I look forward to reading his articles because each time I feel like he’s onto something important, significant, and is making moves in the literature that push all of us forward. So it was exciting to see his Response (even though it was a pretty grumpy response overall).

AM: How has being published in BEJR changed your attitude toward publishing?

PJ: That’s a bit of a tough question. It’s changed my attitude about what publishing might be like. I love how fast and responsive the process was at BEJR, which I’d like to see copied at other places. In a way, it makes me realize that it’s at least possible to have an academic conversation, in print, with others where the turnaround time for salvos is less than 12 months.

AM: What are you working on currently?

PJ: Most importantly, I’m working in the moral limits of markets research area. With my colleague, Jason Brennan, I have an article forthcoming in Ethics entitled “Markets without Symbolic Limits,” and we expect to publish our book, Markets Without Limits: Commercial Interests and Moral Virtues, in October of this year. I hope this helps spark some interest, and so I expect to spend my 2015 talking about markets in kidneys in blood and about commercial surrogacy and so on. Apart from that research area, I’m also active in issues surrounding “ownership.” I’m interested in whether or not we can continue to claim an ownership stake in some object after some passage of time, and I’m interested in what objects or things in the world are “fit” for the ownership relation (rather than guardianship, or stewardship, for example).
__________
You can see Peter in action in this Learn Liberty video, “Should Collegiate Athletes Be Paid?”

© The Journal Review Foundation of the Americas