one man's ceiling is another man's floor...
Somebody had to step up for the wingtips here...

I think your man Eagleton has the same problem with the "-ologies" that you have with the "-osophies": you - and we - lack a common dictionary. From the Boardroom point of view, let me sum up your "how it happened" in three simple steps:

1: We're lazy. We don't bother to (first) understand and (second) reinforce the given definition of words like "philosophy"; we hear the generally-accepted definition - "the study of something" - and then pair it up with something that we want to study - "business" in this case - and apply the word. Liberally.

2: We're vain. Self-aggrandising, even. We hear a word, we know the generally-sccepted definition, and so we apply it liberally towards the end of making ourselves look smarter to our peers. Especially our bosses. Doesn't mean we understand it; it just means that we know how to apply it in conversation. Doesn't make me Madonna, never will...

3: We already have a term for "business philosophy": it's called "analysis". When business wants to question the questions, it does "statistical analyses" or "critical analysis" or "systems analysis" on them. Yes - analysis is the precursor to answer, but - in business - it's all about answers.

So, in lieu of purging our commonly-accepted language and replacing it with hardcore Webster, we make it up as we go along, and we leave the philosophers and psychologists to sort out our mess. (see point 1...)

If you do the Business Ethics thing, start with a blank-sheet; your Business students will thank you later. : )

-- dad