Search results

The justification of punishment is an age-old debate which continues unresolved. In late twentieth century several attempts were made to reconcile the two opposing justifications: retributivism and consequentialism. But these attempts focused narrowly on merely one manifestation of punishment, i.e.: criminal punishment carried out by the state. To the extent that these mixed justifications are successful, they relate to only one (undoubtedly important) manifestation of punishment. But clearly punishment can occur in many different institutional contexts, and the institutions in each context vary dramatically in complexity and relevance. I recommend analyzing punishment in its manifold manifestations.

Jeremy Bentham (1748 - 1832) was an eccentric 18th Century English genius of many interests. He was the leader of a group of social and political reformers known as the philosophical radicals that included John Stuart Mill. While Bentham never held a government position, his writings influenced many who did. Bentham’s ideas and works touch on a variety of disciplines including: administrative management, criminal justice, economics, law, organizational theory and decision making, philosophy, political science, public administration, public policy, social welfare, and sociology. Bentham was a wordsmith adding such terms to the popular lexicon as: "minimize," "maximize," and "rational." He was also the first person to use the term "international." This article looks at Jeremy Bentham’s contributions in three areas: organizational theory and decision-making, public policy analysis, and administrative management. The article argues that although his ideas and works have been dismissed as passé in the post 1960s era of selective social consciousness and heightened political correctness, Bentham has much to say that is still important and relevant today

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the relation between hedonic/utilitarian shopping behaviour and a number of key variables, such as store loyalty, perceived value, purchase frequency, money spent, price consciousness, age and gender. The paper aims to provide useful managerial implications for managers of fashion specialty shops.

Factor analysis, analysis of variance and structural equation model, depending on the nature of the considered variables, their theoretical robustness, background and potential implications. Data collected by means of a questionnaire in a natural setting; sample size of 300 respondents.

Provides information about the effects of hedonic and utilitarian behaviour, indicating which variable is affected and how, and suggesting that playfulness pays back, but is not predetermined by gender or age.

Fashion stores for apparel have been considered only: further research could consider also different retailing formats and product categories.

A useful source of information and advice for managers operating in fashion specialty shops. The paper suggests what retailers should focus on and why.

This paper conducts a detailed analysis of suggestions addressed in the relevant literature, providing empirical support and highlighting new findings and relations.

Sen has recently acknowledged his “immense” debts to the liberal tradition of J.S. Mill and, to much lesser extent, to T.H. Green. This essay explores how identifying himself so enthusiastically with Mill sheds light on one’s understanding of Sen’s defense of the capabilities approach. But trying to understand him through the lens of Mill can be a double-edged sword. Sen not only risks causing his readers to append too much Mill to capabilities liberalism, but he also risks encouraging them to misinterpret Mill. These implications naturally bear significantly on how compelling readers find both Sen’s conception of distributive justice and the public policy recommendations based on it. Besides exploring some of the problematic implications of Sen’s readily identifying with Mill’s liberalism in particular, this essay also speculates on what it means to identify with any political philosophical tradition and how such identification colors and adds momentum to both one’s political theorizing and practical recommendations. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

Textual interpretation.

As noted above, this paper examines how Sen’s esteem for J.S. Mill sheds light on the capabilities approach. It also suggests that using Mill to understand Sen better is fraught with difficulties.

The paper also speculates on what it means to identify with a particular political philosophical tradition much as Sen identifies with Mill’s liberalism.

This paper also explores how such identification with a particular political philosophical tradition colors and adds momentum to both one’s political theorizing and practical recommendations.

Using Mill to understand Sen better is certainly worthwhile. On the other hand, doing this sort of thing risks distorting Mill and even Sen.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate how biological scientists form research ethics for data sharing, and what the major factors affecting biological scientists’ formation of research ethics for data sharing are.

A research model for data sharing was developed based on the consequential theorists’ perspective of ethics. An online survey of 577 participants was administered, and the proposed research model was validated with a structural equation modeling technique.

The results show that egoism factors (perceived reputation, perceived risk, perceived effort), utilitarianism factors (perceived community benefit and perceived reciprocity) and norm of practice factors (perceived pressure by funding agency, perceived pressure by journal and norm of data sharing) all contribute to the formation of research ethics for data sharing.

This research employed the consequentialist perspective of ethics for its research model development, and the proposed research model nicely explained how egoism, utilitarianism and norm of practice factors influence biological scientists’ research ethics for data sharing, which eventually leads to their data sharing intentions.

This research provides important practical implications for examining scientists’ data sharing behaviors from the perspective of research ethics. This research suggests that scientists’ data sharing behaviors can be better facilitated by emphasizing their egoism, utilitarianism and normative factors involved in research ethics for data sharing.

The ethical perspectives in data sharing research has been under-studied; this research sheds light on biological scientists’ formation of research ethics for data sharing, which can be applied in promoting scientists’ data sharing behaviors across different disciplines.

The purpose of this paper is to assess the impact of cultural differences on managerial attitudes about moral philosophies and ethics codes, accomplished through a sample of US and Peruvian managers.

