Abstract

Richard Konrad claims that businessmen are guilty of adhering to a vicious form of ethical relativism. In practice, the relativism takes the form of doing an act which ordinarily would be called wrong and then claiming that the act is right or justified because it falls under a special set of codes (business ethics) which preempt ordinary ones. These codes or business ethics establish moral sanctuaries for businessmen. Konrad examines three versions of the sanctuary position, argues that they fail, and concludes that the position is untenable. In this article it is claimed that Konrad is in error, that upon closer examination the three versions do provide justification for businessmen claiming relief from moral criticism.