Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. What’s the Point of Efficiency? On Heath’s Market Failures Approach.Richard Endörfer & Louis Larue - 2024 - Business Ethics Quarterly 34 (1):35 - 59.
    This article reviews and criticizes Joseph Heath’s market failures approach (MFA) to business ethics. Our criticism is organized into three sections. First, we argue that, even under the ideal assumptions of perfect competition, when markets generate Pareto-efficient distributions, Heath’s approach does not rule out significant harms. Second, we show that, under nonideal conditions, the MFA is either too demanding, if efficiency is to be attained, or not sufficiently demanding, if the goal of Pareto efficiency is abandoned. Finally, we argue that (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Moral Status of Pecuniary Externalities.Brian Kogelmann & Jeffrey Carroll - 2024 - Journal of Business Ethics 195 (1):121-132.
    Pecuniary externalities—costs imposed on third parties mediated through the price system—have typically received little philosophical attention. Recently, this has begun to change. In two separate papers, Richard Endörfer (Econ Philos 38, pp. 221–241, 2022) and Hayden Wilkinson (Philos Public Affairs 50: 202–238, 2022) place pecuniary externalities at center stage. Though their arguments differ significantly, both conclude pecuniary externalities are in some sense morally problematic. If the state is not called on to regulate pecuniary externalities, then, at the very least, individuals (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • J.S. Mill and market harms: a response to Endörfer.Ben Saunders - 2024 - Economics and Philosophy 40 (2):462-467.
    Endörfer has recently argued that proponents of the harm principle are wrong to exempt market harms as potential justifications for state interference. I argue that – contrary to suggestions in Endörfer’s article – John Stuart Mill did not exempt market harms from his harm principle. On Mill’s view, the state can (as a matter of principle) legitimately interfere with free markets to prevent market harms where they occur but, on the whole, it is better policy not to interfere. Mill’s general (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark