Search results

This research looks at the main effect of individuals’ moral philosophies, idealism and relativism, and its impact on the four dimensions of the consumer ethics beliefs – active benefit, passive benefit, no harm and doing good. The moderating impact of two dominant personalities – Machiavellianism and narcissism – was also analyzed. Based on Hunt–Vitell theory of ethics, this study aims to propose that there is a positive and significant impact of more relativistic and less idealistic moral philosophies on the decreased consumer ethical perceptions and that the narcissistic/Machiavellian personality traits drive that effect.

A total of 497 survey respondents were recruited via an online platform. All respondents were asked to answer questions, which were divided into four major parts. The first part consisted of scales related to both moral philosophies, the second part had both dark personality scales, the third part questioned about their consumer ethical beliefs and the final part was related to consumer demographics.

Relativists had higher scores in three consumer unethical belief dimensions. Idealists were not supportive of the active and passive illegal activities, as did their positive relation with doing good aspect of the ethical beliefs. Machiavellians strengthen the positive relativism relationship. The idealistic relation of narcissists, compared to relativistic relation, is stronger on unethical decision-making for consumers.

This study contributes to the current knowledge of individual’s moral philosophies and their impact on consumer ethical beliefs. It further demonstrates how the dark personalities of narcissism and Machiavellianism drive the relationship.

The No Harm Done films provide hope and give support to those affected by self-harm. The accompanying digital packs dispel myths, answer frequently asked questions, provide practical advice and signpost to further help and support. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

YoungMinds employed its sector-leading expertise in youth and parent engagement. Both the films and digital packs were co-created with young people, parents and professionals, reflecting their real-life experiences of self-harm.

The project responded to young people who self-harm telling us they feel isolated, alone, in need of hope and help to counteract the negative and frightening messages widely available online. Parents confided they also feel isolated and that it is their fault their child is harming themselves. Teachers told us they see the signs but cannot bring themselves to say anything, and even if they want to, they cannot find the words to reach out to young people.

Quote from a professional “I personally found the No Harm Done short films to be incredibly valuable resources for my practice with young people. The way the films have been produced will make it a lot harder for young people that I work with to judge the action of self-harm given that there are no graphic harming words/stories and the films themselves do not come across as triggering. I feel enthusiastic that these films will encourage understanding and empathy from peers and spark conversation enabling those who have no knowledge around self-harm to be more accepting, open and supportive of those who have issues with self-harm.”

Can one describe the ‘natural’ process of pregnancy as ‘harm’, even when negligently brought about? What does that harm consist of? Offering a contextual analysis of the English judiciary's characterisation of wrongful pregnancy, this paper demonstrates from a feminist perspective that the current construction of pregnancy as a ‘personal injury’ is deeply problematic. Forwarding an alternative account, this paper argues for law to embrace a richer notion of autonomy that will better resonate with women's diverse experiences of reproduction, and articulate the importance of autonomy in the reproductive domain: notably, women gaining control over their moral, relational and social lives.

The goal of this chapter was to provide an insight into rules and norms behind generation Y social media presence and inform future research through an exploration of the norms underpinning digitally mediated interaction and behavior among college-age students in Ireland.

The authors administered a questionnaire containing both closed- and open-ended questions among 131 first-year college students in Ireland, asking them to identify online behaviors and actions with a purpose of recognizing rules and norms that guided how they handled sharing, interaction, and mediated aspects of relationships in their use of mobile devices and social media platforms.

This study reveals that the driving force is the desire for and implementation of what can be called the norm of “Do No Harm Lest Others Do Harm to You.” This norm, rather than being driven by the Hippocratic Code of principled awareness is an expression of an acute consciousness of audience segregation and the need for self-protection in online interaction. The respondents were asked about the rules and norms that guided how they handled sharing, interaction, and mediated aspects of relationships in their use of mobile devices and social media platforms. Their responses demonstrated that millennials, in their everyday and intensive use of digitally mediated technologies, have begun to observe a new social contract of “Do No Harm Lest Others Do Harm to You” where internet becomes a space of entertainment and private messaging devoid of conflict and exchanges of opinion with others. Millennials seem to be closing down the scope of online interaction which in the long run can limit the function of internet as a social sphere where various issues, including political views, are exchanged and discussed.

The research is exploratory in nature and relied up on a relatively small sample size. For this reason, while the study produces new analytic frameworks, the findings could not be generalized. Additionally, there are certain features that appear to be specifically Irish such as a blurred line between perception of bullying and harmless having the “craic.”

This research makes explicit the harm mitigation and conflict avoidance strategies underpinning the use of social and digital media as it has been deployed and shaped by Irish millennials and discusses the consequences of their reluctance to engage in the public realm of the internet.

This chapter explores the question of harm to others, either inflicting it or alleviating it, and whether it is the overriding determinant of ethical conduct. The purpose behind this exploration lies in the benefits that a dominant measure, or perhaps even a single measure, could bring to ethical behaviour in our companies and government agencies. A single measure bypasses the multiplicity of competing and conflicting ethical theories on what constitutes ethical or unethical behaviour.

