Search results

Relativism, at least in some of its forms, is antithetical to sociology as traditionally practiced and conceived. (See, for instance, Benton and Crabb, 2001, pp.50‐74 and 93‐1006; Collins 1996a; Mann, 1998; Murphy, 1997; and Taylor‐Gooby, 1994). Hence, sociologists should consider abandoning traditional sociology or rejecting relativism. An example of the sort of relativism I have in mind is the philosophical theory that the truth and falsity of propositions is relative to the social context of their promulgation. Such epistemological relativism is expressed by Newton‐Smith when he says: “The central relativist idea is that what is true for one tribe, social group or age might not be true for an other tribe, social group or age” (Newton‐Smith, 1982, p.107).

There is commonly said to be a sexual bias within the legal system. As Anderson (1976, p.350) points out: “The notion of a justice system whose agents typically exhibit a “chivalrous” attitude towards female criminals (ie. because of their sex women are afforded more lenient treatment than men) has been set forth by several writers.” One such writer is Pollak (1950, p.151), who claims that: “Men hate to accuse women and thus indirectly to send them to their punishment, police officers dislike to arrest them, district attorneys to persecute them, judges and juries to find them guilty and so on.” Another is Cavan (1962, p.32), who writes: “…even in crime a certain degree of chivalry prevails. Some people dislike to report a woman criminal to the police and police are more likely to release women or turn a young woman over to her parents or release to a social agency than would be true for boys or men.” Others believe that there is an opposite sexual bias in the legal system. For instance, Sachs considers the various test cases in Britain on the question of whether, in law, women were to be regarded as “persons” and concludes that:

In a recent article, Boland attacks critics of Friedman's methodology. He writes:

Le Grand gives an illustration of an employment situation which would generally be considered racist ‐ (Amanda and Catherine are equally talented and hard‐working employees. The former is white and better paid than her black colleague) ‐ and gives an analysis of the ethics of the situation in terms of his theory of equity. I shall discuss his analysis and his theory of equity. Is the situation inequitable? If it is, is it ‘inequitable’ for the reason that Le Grand puts forward as constituting the essence of ‘inequity’?

As Sir Anthony Alment has indicated: “Much of the public debate which followed publication of the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human fertilisation and embryology in July 1984 has followed predictable polarities” (Alment, 1985, p.300).

I want to make some comments on recent discussions of the moral and legal status of blackmail and in their light look at official secrecy (see Owens, 1988 and Evans, 1990).

Recently there has been much discussion of the relevance to sociology of Wittgenstein's philosophy. In this discussion, reference has been made to Wittgenstein's remarks on classification. For instance, Dutton writes “After Wittgenstein, we might say that the category of acts which may be labelled criminal (or deviant) is the category: “any” acts”. (Ditton, 1979, p. 20). According to Hughes, “Wittgenstein uses the term “family resemblances” to make the point that states of affairs falling under a common term, such as ‘games’ show overlapping similarities and resemblances rather than universal, finitely specifiable common properties”. (1977, p. 72). However, the philosophical importance of Wittgenstein's remarks and their relevance to the concerns of the sociologist have not been fully explored. What precisely is Wittgenstein thought to be asserting and denying with his observations about games? After all, on the face of it, it hardly seems controversial or interesting to say that games resemble each other. It has been argued, most notably by Bambrough, that Wittgenstein's remarks are directed towards “the problem of universals”.

Long has recently presented a statement of what the pro‐abortion position is and also a defence of it. I shall, as a pro‐abortionist, question the statement and attack the defence.

Raises some questions on moral and legal rights to health care, referring to various claims contained within the report of the UK’s Commission on Social Justice – “Social Justice: Strategies for National Renewal” (1994). Explores the relationship between needs and rights – rights of action and rights of recipience, moral rights and legal rights. Proceeds to delve into the role the state plays in providing services such as health care and whether or not people have a moral right to good health and good health care. Questions if the state should provide health care and, if so, should it be provided as a legal right to citizens? Concludes that the Commission on Social Justice fails to defend the National Health Service on the grounds of justice and moral rights.

In the last four years, since Volume I of this Bibliography first appeared, there has been an explosion of literature in all the main functional areas of business. This wealth of material poses problems for the researcher in management studies — and, of course, for the librarian: uncovering what has been written in any one area is not an easy task. This volume aims to help the librarian and the researcher overcome some of the immediate problems of identification of material. It is an annotated bibliography of management, drawing on the wide variety of literature produced by MCB University Press. Over the last four years, MCB University Press has produced an extensive range of books and serial publications covering most of the established and many of the developing areas of management. This volume, in conjunction with Volume I, provides a guide to all the material published so far.