| The argument of my thesis can be summarised as follows: in the context of rivalry, an agent may attempt to satisfy his or her preferences at the expense of other agents' preferences if this generates social benefits that could not be generated otherwise (without producing too much harm). This argument leads to an adversarial ethics, that is, a description of our moral obligations in contexts like a sport competition or a trial. This ethics will be developed and applied to the behavior of economic agents in the market.;I will address two main questions. The first question focuses on the design of our social institutions. An adversarial scheme is a pattern of social interactions that fulfills its function through a dynamic of rivalry. Parts of our institutions can be modeled as adversarial schemes. When is it desirable to use these schemes? It is desirable if the balance between the scheme's functionality and harms is 1) acceptable and 2) preferable by comparison with other schemes. These two conditions yield a test. The test is developed in the first chapter. The second chapter argues that the market passes this test.;An agent must be allowed to adopt adversarial behaviors in an adversarial scheme. But this permission does not apply to his or her behavior outside the scheme or inside non-adversarial incorporated schemes (like a firm in the market or a team in sport competitions). These two criteria, once combined, yield a threefold distinction or a tripartition of the moral obligation of economic agents, which solves some of the problems with the shareholder primacy view and the stakeholder theory. The tripartition and its implications are presented in the third chapter.;The second question focuses on our moral obligations at the personal level. How ought we to behave in an adversarial scheme? In the fourth chapter, I argue that we ought to adopt the ideal of beneficial rivalry, which implies that we ought to: 1) contain our adversarial behaviors inside the scheme, 2) respect the scheme's rules and 3) adopt a behavior that will allow the scheme to pass the desirability test (developed in the first chapter). The fifth chapter argues that this ideal avoids some of the problems with Joseph Heath's ideal of healthy competition and Lynn Sharp Paine's ideal of positive competition. |
