Professional Economic Ethics: The Posnerian and Naïve Perspectives

G. DeMartino
{"title":"Professional Economic Ethics: The Posnerian and Naïve Perspectives","authors":"G. DeMartino","doi":"10.5085/JFE.24.1.3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There are two broad ways to think about the nature and purpose of professional economic ethics. The first (The Posnerian View), which comes most readily to mind for economists, is ethical legislation that is intended to prohibit illicit or otherwise inappropriate behavior by the members of a profession. The goal is to prevent bad or weak-willed professionals from doing bad things. In this way of thinking, professional ethics must take the form of a binding code of conduct that spells out the “do's” and “don'ts” of professional practice. A second view, the Naive View, argues that professional ethics is something other than a code of conduct. In this view, professional ethics seeks to enable virtuous practitioners to do good. This view presents an expansive view of professional ethics—as a tradition of careful inquiry into the full range of ethical issues that arise in the context of professional practice. This paper elaborates the central assumptions and claims of these two perspectives on professional ethics, and explores what these two perspectives imply about the content of and prospects for professional economic ethics. The paper criticizes the Posnerian View, advocates the Naive View, and teases out what the latter perspective implies for the economics profession.","PeriodicalId":265321,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Forensic Economics","volume":"79 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Forensic Economics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5085/JFE.24.1.3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

There are two broad ways to think about the nature and purpose of professional economic ethics. The first (The Posnerian View), which comes most readily to mind for economists, is ethical legislation that is intended to prohibit illicit or otherwise inappropriate behavior by the members of a profession. The goal is to prevent bad or weak-willed professionals from doing bad things. In this way of thinking, professional ethics must take the form of a binding code of conduct that spells out the “do's” and “don'ts” of professional practice. A second view, the Naive View, argues that professional ethics is something other than a code of conduct. In this view, professional ethics seeks to enable virtuous practitioners to do good. This view presents an expansive view of professional ethics—as a tradition of careful inquiry into the full range of ethical issues that arise in the context of professional practice. This paper elaborates the central assumptions and claims of these two perspectives on professional ethics, and explores what these two perspectives imply about the content of and prospects for professional economic ethics. The paper criticizes the Posnerian View, advocates the Naive View, and teases out what the latter perspective implies for the economics profession.
职业经济伦理:波斯纳和Naïve视角
有两种广泛的方式来思考职业经济伦理的性质和目的。第一种观点(波斯纳观点)是经济学家最容易想到的,即道德立法,旨在禁止专业人士的非法或其他不当行为。其目的是防止不良或意志薄弱的专业人士做坏事。在这种思维方式下,职业道德必须采取具有约束力的行为准则的形式,阐明职业实践的“该做”和“不该做”。第二种观点,朴素观点,认为职业道德不是一种行为准则。在这个观点中,职业道德寻求使有道德的从业者能够做好事。这种观点提出了一种广泛的职业道德观点——作为一种传统,对专业实践中出现的各种道德问题进行仔细的调查。本文阐述了这两种职业道德观点的核心假设和主张,并探讨了这两种观点对职业经济道德的内涵和前景的启示。本文对波斯纳观点进行了批判,提倡朴素观点,并梳理了朴素观点对经济学专业的启示。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信