Alan Strudler

Education

JD, University of Arizona, 1985; PhD, University of Arizona, 1983

Career and Recent Professional Awards; Teaching Awards

David W. Hauck Award for Outstanding Teaching, 2000; American Philosophical Association Berger Award for Outstanding Article in Philosophy of Law, 1995

Academic Positions Held

Wharton: 1995present. Previous appointments: Columbia University; University of Maryland; Stanford University

Alan Strudler, Respectful Lying, pp. 961972.

Abstract: Abstract I argue that there are instances in which lying to an innocent and generally competent person respects her autonomy, contrary to arguments by Christine Korsgaard and Onora O’Neill. These authors say that respect for a person’s autonomy requires treating her in a way consistent with the possibility of consent, but I contend that the possibility of consent condition is unworkable. I maintain that lying can respect individual autonomy when being truthful to a person undermines her choices and lying gets her what she would reasonably see herself as having most reason to choose in the circumstances. I make my case by reflecting on lying invitations to a surprise party and on negotiation phenomena.

Jessica A. Kennedy, Tae Wan Kim, Alan Strudler, Hierarchies and Dignity, pp. 479502.

Abstract: Abstract We discuss workers’ dignity in hierarchical organizations. First, we explain why a conflict exists between highranking individuals’ authority and lowranking individuals’ dignity. Then, we ask whether there is any justification that reconciles hierarchical authority with the dignity of workers. We advance a communitarian justification for hierarchical authority, drawing upon Confucianism, which provides that workers can justifiably accept hierarchical authority when it enables a certain type of social functioning critical for the good life of workers and other involved parties. The Confucian communitarian perspective shows that promoting workers’ good life or wellbeing is an important condition for protecting their dignity.

Alan Strudler, What to Do with Corporate Wealth.

Tae Wan Kim, Rosemarie Monge, Alan Strudler, Bounded Ethicality and The Principle That, pp. 341361.

Abstract: Abstract In this article we investigate a philosophical problem for normative business ethics theory suggested by a phenomenon that contemporary psychologists call “bounded ethicality,” which can be identified with the putative fact that wellintentioned people, constrained by psychological limitations, make ethical choices inconsistent with their own ethical beliefs and commitments. When one combines the idea that bounded ethicality is pervasive with the idea that a person morally ought to do something only if she can, it raises a doubt about the practical relevance of the moral principles that business ethics theory prescribes. We call this doubt the Radical Behavioral Challenge. It consists in the idea that people cannot generally conform to the normative ethical principles that business ethics theorists prescribe, and that these principles are therefore practically irrelevant. We answer the Radical Behavioral Challenge and explore normative implications of our answer.

Alan Strudler, Guest Editor's Introduction: Normative Business Ethics in a Global Economy: New Directions on Donaldsonian Themes, the version of social contract theory that Donaldson developed with Tom Dunfee. Neither Donaldson nor Dunfee provide a convincing argument for the existence of hypernorms, Scherer contends. He takes on the instructive task of explaining how the leading figures in discourse theory, a set of recent developments deriving from German philosophy, can be helpful in understanding the status of putative universal moral norms. In her article “Denying Corporate Rights and Punishing Corporate Wrongs,” Amy Sepinwall aims to vindicate an idea she attributes to Donaldson: that even if corporations are not moral persons, they nonetheless have substantial responsibilities. Along the way, she argues that arguments about corporate personhood are beside the point. Sepinwall reminds us of the possibility that, at times, nobody within a corporation commits a relevant wrong, but wrongdoing nonetheless, emerges from the firm, thus justifying us in prosecuting and punishing the corporation. The possibility of these moral phenomena, she further maintains, shows that reasonable judgments about corporate responsibility are independent of moral claims about personhood, thus vindicating Donaldson. In “Inverting Donaldson’s Framework: A Managerial Approach To International Conflicts Of Cultural And Economic Norms,” Andrew Stark proposes an ingenious twist on a model of moral reasoning that Donaldson developed. This model offers a way to think about moral decisionmaking in countries whose norms seem different from our own. Stark proposes a refinement of Donaldson’s model. While Donaldson asks how we should respond to differences in norms when those differences are explained by differences in culture, Stark suggests that it matters, in ways that Donaldson doesn't recognize, why the differences in culture exist and how they are likely to evolve. Asking about the historical trajectory of these differences, Stark suggests, makes salient important moral considerations too easily overlooked in Donaldson’s model. Danielle Warren, Marietta Peytcheva, and Jospeh P. Gaspar use aspects of Integrative Social Contracts Theory to address a stubborn problem in business ethics: how to make sense of conflicting moral prescriptions coming from different apparent sources of authority within a business organization. In their contribution, “When Ethical Tones at the Top Conflict: Adapting Priority Rules to Reconcile Conflicting Tones,” they propose that in trying to resolve conflicting prescriptions, an employee may reasonably rely on ISCT’s priority rules, which Donaldson and Dunfee model after the law treating conflicts within a legal system. Donaldson and Dunfee notice that just as laws in different jurisdictions may conflict, so too can moral principles emerging out of different national or cultural groups conflict. They use the welldeveloped jurisprudence of conflicts as a model for understanding conflicting moral principles. Warren, Peytcheva, and Gaspar explore the possibility of extending this model to cover moral conflicts arising from within a business organization. There is an interesting empirical question whether these rules for handling conflict, which are complex, can guide business decisionmaking. The authors explore ways to address that question. In reading through the essays in this issue, one is struck by the fact that while many of the authors find Donaldson’s work a platform for their own work, other authors find Donaldson to be wrong on some fundamental point. This should be no surprise. The mark of an interesting thinker is not that his work commands consensus. It is instead that his work triggers insightful discussion and intelligent debate. These essays offer evidence that Donaldson is quite interesting.

