Abstract
Ebejer and Morden (‘Paternalism in the Marketplace: Should a Salesman Be His Buyer's Keeper?”, Journal of Business Ethics 7, 1988) propose ‘limited paternalism’ as a sufficient regulative condition for a professional ethic of sales. Although the principle is immediately appealing, its application can lead to a counter-productive ethical quandary I call the Pontius Pilate Plight. This quandary is the assumption that ethical agents' hands are clean in certain situations even if they have done something they condemn as immoral. Since limited paternalism can give rise to this queer conclusion in the salesperson/buyer relationship, the principle is suspect. It may be a necessary condition for ethical sales, but is not sufficient. This discussion concludes by suggesting two additional criteria which, when complemented by the limited paternalism principle, are jointly sufficient.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Walters teaches philosophy at Gettysburg College. The author of two books and numerous articles, he recently published ‘Morally Acceptable Divestiture’, Analysis 48 (1988)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Walters, K.S. Limited paternalism and the Pontius Pilate Plight. J Bus Ethics 8, 955–962 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00383432
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00383432