Search results

This article aims to analyze the anthropocentrism vs ethics of care positions of a group of undergraduate students at a private university in Mexico to test gender variable differences in their perspectives. There are two hypotheses: (1) there is a statistically significant difference between male and female genders related to anthropocentrism vs ethics of care positions, and if so, (2) the differences are attributable to women having a more ethics of care position than men. Participants were 561 undergraduate students from a private university in Mexico (257 female, 304 male). The findings demonstrated that both hypotheses were supported by the ethics of care, where the individual rights perspective is set aside to seek collective and holistic well-being.

T-tests were performed to test gender differences in anthropocentrism and ethics of care.

The results showed statistical differences based on gender (sig.000) and that women are less anthropocentric (or more oriented toward an ethics of care than men (female:1.64 and male:1.94). Ethics of care of female position is more defined than that of men. As a conclusion, men are more oriented to anthropocentrism, which reflects a lack of environmental connection by not assuming themselves as part of it and by defending the right of resources exploitation. On the contrary, women tend to respond from an ethic of care that means a more harmonious relationship with nature. In addition, women tend to assume a relationship with the environment, without hierarchy or supremacy towards it, and tend to reject the demand for the exploitation of the planet's resources as part of a right that human beings have historically assumed.

One of the limitations of this study is that it has been carried out in a university educational context with exclusively undergraduate students. It would be interesting to validate these anthropocentric vs ethics of care positions in different university groups, including professors and academic managers. Studying this concept in diverse contexts such as business, government and civil society would also be engaging. In addition, the authors recognize that the study is limited by its small population, which means that a balance between men and women or disciplines could not be guaranteed. However, the authors believe that although the results may not be considered exhaustive or conclusive, the results shed light for possible new studies in which the population is expanded. This is an exploratory study.

These results have practical implications for universities. In the classroom and in the university environment, students can learn to question the way they relate to the environment. Anthropocentrism (more accentuated in men) is assumed to be separate from the environment and with the right to its exploitation. Contrary to anthropocentrism, it is necessary to explore other positions such as the ethics of care or feminine ethics, more pronounced in women. Universities can develop environmental sustainability projects under the leadership of women, without claiming to be exclusive to them. In this way, the ethic of care approach can be put into practice and thus begin the necessary change for a new environmental relationship perspective.

Universities are required to provide an educational orientation towards Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) particularly those that respond to the climate crisis. To this end, it is necessary to promote a new environmental awareness that critically question anthropocentric models based on the supremacy over the environment. The ethics of care or feminine ethics, contrary to the previous position, assumes that the person is part of the environment and is oriented to its care and healing of the damage caused to restore this network of the human being with nature. The originality of this study lies in demonstrating how women exhibit a different relationship with the environment, oriented to the ethics of care, and how their posture shows a difference with anthropocentrism, which is stronger in men.

This study aims to examine the potential of Information Ethics (IE) to serve as a coherent ethical foundation for the library and information science profession (LIS profession).

This study consists of two parts: the first part present IE’s central theses and the main critiques it has received; the second part offers the authors' own evaluation of the theory from the LIS perspective in two steps: (1) assessing its internal consistency by testing its major theses against each other; (2) assessing its utility for resolving frequently debated LIS ethical dilemmas by comparing its solutions with solutions from other ethical theories.

This study finds that IE, consisting of an informational ontology, a fundamental ethical assertion and a series of moral laws, forms a coherent ethical framework and holds promising potential to serve as a theoretical foundation for LIS ethical issues; its inclusion of nonhuman objects as moral patients and its levels of abstraction mechanism proved to be particularly relevant for the LIS profession. This study also shows that, to become more solid an ethical theory, IE needs to resolve some of its internal contradictions and ambiguities, particularly its conceptual conflations between internal correctness, rightness and goodness; between destruction, entropy and evil; and the discrepancy between its deontological ethical assertion and its utilitarian moral laws.

This study alerts LIS professionals to the possibility of having a coherent ethical foundation and the potential of IE in this regard.

This study provides a systemic explication, evaluation and field test of IE from the LIS perspective.

Being the most powerful creatures on the planet, we humans should carefully consider our beliefs for the simple reason that the way in which we think influences our behaviors; this in turn can either transform the world or negatively affect the world. Our mores, paradigms, and worldviews translate into behaviors (e.g., factory farming for meat production and consumption) that in turn modify the environment. In general, much of our thinking system is backed up by some concept, theory, paradigm, or ideology. Our thinking systems generate our belief systems of goals and mission statements; our belief systems, in turn, determine our behavior systems (e.g., our strategies, choices, commissions, omissions as implementation systems); our behavior systems determine our impact systems (e.g., impact on us, our families and neighborhoods, our cities and villages, our state and our country, our globe and sometimes our cosmos). Thus, our behavior systems eventually impact our thinking systems, which we started with, thus completing a circular or spiral loop. This chapter examines the thinking–beliefs–behaviors–impact loop, exploring its internal and external dynamics and validities. Specifically, in Part I, we examine the structure of our belief systems in business; in Part II, we explore the power of our structured belief systems in business; in Part III, we apply critical thinking that systematically questions and seeks to redesign our presumed thinking and belief systems.

