Talk:Philosophy of business

Copyright violation (2005)

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I suspect copyvio here.

http://www.e-paranoids.com/p/ph/philosophy_of_business.html


 * My wife user:Ockham and I wrote this entire article from scratch, with the exception of one or two sentences...the other outfit took it, as is the case with many articles on Wikipedia. You'll find it in other places, too, e.g., http://explanation-guide.info/meaning/Philosophy-of-business.html.icut4u 05:44, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad to learn that. Thanks. --Christofurio 21:58, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, in fact, I noticed the site you referenced properly gives attribution to Wikipedia at the very bottom. icut4u


 * The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Comments
Some of the stuff dealing with property was moved from business ethics, material I was also involved with writing. The editors there, mostly business types, I suspect, rather than philosophy types, probably did not realize the centrality of the nature of a business as principally being private property or a social arrangement to business ethics. So be it. Some of this material is redundant, though some is not and is germane here, too, so I'll begin the process of incorporating it. icut4u


 * It is difficult to draw a clear line of demarkation between the Philosophy of Business and Business Ethics. This is largely because of the reciprocal nature of the relationship : The P of B underpins B Ethics, and B Ethics is built on philosophical principles. My take on the appropriate categorization is that fundamental principles like the nature of property and ownership, enlightened self interest, the role of business in society, and social contract theory is best handled in a philosophy article. More practical issues like price discrimination, union busting, or bribery are best handled in an ethics article. Of course there is an overlap between the two. Someone proceeding from principles of psychological egoism could arrive at different ethical conclusions that someone proceeding from social contract principles, natural law principles, Kantian deontological principles, utilitarian principles, etc. Because of this overlap, the basics of the philosophy of business should be mentioned in the business ethics article, and the ethical consequences of one's philosophy of business should be mentioned in the P of B article. However what I saw tacked-on the the end of the B. Ethics article seemed more like descriptions of select political perspectives on the nature of property. What the B. Ethics article needs is an explanation of how one's underlying ethical principles, philosophical orientation, and business philosophy impacts one's ethical decisions. mydogategodshat 08:00, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I have added a section on the development of the philosophy of business. I hope the contributions of us "business types" does not distress you too greatly :) . mydogategodshat 12:38, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Would be good to have other input. Distress, certainly not, this is not serious stuff, its for fun (to my mind, at least); but I think the previously referenced problem is a mistake; indeed, it addresses exactly what your point about "underlying ethical principles," above, says. It is not simply or even primarily a political issue. If one belives a business is primarily private property, something someone has exclusive rights over, as opposed to being primarily an association of parties, one will have an entirely different ethical outlook on the relationship (duties and rights) of the parties involved in a business.  This is a significant ethical issue, one, for example, to which literally thousands of pages in the Society for Business Ethics quarterly, among scores of texts, are devoted.icut4u


 * I am not denying that "the nature of property is a significant issue", or that "business ethics is informed by philosophical issues like these (and vise versa)", or that "business philosophy issues have a place in the business ethics article (and vise versa)". The reason I moved the "nature of property" material to the business philosophy article is that a description of various views about the nature of property is fundamentally a philosophical issue. In a business ethics article, I would expect to see how these philosophical issues inform ethical decisions. That is, every paragraph should tie into practical ethical decisions in some way. To merely describe various perspectives on an issue in the philosophy of business is out of place in the ethics article, unless an attempt is made to relate it to ethical decisions. That is my two cents worth from a non-philosopher. mydogategodshat 23:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think I see where we differ. I maintain that business ethics is fundamentally a philosophical matter, albeit a normative one, as opposed to, say, a business practices or management matter, though each might address the application of ethical principles. However, the former considers it from a philosophical perspective, which would include the nature of a business, which clearly involves defining property and the bundle of rights and obligations that attend it. The leading business ethicists with whom I am familiar are also philosophers, and they usually treat the nature of property extensively in their writing....on business ethics. If you refer to the several leading business ethics journals, you will find property is an important topic; I therefore believe reference to its importance belongs in an encyclopedia article on business ethics. The philosophy of business is a broader topic, I think, but certainly, as you point out, the two have a relationship.

Here's the specific relationship of property to ethics: when, if ever, do I have the right to tell a business owner how to dispose of his property because I have an interest in it as an employee, as a consumer, or as a member of the community? If a business is believed to be constituted along the lines of a stakeholder arrangement, or as a social compact, as some philosophers do believe, the answers to these questions, and the descriptions of the corresponding duties of the property owner, differ materially from those pertaining to other kinds of conceptions about the nature of property. You bring up a good point, however, and that is that the previous entry was too theoretical and did not make the relationship clear. I no longer work on that page, so I will leave it to you or someone else to consider whether its worth developing. Finally, I think your recent contributions on this article are quite good. icut4u


 * The relationship is worth developing in the business ethics article, possibly in a section called "business ethics and the philosophy of business". I can not get to it until I finish the article that I am currently working on (real estate economics), but I will turn my attention to it eventually. Any assistance would be appreciated. mydogategodshat 00:45, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Book?
I hope the author is planning a book on this topic because none exists and one should. Rpjr (talk) 13:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I am an undergraduate Philosophy student at Eastern Oregon University. Make of that what you will, but I agree partially with Icut4you, in that I agree Business Ethics must be considered within the context of a Philosophy of Business and in fact is a sub-discipline therein; and yet, I likewise agree partially with mydogategodshat, for I agree that if one is writing about Business Ethics, "every paragraph should tie into practical ethical decisions in some way."  Perhaps eventually the Philosophy of Business article can be a master article with four sub-articles, if Wikipedia allows for that, the four sub-articles being: Business Metaphysics, Business Epistemology, Business Ethics, and Business Political Theory.  The days of Ayn Rand standing on one foot are over, I think.  Thus spake Ayn Rand in simpler times: "Metaphysics: Objective Reality.  Epistemology: Reason.  Ethics: Self-Interest.  Politics: Capitalism."  Back then, what seemed needful were answers.  Today, what we need far more urgently are questions, lest plutocracy continue to its logical conclusion, and each person either own capital or be capital, for one could argue that the natural direction of the plutocrat is toward doing no labor and paying no wages, hence toward the ownership of slaves.  Ayn Rand thought the capitalist needed sanction.  I say the plutocrat needs self-doubt.  In any case, whether it's answers we need or questions, I agree partially with Icut4you and partially with mydogategodshat, and I have given my reasons.Rpjr (talk) 08:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Peter Drucker
Unless the word philosophy is being used in such a wide sense so as to be meaningless I cannot see how Peter Drucker can be described as a philosopher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alnpete (talk • contribs) 11:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

This is pretty lightweight...
This is an important topic.

But it really doesn't scratch the surface.

I'd like to see coverage of things like:


 * Milton Friedman's ideas pf profit maximisation and Shareholder value
 * Reaction to those ideas, like in In Search of Excellence and John Mackey's COnscious Capitlaism that adopts a Stakeholder theory approach.
 * Explorations of the role of business in society, like E.F. Schumacher in Small is Beautiful and a Guide for the Perplexed
 * Deeper philosophical exploration of rationalism, like in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
 * Exploration of philosophy and leadership, like in some key leadership development texts

Lauchlanmack (talk) 01:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The article was pretty well gutted in 2014 -- perhaps you can recover something from prior versions before 2014, and add references to the more encyclopedic material. -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 10:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * theory of business, business ethics, Sun Tzu's Art of War applied to business, etc; need coverage -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 10:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)