why should it matter legally whether professor anspach is correct that hasbro’s monopoly game

The basic argument there is that you have an individualist point of view and the idea of moral responsibility really doesn’t make sense to attribute to firms. In the second part of the book, Amy is included in that as well as some other people, including John Hasnas at Georgetown, Ian Maitland and some others arguing the other side of it. They’re examples in the first part of the book. Orts: You have some scholars - among them are Philip Pettit who is a philosopher at Princeton Michael Bratman at Stanford, although he hedges somewhat in the book, but he’s included in the chapter in favor of finding more responsibility for firms Peter French, who has written a very influential statement that moral responsibility can be attributed to firms. In partnership with INSEAD and with a generous grant from the Wharton and INSEAD Alliance, we decided to pull together the leading thinkers on this issue, have a conference on it and then write the book based on that Is there a for and against in this book? We decided it was time to revisit this question.

This has been a long-standing problem and a number of people have contributed to it, but it’s not really been resolved for decades. Why was it important to put together a book looking at moral responsibility for firms?Įric Orts: There’s a very long-standing philosophical debate about whether organizations like business firms have a moral responsibility as firms themselves, or whether it’s only the individuals in the firm or organization who have moral responsibility.

Why should it matter legally whether professor anspach is correct that hasbro’s monopoly game