New Space activities offer benefits for human progress and life beyond the Earth. However, there is a risk that the New Space Economy may develop according to an anthropocentric mindset favouring human progress and survival at the expense of all other species and the environment. This mindset raises concerns over the social and environmental impacts of space activities and the accountability of space actors. This research article explores the accountability of space actors by presenting a pluralistic accountability framework to understand, inspire and change accountability in the New Space Economy. This study also identifies future research opportunities.

This paper is a reflective and normative essay. The arguments are developed using contemporary multidisciplinary academic literature, publicly available evidence and examples. Further, the authors use Dillard and Vinnari's accountability framework to examine a pluralistic accountability system for space businesses.

The New Space Economy requires public and private entities to embrace hybrid and pluralistic accountability for their social and environmental impacts. A new way of seeing the relationship between human life, the Earth and celestial space is needed. Accounting language is used to mirror and mobilise broader forms of responsibility in those involved in space.

This paper responds to the AAAJ's special issue call for examining how accountability can be ensured in the New Space Age. The space activities businesses conduct, and the anthropocentric view inspiring their race toward space is concerning. Hence, the authors advocate the need for rethinking accountability between humans and nature. The paper contributes to fostering the debate on social and environmental accounting and the accountability of space actors in the New Space Economy. To this end, the authors use a pluralistic accountability framework to help understand how the New Space Economy can face the risks emanating from its anthropocentric mindset.

“The unexamined life is not worth living,” said Socrates. That is, without critically inquiring into the knowledge of life, which is well-being and valuable, life is not worth living. Critical thinking questions existing theories and their unexamined and obsessive assumptions and generalizations, constraints, and the so-called “best” practices of the prevailing system of management and tries to replace them with more valid assumptions and generalizations that uphold the dignity, uniqueness, and inalienable rights of every individual and the community. In our diverse and pluralistic cultural environment, the promise of a truly generative dialogue among occidental (western) and oriental (eastern) cultures and civilizations holds great hope for the future. Critical thinking can facilitate this dialogue such that all of us have a meaningful place in this universe. In this chapter, we explore introductory working definitions of critical thinking so that we can early enough understand its demanding domains, moral calls, and ramifications in its current critical applications. Specifically, in Part I, we examine the structured layers of our thinking and reasoning to dismantle them progressively, and in Part II, in support of our claims, we explore complexity and chaos theories as a new resource for critical thinking.

This chapter addresses the question of what normatively binding claims can be associated with the principle of sustainability. It proposes a theoretical reading of justice that requires a new level of morality, namely a global (spatial), intergenerational (temporal) and ecological (material) extension of the scope of responsibility. This makes it plausible that responsibility for those who are distant in space and time, as well as for nature, becomes a matter of conscience. At the same time, it is shown how the binding claims resulting from the principle of sustainability can be internalised in the course of a conscience formation and how the gap between knowledge and action in questions of sustainable development can be closed by means of an emotional underpinning. Finally, it is proposed to transfer the question of conscience to spatial units and tourism through the model of ‘Destination Conscience’ and to institutionalise the idea of ‘inner commitment’ or self-commitment. One suggestion is the creation of committees that could be a collective ethical conscience for the future issues.

Sustainable management requires companies to build up new knowledge to acquire the competencies needed for action. This chapter aims to deliver knowledge about sustainability and knowledge for sustainability. Firstly, we systematically analyse the sustainability literature in the social sciences through a bibliographic analysis and topic modelling using VOSviewer and Mallet software. We outline research directions, themes and critical contributions for each research cluster identified. Additionally, we categorise over 30 definitions of sustainability identified by Meuer, Koelbel, and Hoffmann (2020). Secondly, we enumerate knowledge types needed for effective sustainability transitions of organisations. We trace typologies of sustainable business models and their distinct evaluations of sustainability. In this chapter, we argue that integrating the triad of social, ecological and economic goals is central for sustainability attempts as well as long-term thinking. Therefore, our research offers a comprehensive overview of sustainability in the social sciences supporting researchers and practitioners to navigate this miscellaneous and scattered field. Accordingly, our study is precious to young scholars researching sustainability who want to use the term in an informed and meaningful way.