Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:05:33.540Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Challenging the Egoistic Paradigm

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2015

Norman E. Bowie
Norman E. Bowie*
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Most economists are committed to some version of egoism. After distinguishing among the various sorts of egoistic claims, I cite the empirical literature against psychological egoism and show that attempts to account for this data make these economists’ previous empirical claims tautological. Moreover, the assumption of egoism has undesirable consequences, especially for students; if people believe that others behave egoistically, they are more likely to behave egoistically themselves. As an alternative to egoism I recommend the commitment model of Robert Frank.

The equivalent of egoism at the organizational level is that business firms seek (should seek) to maximize profits. I present arguments to show that a conscious attempt by managers to maximize profits is likely to fail. A committed altruism is more likely to raise profits. I suggest that a firm should take as its primary purpose providing meaningful work for employees.

Type
Articles
Information
Business Ethics Quarterly , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , January 1991 , pp. 1 - 21
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Business Ethics 1991

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

Notes

The author is indebted to University of Minnesota professors Philip Bromiley and Larry Cummings of the Carlson School of Management and to Professor Ronald Giere of the Department of Philosophy and to Professor Donald Schied of the Department of Philosophy at Winona State University for their helpful comments. This paper is a revised version of my Presidential Address delivered to the Society for Business Ethics, August 1988.

1 Guth, Werner, Schmittberger, Rolf, and Schwarze, Bernd, “An Experimental Analysis of Ultimatum Bargaining,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3 (1982), 367–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Akerloff, George, “Gift Exchange and Efficiency Wage Theory,” American Economic Review, 74 (1980), 79–83.Google Scholar

3 Elsewhere I have argued that norms of fairness underlie most of the major cases studied in a typical business law course. See E. Bowie, Norman, “Fair Markets,” Journal of Business Ethics, 7 (1988), 89–98.Google Scholar

4 Riker, William and Ordeshook, Peter, “A Theory of the Calculus of Voting,” American Political Science Review, 62 (1968), 25–42.Google Scholar

5 J. Brennan, Timothy, “A Methodological Assessment of Multiple Utility Frameworks,” Economics and Philosophy, 5 (1989), pp. 197–199.Google Scholar

6 Ibid.

7 Ibid.

8 Gary Becker, E.Landes, M. and Michael, R., “An Economic Analysis of Marital Instability,” Journal of Political Economy, 85 (1977), 1141–87.Google Scholar

9 Brennan, op. cit., p. 199.

10 Frank, Robert, Passions Within Reason (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1988), p. 254.Google Scholar

11 Marwell, Gerald and E. Ames, Ruth, “Economists Free Ride, Does Anyone Else?,” Journal of Public Economics, 15 (1981), 295–310.Google Scholar

12 These observations were originally made by Raymond, C.Bauhart, S.J. “How Ethical are Businessmen?,” Harvard Business Review (1961).Google Scholar

13 Smith, Adam, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (New York: Augustus M. Kelley Publishers, 1966), pp. 127, 124.Google Scholar

14 Hirsch, Fred, The Social Limits to Growth (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976), p. 141.Google Scholar

15 Ibid., pp. 146–47.

16 Douglas, Mary, How Institutions Think (New York: Syracuse University Press, 1986).Google Scholar

17 Axelrod, Robert, The Evolution of Cooperation (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1984).Google Scholar

18 Robert Frank, op. cit., p. 253.