Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:14:20.550Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recovering the Logic of Double Effect for Business: Intentions, Proportionality, and Impermissible Harms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2020

Rosemarie Monge  and
Nien-hê Hsieh
Rosemarie Monge
Affiliation:
University of St. Thomas
Nien-hê Hsieh
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Business actors often act in ways that may harm other parties. While the law aims to restrict harmful behavior and to provide remedies, legal systems do not anticipate all contingencies and legal regulations are not always well-enforced. This article argues that the logic of double effect (LDE), which has been developed and deployed in other areas of practical ethics, can be useful in helping business actors decide whether or not to pursue potentially harmful activities in commonplace business activity. The article illustrates how LDE helps to explain the exploitative nature of payday lending, the distinction between permissible and impermissible forms of market competition, and the potential wrong of imposing risk of harm on others. The article also addresses foundational debates about LDE itself. We offer the article as an illustration of the sort of “midlevel” theorizing that can address directly the needs of practitioners.

Keywords

double effectintentionexploitationcompetitionriskpractical ethics
Type
Article
Information
Business Ethics Quarterly , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , July 2020 , pp. 361 - 387
Copyright
© 2020 Business Ethics Quarterly

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

Anscombe, G. E. M. 1982. Medalist’s address: Action, intention and ‘double effect.’ Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association, 56: 12–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anscombe, G. E. M. 2000 [1957]. Intention (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Aquinas, T. 2017 [1485]. Summa theologiae. (Fathers of the Dominican Province, Tran.) (2nd and revised ed.). New York: Benzinger Brothers. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/index.html.Google Scholar
Arras, J. 2016. Theory and bioethics. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/theory-bioethics.Google Scholar
Aulisio, M. P. 2004. Double effect, principle or doctrine of. In Post, S. G. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Bioethics. New York: Macmillan Reference USA.Google Scholar
Bennett, J. 1995. The act itself (1st ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bhargava, V. R., & Velasquez, M. 2019. The ethics of making technology addictive: Value, insult, and the attention economy. Manuscript.Google Scholar
Bomann-Larsen, L., & Wiggen, O. 2004. Responsibility in world business: Managing harmful side-effects of corporate activity. New York: United Nations University Press.Google Scholar
Boyle, J. M. 1980. Toward understanding the principle of double effect. Ethics, 90(4): 527–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyle, J. M., & Sullivan, T. D. 1977. The diffusiveness of intention principle: A counter-example. Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, 31(5): 357–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cavanaugh, T. A. 2006. Double-effect reasoning: Doing good and avoiding evil (1st ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Center for Responsible Lending. 2014. Analysis: New state data show California payday lenders continue to rely on trapping borrowers in debt. Oakland, CA. http://www.responsiblelending.org/payday-lending/research-analysis/CRL-Analysis-CA-Payday-Lenders-Rely-on-Trapping-Borrowers-in-Debt.pdf.Google Scholar
Church Action on Poverty. 2013. Drowning in debt: How irresponsible lenders are creating a tidal wave of misery. Salford, United Kingdom. https://www.church-poverty.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Drowning-in-Debt-report.pdf.Google Scholar
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. 2013. Payday loans and deposit advance products: A white paper of initial data findings. Washington, D.C. https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201304_cfpb_payday-dap-whitepaper.pdf.Google Scholar
Eyal, N. 2014. Hooked: How to build habit-forming products, Hoover, R. (Ed.). New York: Penguin Group.Google Scholar
Federal Trade Commission. 2013. Guide to antitrust laws: The antitrust laws. https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws.Google Scholar
Finnis, J. 2011. Intention and side effects. Intention and identity: Collected essays, vol. II: 173–197. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FitzPatrick, W. 2003. Surplus embryos, nonreproductive cloning, and the intend/foresee distinction. The Hastings Center Report, 33(3): 29–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
FitzPatrick, W. J. 2006. The intend/foresee distinction and the problem of “closeness”. Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, 128(3): 585–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FitzPatrick, W. J. 2012. The doctrine of double effect: Intention and permissibility. Philosophy Compass, 7(3): 183–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flitter, E., & Rappeport, A. 2018. Bankers hate the Volcker Rule. Now, it could be watered down. The New York Times. May 21, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/21/business/volcker-rule-fed-banks-regulation.html.Google Scholar
Foot, P. 2002. Virtues and vices and other essays in moral philosophy (2nd ed.). New York: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, R. E. 2015. Stakeholder theory. Wiley encyclopedia of management. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Google Scholar
