Search results

It is unattainable that entrepreneurs engage equivalent resources in public and private morality because of the limitation of resources. This study aims to conduct experiments to test how entrepreneurial deviation in morality affects legitimacy perception of consumers to entrepreneurs.

This study conducted secondary data analysis and experiment to test how entrepreneurial deviation in morality affects legitimacy perception of consumers to entrepreneurs.

The experimental results show that entrepreneurial deviation in morality negatively affects legitimacy perceptions of consumers to entrepreneurs. Specifically, when public moral is higher than private moral, consumers have negative perceptions of pragmatic legitimacy to entrepreneurs, because consumers perceive deviation behaviors disobey the norm “Li”. However, entrepreneurial private morality excels public morality, consumers have negative perceptions of social legitimacy to entrepreneurs because consumers perceive deviation behaviors disobey the norm “Qing”. Moreover, the authors examined entrepreneurial values moderate the effects of moral deviation and legitimacy perceptions.

This study expands the ethical marketing of entrepreneurs from the perspective of the deviation between public morality and private morality.

•This type of race relations legislation defeats its own purpose because you cannot legislate Christian virtues. •This is a moral issue and has no place in this body. •If this is such a bad place, why don't these people go some place else? •Why should we take these freedoms away from the majority groups and hand them over to the minority groups? •We want to go back to our old way of living on our individual rights. •I do not see any way we can force people to do things they don't want to do. •We are taught from infancy that majority rules. •Don't you think this bill creates prejudice where there is none?

To one aware of the persistence and severity of ancient and modern attacks on private property, the allegiance to private property characteristic of contemporary proponents of human rights may appear remarkable, indeed, mind‐boggling. However, I believe that philosophers committed to human rights identify private property with the human right to property because of their unwarranted confidence in the moral justifiability, and hence the moral acceptability, of private property. In company with John Locke, today's supporters of the view that persons have the human right to property believe that moral reasoning based upon the foundational beliefs of a doctrine of human rights ultimately establishes property to be a human right. Subsequently, they diligently seek morality's sanction for the appropriation, accumulation, and the use and disposal of things in the manner associated with private property. Private property is, therefore, virtually unopposed in its bid for the property chair in the exclusive human rights club. Though decried by opponents as robbery and massively unjust, in theory this form of ownership is remarkably unscathed behind a fortress of arguments. In practice, many societies currently purporting to have instantiated private property in their institutional arrangements have so mitigated property rights that the concept of private property is inapplicable. However, in combination with widespread and strong commitment to private property, the fortress of moral justification for a human right to private property is a serious obstacle to changing a society's property arrangements.

Busch focuses on what he regards as the three broad causes of immorality in the modern world: scientism, statism, and marketism. He views these three “isms” pejoratively and originating respectively with Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes and Adam Smith. Each is treated as a “leviathan” spewing immorality from its multiple heads in the form of undue faith in the three different kinds of social order they generate.

Presents a pilot study on the frequency and seriousness of role conflict among 152 advertising professionals carried out in autumn 1993 in Norway. Other questions dealt with our reactions to such conflicts, and what the respondents would expect from a “beaware code” as an aid to conflict solution. Conflicts related to professional quality standards, personal ethics, environment, clients and consumers were reported as most frequent and most serious. Almost half of the respondents claimed they would speak up in such cases. About one‐third of the respondents said they would probably ask their peers; one‐third said they would ask more experienced colleagues or superiors, whereas one‐quarter would seek advice from their private network. Concludes by suggesting future research foci and design triangulation, especially by using qualitative strategies as a next step.