Search results

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’.

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.

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.

The role of dark side personality characteristics in the workplace has received increasing attention in the organizational sciences and from leadership researchers in particular. We provide a review of this area, mapping out the key frameworks for assessing the dark side. We pay particular attention to the roles that the dark side plays in leadership processes and career dynamics, with special attention given to destructive leadership. Further, we examine the role that stress plays in the emergence of leaders and how the dark side plays into that process. We additionally provide discussion of the possible roles that leaders can play in producing stress experiences for their followers. We finally illustrate a dynamic model of the interplay of dark leadership, social relationships, and stress in managerial derailment. Throughout, we emphasize a functionalist account of these personality characteristics, placing particular focus on the motives and emotional capabilities of the individuals under discussion.

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.

To make the issue stark, let us begin with a few assumptions. I believe that these assumptions are probably roughly accurate, but none is certain, and I will not try to justify them here. Instead, I will simply take them for granted for the sake of argument.¹

A proposed typology of moral exemplars in business highlights instances selected to illustrate standards for inclusion. The typology distinguishes among champions, heroes, and saints as different kinds of business exemplars. The typology reflects variations in both specific decision conditions and moral value emphases of business actors. The typology also differentiates moral exemplars from moral neutrals (i.e., amoral actors) and moral sinners (i.e., moral value scofflaws). The objective is to advance understanding of moral character and moral courage in business settings.

The methodology combines original conceptual argument and brief case summaries taken from available literature. The chapter is not a systematic survey of literature but cites key works. Construction of the typology involved iteration between conceptual development and case interpretation.

The chapter separates business cases into private business and public business, and applies Adam Smith’s distinction between citizenship and good citizenship. An additional distinction is made between extreme conditions and normal conditions. Moral heroism in business is restricted to life-and-death or strongly analogous situations in extreme conditions such as hazardous whistleblowing. Moral sainthood in business involves extreme maximization of a single value going far beyond simple compliance with legal requirements and typical ethical norms – Smith’s definition of citizenship. Moral championing in business concerns some degree of lesser self-sacrifice in defense of important values reflecting Smith’s definition of good citizenship.

The chapter is a selection of literature undertaken in iteration with the conceptual development effort. The original research aspect of the chapter is thus quite limited. The author is not positioned to judge the accuracy of published information, for or against a particular instance. The classifications thus depend on whether the instance would, if the generally reported facts are basically accurate, serve as a reasonable illustration of standards for inclusion. Criticisms have been made concerning some of the instances discussed here.

The emphasis is on providing standards for defining moral exemplars for business to suggest how much can be accomplished in business through moral influence.

The conceptual contribution is original, although drawing on the philosophical literature debate about saints and heroes. The chapter treats exemplar as the overarching construct, separated into three kinds: heroes, saints, and champions. Sinner is implicit in the notion of saint. The chapter adds moral champions and moral neutrals to isolate moral heroism. The cases exist in the literature, but have been combined together here for the first time.

The context of this chapter is the use of data and advanced data analytics in a commercial setting. Privacy is considered as protection from vulnerability, whereby vulnerability is understood as the state of being exposed to the possibility of being harmed, either physically or emotionally, or in fundamental rights other than privacy. Therefore, privacy's policy instruments, in particular data protection law, could be seen as a means to reduce the risk of harm resulting from data use. Such harm is probabilistic and often uncertain, which, however, does not exclude analyzing costs and benefits of regulatory data protection policies. When balancing privacy protections and opportunities for knowledge gain, regulatory policy could be viewed as superior, when it expands the range of possible trade-offs between vulnerability protection and gaining socially beneficial knowledge.

Machiavellian, narcissistic, and psychopathic traits are often viewed as negative or undesirable personality traits. However, recent research demonstrates that individuals with these traits possess qualities that may be personally beneficial within the business contexts. In this chapter, we conceptualize a balanced perspective of these traits throughout the entrepreneurial process (opportunity recognition, opportunity evaluation, and opportunity exploitation) and discuss human resources management strategies that can be employed to enhance the benefits, or minimize the challenges, associated with Machiavellian, narcissistic, and psychopathic traits. Specifically, we propose that Machiavellian qualities are most beneficial in the evaluation stage of entrepreneurship, and Machiavellian, narcissistic, and psychopathic qualities are beneficial in the exploitation stage of entrepreneurship.

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.