Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Maurice Hamington
474
Maurice Hamington
unshared meaning, metaphors bring new understanding. Life and a bowl of cherries do not
have much in common, but they have just enough
shared meaning to create an evocative understanding
about fate and luck. Mark Johnson and George
Lakoff describe the fundamental role of metaphors as
projecting inference patterns from the source domain to the target domain (Lakoff and Johnson,
1999, p. 128). The terms business and game are
not synonyms, but they have enough in common
that the source domain, game elucidates the target
domain business in a meaningful way. However,
if, as Johnson and Lakoff have contended, there are
deep metaphoric scaffoldings that help to order our
experiences and perceptions, fallacious use of metaphor can negatively influence our understanding and
application of ethics beyond isolated remarks. In
particular, this article addresses the eliding of metaphor with definition. In other words, if we begin to
treat business as if it were truly a game, rather than
merely like a game, then I believe there are detrimental consequences for ethical behavior.2 I will
begin by exploring what I call the Metaphoric
Fallacy.
475
476
Maurice Hamington
metaphor run deeper to how we structure understanding? Semantic competence may not only be
necessary to understand the context of the metaphor,
but also to see the limitations of the metaphoric
structure as well. Caring and compassion as moral
strength do not resonate as well to the modern era
and are likely lost in the metaphoric understanding.
Initially, I contended that the potential for misunderstanding exists through the metaphoric fallacy.
I punctuated the significance of this fallacy by discussing the role of deep structures of metaphors.
Next, we will turn our attention to the specific
ethical ramifications of the business-as-game metaphor.
Compartmentalizing morality
One implication of business-as-game metaphor is
that it separates moral spheres, a form of contextual
relativism. By making the morality of business self
referential, like the rules of a game, business activity
becomes less morally accountable to sources of
normative ethics in society. The compartmentalization of business ethics is in part a discursive creation.
Once business is nominally understood as an institution made up of a separate class of business professionals, the linguistic category allows for the
imaginative possibility of ethical differentiation.
Overlay a strong metaphoric understanding that
477
478
Maurice Hamington
479
Trivializing stakes
One of the common uses of the game metaphor
outside of business to invoke the notion of game as a
trivializing of the situation at hand, as expressed in
we are not playing games here or our relationship is not a game. This usage implies that games
are for entertainment and have little at stake. Some
games do have considerable financial and psychological ramifications, but more often than not,
people participate in games for personal enjoyment.
If the business-as-game metaphor is taken seriously,
it is easy to forget that in the process of seeking
victory or outmaneuvering an opponent, that business decisions have much greater stakes than most
peoples conception of games. Even the high stakes
found in professional sports games are dwarfed by
business decisions that can impact the health, safety,
and quality of life of numerous constituencies. Given the scope and resources of multinational corporations, such a detachment seems fraught with
danger. Historical incidents, such as the exploding
gas tank of the Ford Pinto, the toxic gas release in
Bhopal, India, the oil leak of the Exxon Valdez, and
the devastating financial fallout of Enrons corruption demonstrate that higher moral standards, or at
least, moral standards that resonate with society-atlarge are necessary for the corporate community.
Games may generally have their own rules of
behavior, but the consequences of the decisions in
games seldom have the impact that business decisions do. The work of stakeholder theorists is an
overt attempt at emphasizing the connected nature
of business activity, such that all the social and
economic ramifications of any decision are considered. In his 1989 film, Roger and Me, Michael Moore
pursues Roger Smith, C.E.O. of General Motors to
ask that Smith return to Flint, Michigan to see what
GMs decision to close plants in the area has meant
to the health and well being of the city. Moore was
attempting to make Smith accountable to the
community stakeholders. Flints economy had fallen
apart giving rise to high crime rates, unemployment,
and personal hardship. Moore wonders whether
General Motors had taken into consideration the
480
Maurice Hamington
481
482
Maurice Hamington
Note that this article is not a criticism of game theory per se but rather the impact of social iterations of the
game metaphor. Game theory is a rich field of decisionmaking analysis that explores the convergence of individual decision making, self interest, and group interest as explored in the much-discussed Prisoners Dilemma.
Game theory does not offer a theory of ethics as much as
it unpacks the motivations of the agents involved. To the
extent that game theory is applied to ethical dilemmas in
business without problematizing the assumptions about
the game metaphor, game theory participates in my wider
concern over the misuse of metaphor expressed. Like Solomon (1999, p. 12), it is the use of game theory as a metaphor of business activity that I object to. For an
excellent discussion of the ethical merits of game theory,
see Business Ethics Quarterly 9, no. 1 (1999).
