Should philosophers at
universities, by which I mean scholars who hold a Ph.D. in philosophy, try to
be relevant? Nietzsche wrote that no
philosopher is a person of one’s own day, but Adam Smith saw in philosophers the
potential as observers rather than doers to observe occupations rather than
Plato’s eternal moral verities or Aristotle’s prime mover way up high. Opinions
on this question can reasonably differ, but under no circumstance should
someone holding a MBA and DBA or Ph.D. in business claim to be a philosopher.
This is especially true in North America, where doctoral students in business have
not typically even taken ethics courses in philosophy. Indeed, I turned down a
doctorate in business in part because my area would have been business ethics sans
any coursework in philosophy, including ethics. I attempted to take the
core graduate course in ethics, but the professor, Kurt Baier, announced at the
end of the first class session that only philosophy students could enroll.
Baier had the countenance of Schopenhauer, and both, ironically, focused on ethics
academically. To be sure, doctoral students in business who already have
a Ph.D. in philosophy may be counted as philosophers, and the dual degrees fit
an orientation to observing and thinking about occupations rather than just on
metaphysics or ontology.
The full essay is at "Should Philosophers Be Oriented to Business?"
