Lexington Books, LanhamĬima LR, Schubeck TL (2001) Self-Interest, love, and economic justice: a dialogue between classical economic liberalism and catholic social teaching. Mediaevalia Philosophica Polonorum 36:5–27Ĭhafuen AA (2003) Faith and liberty: the economic thought of the late scholastics. Oxford University Press, London/New YorkĬelano A (2007) Phronesis, prudence and moral goodness in the thirteenth century commentaries on the nicomachean ethics. J Religious Ethics 8(2):277–301Ĭarré MH (1946) Realists and nominalists. BonaventureĬahill LS (1980) Toward a Christian theory of human rights. Rev Polit 5(4):462–487īoehner P, Buytaert EM (1992) Collected articles on Ockham. J Religious Ethics 27(2):285–304īoehner P (1943) Ockham’s political ideas. Rev Polit 63(4):723–754īarrera A (1999) The evolution of social ethics: using economic history to understand economic ethics. American Philosophical Society, Philadelphiaīarbieri WA Jr (2001) Beyond the nations: the expansion of the common good in catholic social thought. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dameīaldwin JW (1959) The medieval theories of the just price. J Business Ethics 99(1):115–128īailey JP (2010) Rethinking poverty: income, assets, and the catholic social justice tradition. J Bus Ethics 71(4):395–410Īßländer M (2011) Corporate social responsibility as subsidiary co-responsibility: A macroeconomic perspective. J Bus Ethics 28(2):159–178Īrjoon S (2007) Ethical decision-making: a case for the triple font theory. J Bus Ethics 17(9–10):1093–1102Īrjoon S (2000) Virtue theory as a dynamic theory of business. Continuum, London/New YorkĪrgandoña A (1998) The Stakeholder theory and the common good.
KeywordsĪlves AA, Moreira JM (2010) The Salamanca school. Thus, by undermining the metaphysical foundations of medieval epistemology, nominalist philosophers, such as William of Ockham, also destabilized the ethics that rested upon them. Once, however, ideas are viewed merely as linguistic conventions, the assignment of a “natural” value to a given good above and beyond its customary (market) value becomes notoriously difficult. They argued, on the contrary, that the ideas of the human mind were but the names ( nomina) of things – signifiers, which revealed nothing (objective) about the signified but communicated only the (subjective) interests of their users. This assumption was severely challenged by nominalist thinkers of the late Middle Ages. According to Thomas, human intellect is capable of conceiving valid universals about reality. Thomas’s normative business theory rests ultimately on intermediary position that he holds in the debates about metaphysical universals that captured the minds of medieval thinkers.
Irrespective of the requisite specifications that context and circumstance demand, he defends the general orientation of business and the economy toward human well-being and dignity as of global reach and universal validity. This, Thomas argues, holds true across time and culture. Private property and corporate wealth have to serve all members of society and must be used with respect to the human dignity of each. On this basis, he develops a rich economic ethics that spells out how business should be informed by virtues and conducted in the light of the idea of social justice. Thus, Thomas limits the quantitative pursuit of profit by qualitative concerns for human well-being and establishes a hierarchy of life-promoting goods (as ends) that business (as a means) is to procure. Business has a social purpose it is to serve the common good. Instead, they are fundamental in order to understand central human motivation behind the production and exchange of goods. Moral objectives are neither external nor marginal to economics. Since the human being flourishes through virtuous living and strives to flourish, virtues are just as much of relevance to business as they are to every other sphere of human conduct. For Thomas Aquinas, economic transactions, as human interactions, cannot be separated from ethics.
0 kommentar(er)