Fried, C. 1978. Right and wrong. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, S. O. 2003. Ethical criteria of risk acceptance. Erkenntnis, 59(3): 291–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayenhjelm, M., & Wolff, J. 2012. The moral problem of risk impositions: A survey of the literature. European Journal of Philosophy, 20: E26–E51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haynes, T. 2018. Dopamine, smartphones & you: A battle for your time. Science in the News. http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2018/dopamine-smartphones-battle-time/.Google Scholar
Heath, J. 2014. Morality, competition, and the firm: The market failures approach to business ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hess, K. M. 2014. Because they can: The basis for the moral obligations of (certain) collectives. Midwest Studies In Philosophy, 38(1): 203–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hills, A. 2007. Intentions, foreseen consequences and the doctrine of double effect. Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, 133(2): 257–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holm, S. 2016. A right against risk-imposition and the problem of paralysis. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice: An International Forum, 19(4): 917–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, R. C. 2019. Paying people to risk life or limb. Business Ethics Quarterly, 29(3): 295–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kagan, S. 1989. The limits of morality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kamm, F. M. 1989. Harming some to save others. Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, 57(3): 227–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kotter, J. P. 2012. Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.Google Scholar
Lee, S. 2004. Double effect, double intention, and asymmetric warfare. Journal of Military Ethics, 3(3): 233–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lichtenberg, J. 1994. War, innocence, and the doctrine of double effect. Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, 74(3): 347–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mangan, J. 1949. An historical analysis of the principle of double effect. Theological Studies, 10: 41–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masek, L. 2000. The doctrine of double effect, deadly drugs, and business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 10(2): 483–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masek, L. 2006. Deadly drugs and the doctrine of double effect: A reply to Tully. Journal of Business Ethics, 68(2): 143–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMahan, J. 2009. Intention, permissibility, terrorism, and war. Philosophical Perspectives, 23(1): 345–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelkin, D. K., & Rickless, S. C. 2013. So close, yet so far: Why solutions to the closeness problem for the doctrine of double effect fall short. Noûs, 49(2): 376–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelkin, D. K., & Rickless, S. C. 2014. Three cheers for double effect. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 89(1): 125–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norman, W. 2011. Business ethics as self-regulation: Why principles that ground regulations should be used to ground beyond-compliance norms as well. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(1): 43–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trusts, Pew Charitable. 2012. Payday lending in America: Who borrows, where they borrow, and why. Washington, D.C.: The Pew Charitable Trusts. https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2012/pewpaydaylendingreportpdf.pdf.Google Scholar
Quinn, W. S. 1989. Actions, intentions, and consequences: The doctrine of double effect. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 18(4): 334–351.Google ScholarPubMed
Rachels, J. 1994. More impertinent distinctions and a defense of active euthanasia. In Steinbock, B., & Norcross, A. (Eds.), Killing and letting die (2nd ed.): 139–154. New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
Sample, R. J. 2003. Exploitation: What it is and why it’s wrong. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
Scanlon, T. M. 2008. Moral dimensions: Permissibility, meaning, blame. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scharding, T. K. 2015. Imprudence and immorality: A Kantian approach to the ethics of financial risk. Business Ethics Quarterly, 25(2): 243–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scharding, T. 2019. Structured finance and the social contract: How tranching challenges contractualist approaches to financial risk. Business Ethics Quarterly, 29(1): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, J. 2006. Intention in ethics. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 36(2): 187–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, J. 2010. Exploitation and sweatshop labor: Perspectives and issues. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(2): 187–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuchlik, J. 2017. The closeness problem for double effect: A reply to Nelkin and Rickless. The Journal of Value Inquiry, 51(1): 69–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, J. J. 1999. Physician‐assisted suicide: Two moral arguments. Ethics, 109(3): 497–518.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tully, P. A. 2005. The doctrine of double effect and the question of constraints on business decisions. Journal of Business Ethics, 58(1–3): 51–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Velasquez, M., & Brady, F. N. 1997. Natural law and business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 7(2): 83–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walzer, M. 2006. Just and unjust wars: A moral argument with historical illustrations (4th ed.). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Wedgwood, R. 2011. Defending double effect. Ratio, 24(4): 384–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wertheimer, A. 1996. Exploitation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Zwolinski, M. 2007. Sweatshops, choice, and exploitation. Business Ethics Quarterly, 17(4): 689–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar