Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:38:33.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Critique of Social Products Liability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2015

Abstract:

It has been suggested that a new form of moral responsibility, labeled “social products liability,” is relevant to business ethics. In particular, this kind of responsibility might justify recent legal claims against firearm manufacturers. This paper argues that, as it has been presented, social products liability must rest upon utilitarian considerations or on a deeper, more complete theory of moral responsibility. In the first case, a new form of responsibility seems unnecessary, since liability could be directly apportioned on utilitarian grounds. In the second case, proponents of social products liability face the tasks of presenting the more complete theory and then anchoring social products liability to it.

Type
Response Article
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Business Ethics 2003

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

Brenkert, G. G. (2000). “Social Products Liability: The Case of the Firearms Manufacturers.” Business Ethics Quarterly 10(1): 2132.Google Scholar
Feinberg, J. (1970). Doing & deserving; essays in the theory of responsibility. Princeton, N.J.,, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Green, R. M. (2000). “Legally Targeting Gin Makers: Lessons for Business Ethics.” Business Ethics Quarterly 10(1): 203210.Google Scholar
Lott, J. R. Jr. (1998). More Guns, Less Crime. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lytton, T. D. (1998). “Halberstam v. Daniel and the Uncertain Future of Negligent Marketing Claims Against Firearms Manufacturers.” Brooklyn Law Review 64: 681.Google Scholar