Liberal and communitarian defenses of workplace privacy

Journal of Business Ethics

Volumn 16, Issue 8, 1997, Pages 817-823

  Manning, Rita C ^a  

^a SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0001453661     PISSN: 01674544     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1017976716129     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. I include Michael Sandel, Charles Taylor and Michael Walzer among the prominent defenders of communitarianism, though this view is gaining greater currency of late.
2. Witness, for example, the debate between 1988 presidential candidates Bush and Dukakis.
3. John Rawls: 1971, A Theory of Justice (Harvard University Press).
4. Adina Schwartz: 1986, 'Meaningful Work', Philosophical Issues in Human Rights, Werhane, Gini, Ozar, eds. (Random House), N.Y.
5. Rawls, p. 396.
6. Rawls, p. 440.
7. Robert Nozick: 1974, Anarchy, State and Utopia (Basic Books).
8. Ibid. p. 320.
9. Ibid. p. 320.
10. Louis D. Brandeis and Charles Warren: 1890, 'The Right to Privacy', Harvard Law Review 4.
11. Edward J. Bloustein, Privacy, ed. by Ferdinand Schoeman, p. 163.
12. Ibid. p. 187.
13. Ibid. p. 188.
14. Stanley Benn, Schoeman, p. 242.
15. Ruth Gavison, Schoeman, p. 347.
16. See, for example, Charles Fried: 1975, 'Privacy: A Rational Context', Today's Moral Problems ed. Richard Wasserstrom and James Rachels 'Why Privacy is Important', Philosophy and Public Affairs 4(4).
17. See, for example, Charles Fried: 1975, 'Privacy: A Rational Context', Today's Moral Problems ed. Richard Wasserstrom and James Rachels 'Why Privacy is Important', Philosophy and Public Affairs 4(4).
18. Jeffrey H. Reiman, 'Privacy, Intimacy, and Personhood', Schoeman.
19. Julius Moravscik: 1988, Presidential Address, Pacific Division APA, Spring.
20. Michael Sandel: 1984, Liberalism and Its Critics (University Press, New York), p. 5.
21. Ibid. p. 6.
22. One of the problems with the liberalism/communitarianism debate is the confusion about what liberalism and communitarian is and exactly what each is committed to. I think we can distinguish between three versions of what I shall call prescriptive communitarianism (PC1, PC2, PC3) and three versions of what I shall cann prescriptive liberalism (PL1, PL2, PL3). I would distinguish all versions of prescriptive communitarianism from what I shall cann metaphysical communitarianism (MC) and all versions of prescriptive liberalism from what I shall call metaphysical liberalism (ML). I take it that the unencumbered self model is a description of human beings. One could it interpret it as an essentialist description of human beings (essentialist metaphysical liberalism, EML) or a description of human beings under certain social conditions (e.g. capitalism) (social context metaphysical communitarianism, SCMC). Similarly, we could distinguish an essentialist metaphysical communitarianism from a social context metaphysical communitarianism. We could then sort out some important versions of metaphysical and prescriptive communitarianism and liberalism: Metaphysical Versions Essentialism Metaphysical Communitarianism (EMC): The situated self as an essential component of human nature. Social Context Metaphysical Communitarianism (SCMC): The situated self as a by-product of some social context Essentialist Metaphysical Liberalism (EML): The unencumbered self as an essential component of human nature. Social Context Metaphysical Liberalism (SGML): The unencumbered self as a by-product of some social context. Prescriptive Versions Prescriptive Communitarianism 1 (PC1): We should treat persons in a way that is compatible with EMC. PC2: We should treat persons in such a way that SCMC comes to be the correct description. PC3: We should treat persons in such a way that they come to share at least some communal values and develop a sense of self that is connected to communally defined and assigned roles. PL1: We should treat persons in a way that is compatible with EML. PL2: We should treat persons so that SCML comes to be the correct description. PL3: We should encourage persons to assert their individuality and make choices about appropriate communal values and roles. I would be willing to defend EMC and PL3, though I could be persuaded of the virtues of SCMC. I think it is clear that these distinctions are important and one's choice among them needs to be defended.
23. At a recent conference, 'Morality, Law and Community' at UC Berkeley, October 1988, Ronald Dworkin admitted being drawn to a notion of a liberal community. Michael Sandel defended a community with diversity as a good.
24. James Fitzjames Stephen, Equality, and Fraternity 1877.
25. Some might argue that this trust won't be possible at all unless we radically change the workplace to allow for real trust between workers and management. This requires true worker democracy. as my colleague, Tom Leddy, put it in a comment on this paper, ". . . without worker's democracy the emphasis on "trust" is just another one of those well-meaning but ultimately ineffective appeals to the capitalist owners to be virtuous." I wholeheartedly agree.
26. An earlier version of this paper was read at San Jose State University. Special thanks are due to Scott Cook and Tom Leddy for their many helpful comments.