3
Johnson looks to Immanual Kant for a counterexample to his theory of metaphoric necessity in morality.
Kant, as the supreme apologist for rationality surely
does not require metaphors that draw upon lived experience. However, Johnson finds that even Kant must
employ natural laws as a metaphor for his moral laws.
For Kant, pure moral laws, as an abstraction from existence, cannot be understood or applied without a reference to natural laws (1987, p. 72).
4
See, for example, Tuana (1993, pp. 8688). Tuana
documents how scientists and religious leaders using different suppositions and methodologies supported the
notion of women as morally weak, a conceptual metaphor supported by numerous secondary metaphors.
References
Applbaum, A. I.: 1998, Ethics for Adversaries: The Morality
of Roles in Public and Professional Life (Princeton University Press, Priceton, NJ).
Aristotle: 19942000 [350 bce], Poetics (trans: S. H. Butcher).
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/poetics.html, Section 3,
Part XXI.
Caillois, R. 2001, Man, Play and Games (trans: M. Barash).
(University of Illinois Press, Urbana).
Caputo, J.: 1993, Against Ethics (Indiana University Press,
Bloomington).
Carr, A. Z.: 1968, Is Business Bluffing Ethical?, Harvard
Business Review 46(1), 143153.
Ching, M. K. L.: 1993, Games and Play: Pervasive Metaphors in American Life, Metaphor and Symbolic Activity
8(1), 4365. doi:10.1207/s15327868ms0801_3.
Cohen, B. and J. Greenfield: 1996, Founders Letter, in
Ben & Jerrys 1996 Annual Report.
Dewey, J.: 1927, The Public and Its Problems (Henry Hold
and Co., New York).
483
Donaldson, T.: 2000, Are Business Mangers Professionals?, Business Ethics Quarterly 10(1), 8394.
doi:10.2307/3857697.
Donaldson, T. and T. W. Dunfee: 1994, Toward a
Unified Conception of Business Ethics: Integrative
Social Contracts Theory, Academy of Management
Review 19(2), 252284. doi:10.2307/258705.
Doyle, C.: 1996, Why Markets Need Referees, Business
Strategy Review 7(4), 3540. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8616.
1996.tb00140.x.
Epictetus: 1998, The Discourses (ed. Christopher Gill,
trans: Robin Hard) (Everyman, London).
Goldman, A.: 1980, The Moral Foundation of Professional
Ethic (Rowman and Littlefield, Totowa, NJ).
Goodpaster, K. E.: 2004, Ethics or Excellence? Conscience as a Check on the Unbalanced Pursuit
of Organizational Goals, Ivey Business Journal 68(4),
18.
Heath, J.: 2007, An Adversarial Ethic for Business: Or
When Sun-Tzu Met the Stakeholder, Journal of Business Ethics 72(4), 359374. doi:10.1007/s10551-0069175-5.
Jenkins, W.: 2005, The Pitch for a New Leadership
Metaphor, Human Resource Planning 28(1), 1920.
Johnson, M.: 1987, The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis
of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason (The University of
Chicago Press, Chicago).
Johnson, M.: 1993, Moral Imagination: Implications of
Cognitive Science for Ethics (The University of Chicago
Press, Chicago).
Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson: 1999, Philosophy in the Flesh:
The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought
(Basic Books, New York).
Machold, S., P. K. Ahmed and S. S. Farquhar: 2007,
Corporate Governance and Ethics, Journal of Business
Ethics 76(4).
Moore, M.: 1989, Roger and Me [film].
Moore, G. E.: 1903, Principia Ethica (Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge).
Moulton, J.: 1992, A Paradigm of Philosophy: The
Adversary Method, in A. Garry and M. Pearsall (eds.),
Women, Knowledge and Reality: Explorations in Feminist
Philosophy (Routledge, New York), pp. 520.
Niebuhr, R.: 1932, Moral Man and Immoral Society
(Scribners, New York).
Noddings, N.: 1984, Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics
and Moral Education (University of California Press,
Berkeley, CA).
Rigney, D.: 2001, The Metaphorical Society: An Invitation to
Social Theory (Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, MD).
Solomon, R.: 1999, Game Theory as a Model for
Business and Business Ethics, Business Ethics Quarterly
9(1), 1129. doi:10.2307/3857632.
484
Maurice Hamington