To improve the efficacy of business ethics courses, the article recommends closer attention be paid to the religious motivations of students, which have for too long been ignored by most business ethics theory. By disconnecting the teaching of business ethics from the motivations driving business decisions, the theory that gets taught – and published in the textbooks – more strongly represents the philosophical tools of business ethicists than the moral resources business people claim to use. Through a community-based research study (...) that immersed students in the ethical issues business people face, an argument emerges for incorporating more religious ethics into teaching business ethics as this is the kind of moral resource business people claim is most important to them. Though the interviewees attested to the importance of religion, they were rarely able to articulate how their religious beliefs shaped their moral decisions, suggesting that much work could be done in the area of helping people better learn to apply their closely held religious beliefs in the workplace. (shrink)

Both Protestant theologians and “preference” economists believe that freedom is necessary for moral action, but such theologians and economists have seemingly irreconcilable accounts of freedom and, thus also, morality. Instead of learning from each other, they typically ignore each other or claim that one field reigns supreme over the other. This essay digs into the theological and economic traditions of each side to find points of similarity between them. It engages Adam Smith and Ernst Troeltsch to develop a view of (...) “ethical freedom” that pulls together the “libertarian freedom” emphasized by preference economics and the “egalitarian freedom” emphasized in much Protestant theology. The three-part view of freedom draws the disciplines together and opens possibilities for a more robust theory of moral action. (shrink)

Adam Smith writes history to teach people how a plurality of forces informs our moral and economic actions. He employs the stadial theory—prevalent in his day—to explore four different states, or kinds of society, but he does not intend to use these to write a simple, linear history of the ‘stages’ of human progress. This article employs Smith’s typological method for writing history to create a four-fold typo­lo­gy of how contemporary scholars have interpreted Smith’s use of history. By using an (...) approach, drawn from Smith’s historiography, to understand his later interpreters, this article demonstrates that Smith’s approach to history is about telling a story that embraces plurality, holds differences in tension, and resists simplification. (shrink)