The chapter points out the problems arising from the conflicting moral theories, and the benefits that would arise for ordinary people if we could simplify the process. It then documents those moral philosophers who assign a high ethical priority to avoiding the harming of others, or redressing harm already incurred.

One problem is that harm can be defined widely. The possibilities of harm in the future, of offending others, or failing to respect others are examples. We also frequently face a choice between two harms. Numerous examples include business or government decisions which will be of advantage to one party, but of disadvantage to another. Analytical techniques to help make these choices are of limited applicability.

Helping others is part of the harm scenario, for we almost invariably help them overcome some possible or actual harm they are facing. But such thinking is normally considered as an altruistic act, not avoiding harm. A more universal approach is a three-part guideline ‘do-no-harm/correct for or prevent harm/do good’.

Man has been seeking an ideal existence for a very long time. In this existence, justice, love, and peace are no longer words, but actual experiences. How ever, with the American preemptive invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq and the subsequent prisoner abuse, such an existence seems to be farther and farther away from reality. The purpose of this work is to stop this dangerous trend by promoting justice, love, and peace through a change of the paradigm that is inconsistent with justice, love, and peace. The strong paradigm that created the strong nation like the U.S. and the strong man like George W. Bush have been the culprit, rather than the contributor, of the above three universal ideals. Thus, rather than justice, love, and peace, the strong paradigm resulted in in justice, hatred, and violence. In order to remove these three and related evils, what the world needs in the beginning of the third millenium is the weak paradigm. Through the acceptance of the latter paradigm, the golden mean or middle paradigm can be formulated, which is a synergy of the weak and the strong paradigm. In order to understand properly the meaning of these paradigms, however, some digression appears necessary.

Malice – knowingly doing harm – has been attributed to special education, threatening its continued existence. Malicious education may include inferior education, exclusion from opportunities, miseducation, unnecessary stigmatization, or failure to meet individual needs. Malice may be overt or covert, unselective or selective, or be directed toward those included or those excluded. Attributions of malice may be evaluated by a series of questions comprising a decision model, and this decision model may be applied to attributions of malice to special education. Suggestions that special education is malicious are not confirmed by application of the decision model. False accusations that special education is malicious are derived from inappropriate comparisons, unreasonable expectations, and assertions that are not grounded in realities.

Purpose – To examine how John Stuart Mill’s harm principle can guide debates surrounding definitions of radicalization, extremism, and deradicalization.

Methodology/Approach – This chapter begins by surveying definitional debates in terrorism studies according to three identified binaries: (1) cognitive versus behavioral radicalization; (2) violent extremism versus non-violent extremism; and (3) deradicalization versus disengagement. The author then interprets Mill’s harm principle and assesses which interpretation researchers and policy-makers should favor.

Findings – Applying the harm principle suggests that researchers and policy-makers should prefer behavioral over cognitive radicalization, violent over non-violent extremism, and disengagement over deradicalization. This is because government intervention in people’s lives can be justified to prevent direct risks of harm, but not to change beliefs that diverge from mainstream society.

Originality/Value – This chapter extends previous work that applied the harm principle to coercive preventive measures in counter-terrorism. It makes an original contribution by applying the principle to definitional debates surrounding radicalization and counter-radicalization. The harm principle provides researchers and policy-makers with a compass to navigate these debates. It offers an analytical method for resolving conceptual confusion.

This paper aims to explain how companies can benefit from their human rights due diligence process to identify opportunities for sustainable development goals (SDGs) activities in an operationalisation of political corporate social responsibility (PCSR).

Combining PCSR, SDGs and business and human rights (BHR) literature, the paper develops an extension of the risk-based due diligence process described by the BHR literature, helping companies identify societal needs to which they may contribute in accordance with PCSR through engaging in the SDGs.

Companies can benefit from resources they already invest in due diligence to identify their adverse human rights impacts, by drawing on the insights gained on broader needs, including human rights, to which they may contribute. This can help them develop appropriate interventions to address local needs and advance their moral legitimacy through assisting in SDG-relevant fulfilment of human rights.

The paper provides theory-based guidance on how companies can assess their capacity for contributing societal value through human rights-oriented SDG interventions. Future empirical research may explore how companies apply the extended due diligence process to assess needs and determine relevant actions.

The paper offers a principle-based analytical approach for integrating the “do no harm” imperative of BHR theory with PCSR’s call for business assistance in the delivery of public goods and the SDGs’ call for business action to “do good’.

This paper enables enhanced business implementation of the SDGs in line with PCSR and human rights theory, especially the emergent field of business and human rights.

This study gives theory-based guidance for companies for SDG contributions based on innovative combination of literatures.

This is a paper of methodological orientation. An attempt has been made to delineate the basic elements of a Qur'anic view of social reality as an integral part of the worldview of the Qur'an. The theoretical frame thus derived from the Qur'an is then shown to lay the foundation for a universal theory of social science. A theory of action based on the concept of the righteous actor is contrasted with a theory of action based on the concept of the rational actor, the former representing Homo‐Islamicus, the second representing Homo‐economicus. The theory of action suggested rests on the work of Imam al Shatibi on the purposes (magasid) of Shari'ah, which is shown to emanate logically from the Qur'anic view of social reality suggested by the author.