Tae Wan Kim and Alan Strudler, Workplace Civility, pp. 557577.

Abstract: Abstract We argue that Confucianism makes a fundamental contribution to understanding why civility is necessary for a morally decent workplace. We begin by reviewing some limits that traditional moral theories face in analyzing issues of civility. We then seek to establish a Confucian alternative. We develop the Confucian idea that even in business, humans may be sacred when they observe rituals culturally determined to express particular ceremonial significance. We conclude that managers and workers should understand that there is a broad range of morally important rituals in organizational life and that managers should preserve and develop the intelligibility and integrity of many of these rituals

R. Edward Freeman, Gianfranco Rusconi, Silvana Signori, Alan Strudler: Ethical Ideas and Managerial Action](http://philpapers.org/rec/FRESTE3)**,, 109 (1).

Alan Strudler, p. 672.

Abstract: In this discussion I explore challenges to a particular Confucian system of morality that generally eschews reliance on rights. I argue that such a system may at the same time both assert that there are moral problems with rights and assert that it is acceptable to invoke rights in limited contexts. Adam Bailey has objected that the position I defend is inconsistent. I answer Bailey's objections.

Alan Strudler, The Distinctive Wrong in Lying, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice.

Abstract: In this essay I will argue, as does Bernard Williams, that lying and misleading are both commonly wrong because they involve an aim to breach a trust. I will also argue, contrary to Williams, that lying and misleading threaten trust differently, and that when they are wrong, they are wrong differently. Indeed, lying may be wrong when misleading is not.

Eric W. Orts and Alan Strudler, and gender discrimination in the context of cultural differences. Literature not only from business ethics, but from professional and applied ethics, law, and organizational behavior will be discussed. Often, guest speakers will address the seminar. At the discretion of the class, special topics of interest to the class will be examined. Students will be expected to write and present a major paper dealing with a current issue within their major field. The course is open to students across fields, and provides integration of ideas across multiple business disciplines.

LGST921 FOUNDATIONS OF BUS LAW

This course will introduce students to basic jurisprudential discussions and debates that relate to understanding business in society. Topics will include a general overview of the nature of law and its relationship to ethics; theories of contract, torts, and property; criminal law as it applies to business situations; and theories of the business enterprise and its regulation. Selected topics will also be chosen in accordance with the interest of participants in the seminar.

Knowledge @ Wharton

• When Do Exaggerations and Misstatements Cross the Line?, Knowledge @ Wharton 06/23/2010
• Why Insider Trading Is Hard to Define, Prove and Prevent, Knowledge @ Wharton 11/11/2009
• The Subprime Blame Game: Where Were the Realtors?, Knowledge @ Wharton 10/17/2007
• Social Investing: Big Business, Big Challenges, Knowledge @ Wharton 03/01/2000