Suchergebnisse

The central role of ethics -- Myths and misconceptions -- The generalization principle -- The utilitarian principle -- Everyday dilemmas -- Moral agency and autonomy -- Virtue ethics -- Buying and selling -- Ethics in education -- Using study drugs -- Job search ethics -- Ethics on the job -- Organizational policy -- Medical ethics -- Ethics and artificial intelligence

"This book develops an intellectual framework for analyzing ethical dilemmas that is both grounded in theory and versatile enough to deal rigorously with real-world issues. It sees ethics as a necessary foundation for the social infrastructure that makes modern life possible, much as engineering is a foundation for physical infrastructure. It is not wedded to any particular ethical philosophy but draws from several traditions to construct a unified and principled approach to ethical reasoning. Rather than follow the common academic practice of seeking a reflective equilibrium of moral intuitions and principles, it builds on a few bedrock principles of rational thought that serve as criteria for valid argumentation. It develops the ideas from the ground up, without presupposing any background in ethics or philosophy. Epistemologically, the book views ethics as parallel to mathematics, in that it relies on generally accepted proof techniques to establish results. Whereas mathematics rests on such proof paradigms as mathematical induction and proof by contradiction, ethics can be seen as relying on proof by applying consistency tests, such as generalizability and respect for autonomy. Utilitarianism also plays a key role, but it is reconceived as a deontological criterion. This approach obviously requires that these criteria be formulated more rigorously than is normally the case. To accomplish this, the book begins with the classical idea that an action is distinguishable from mere behavior by virtue of its having a coherent rationale, where coherence requires passing certain consistency tests such as generalizability. An action is therefore inseparable from its rationale, and generalizability is defined in terms of consistency with the rationale. A utilitarian criterion receives a similar treatment with respect to a means-end rationale. Respect for autonomy is grounded in a carefully developed action theory that takes into account such concepts as joint autonomy, implied consent, and the permissibility of interference with unethical behavior. It provides an account of responsibility that is both practical and theoretically satisfying, and it yields a novel solution of the much-discussed trolley car dilemmas. The book is written for a general audience and strives to be as readable and engaging as possible, while maintaining rigor. It begins by dispelling a raft of misconceptions that trivialize ethics and block its development as an essential tool of modern life, such as the notion that ethics is just a matter of opinion without rational foundation. After presenting the ethical principles just described, along with many examples, it provides several chapters that analyze real-life dilemmas, many obtained from the author's students and professional workshop participants. One cannot understand physics or chemistry without seeing how their principles are applied to real problems, and the same is true of ethics. These chapters demonstrate that a unified normative theory can deal with a wide range of real cases while achieving a reasonable level of objectivity and rigor."--Provided by publisher

PurposeBecause cultures operate in very different ways, different activities are corrupting in different parts of the world. Taking the view that corruption is an activity that tends to undermine a cultural system, this paper aims to examine this issue.Design/methodology/approachThe paper analyzes real‐life situations in Japan, Taiwan, India, China, North America, sub‐Saharan Africa, the Middle East, and Korea to distinguish actions that structurally undermine a cultural system from those that are merely inefficient or are actually supportive.FindingsCultures have fundamentally different behavioral norms due to their different conceptions of human nature. They can be broadly classified as rule‐based and relationship‐based, distinguished by the fact that behavior is regulated primarily by respect for rules in the former and authority figures in the latter. Corrupting behavior differs around the world partly because of different norms, and partly because cultural systems break down in different ways. Activities such as nepotism or cronyism that are corrupting in the rule‐based cultures of the West may be functional in relationship‐based cultures. Behavior that is normal in the West, such as bringing lawsuits or adhering strictly to a contract, may be corrupting elsewhere. Practices such as bribery that are often corrupting across cultures are nonetheless corrupting for very different reasons.Originality/valueThe paper provides culturally sensitive guidelines not only for avoiding corruption but also for understanding the mechanisms that make a culture work.

[1], 53, [1] leaves ; Signatures: A² B² C-D⁴ ² C-I⁴; ² A-C⁴ [D]⁴ (-[D]4). Quires ¹E-I are a reissue or reprinting from "The order and usage of keeping of the parlements in England" (STC 24886.7, possibly printed by Charlewood). Quires ² C-D were apparently also printed by Charlewood; the rest printed by John Allde (STC). ; Quires ² A-D, "The discription of the cittie of Excester", also issued separately (STC 24886), have separate divisional title and register; foliation is continuous with the first part, having apparently been hand-stamped. ; With a final errata leaf. ; Reproduction of the original in the Henry E. Huntington Library and Art Gallery.

Abstract
We revisit the question initially raised by Yuji Ijiri about the notion of fairness in accounting. We argue that the fairness question was important then and remains relevant today. First we situate Ijiri's question in relevant debates in the history of accounting thoughts and in contemporary debates. Then we develop a framework of fair flow of information for accounting practices. To do so, we draw upon deontological ethical theory and the generalization principle, in particular. We invite a counter-example from the game-theoretic phenomenon of signal jamming to challenge the generalization principle. By addressing the challenge, we further clarify the appropriate uses of the generalization principle.