Managerial attitudes about moral philosophies are assessed in Peru and the USA. Specifically, the cultural dimension individualism vs collectivism is integrated with the moral philosophies egoism and utilitarianism to serve as the theoretical foundation for the three hypotheses in this study. Hypotheses are tested using survey data from 187 Peruvian and 117 US managers.

The results suggest that important ethical differences exist between these two nations with respect to the impact of utilitarianism and egoism on the perceived benefits of ethics codes as deterrent mechanisms.

This study is limited in the generalizability of results because data from only two countries are collected. Another limitation is the lack of control over the industry of respondents. Implications include the facilitation of a deeper understanding of cultural and moral differences between the USA and Peru.

One implication is that US managers can learn more about the collectivistic sentiment that underlies the Peruvian tendency to take a cost‐benefit, or utilitarian, approach when assessing moral scenarios. Also, the development of cross‐border codes of ethics and implementation of policies related to behavioral expectations of workers should also be considered in light of national differences in managerial attitudes about ethical philosophies.

There have been very few studies in which US and Peruvian managerial and moral values have been contrasted. This study sheds new light on two nations that have witnessed a surge in trade in the past decade.

Purpose — (Dis)honesty as a quality of our actions can be assessed at different levels. Often these levels have not been differentiated. Semantically we cannot talk about a dishonest society or dishonest organizations — dishonesty can only be attributed to individual actions. We can approach a dishonest act through its essence (deontology), consequences (utilitarianism), and also through the person committing the act (virtue ethics), but most often organizational spheres are too complex objects of study to face ethical dilemmas without the influences that their context can bring. Therefore, the purpose of the chapter is to look at dishonesty as an unethical act through the lenses of behavioral ethics, since behavioral ethics is able to grasp the framing effects of ethical situations while combining the main elements of the previously mentioned traditional ethical theories.Design/methodology/approach — In the current chapter it will be differentiated between traditional ethical theories and acknowledged that depending on the level of analysis (individual, organization, or the society level) with their distinctly different ontological backgrounds, we will have different groundings for making any kind of axiological statements about the dishonesty of an action.Findings — In order to give ethical statements about (dis)honesty in organizations, we cannot neglect the influences brought by context. Organizations with endless social interactions both locally and globally usually have no universal basis for making axiological statements.Originality/value — The originality of this chapter is twofold: firstly to cover the importance of making sense of what ethical approaches we take as a grounding when we make ethical judgments in organizational context, and secondly to analyze whether and how the question of dishonesty differs when we switch between the most traditional ethical approaches. The chapter proposes a new framework how ethical decision-making should be assessed depending on the level of social interactions and how dishonesty is associated with gaining social approval.

Contemporary Anglo-American economics, which I admire, faces two major obstacles. First, in its drive at least since Milton Freedman to be a positive science free of normative issues, it ignores its own current intellectual foundations buried at the heart of its analysis of the “advantages of trade”: Fairness. Second, the major driver of economic growth in the past 50,000 years has been the explosion of goods and production capacities from perhaps 1,000 to 10,000 long ago, to perhaps 10 billion goods and production capacities today. Economics, lacking a theory for this explosion, deals with this explosion by ignoring it and treating it as “exogenous” to its theory.

The “Edgeworth Box” carries the heart of advantages of trade, demonstrating for properly curved isoutility curves a region where you and I are better-off trading some of my apples for some of your pears. The ratio of these in trade constitutes price. But spanning the region of advantages of trade is the famous CONTRACT CURVE, where we have exhausted all the advantages of trade. Different points on the curve correspond to different prices. But the Contract Curve is Pareto Optimal, motion on the curve can only make one of us better-off at the expense of the other. Critically, economics has NO THEORY for where we end up on the Contract Curve. Nor, since different points on the curve correspond to different prices, can PRICE settle the issue.

Using the Ultimatum Game I will show that FAIRNESS typically drives where we settle on the Contract Curve, as long as we do not have to trade with one another. Thus ethics enters economics at its foundation, yet cannot be mathematized, so is ignored in Freedman’s name of a positive science.

Perhaps more important, unlike physics, no laws entail the evolution of either the biosphere or the “econosphere.” There are no laws of motion whose integration would entail that evolution. Lacking an entailing theory of the growth of the economy in diversity, often of new goods and production capacities, economists ignore the most important feature of economic growth, wrongly treating it as “exogenous.”

The failures above are likely to play major roles in the lapse to mere greed in our major financial institutions, and in our inadequate capacities to help drive growth in much of the poverty-struck world.

The purpose of this paper is to comprehensively explore and propose solutions to global economic inequities and disparities, with a particular focus on healthcare. This paper also aims to explore whether drastic reductions of inequality are justified in terms of conventional economic theory, and whether ending inequality can be viewed as ethical through certain lenses.

To seek the response to those questions, the paper uses Pareto optimality; Hicks–Kaldor model; Millian utilitarianism; the ethical theories developed by John Rawls in his 1971 work on ethics as well as his 1999 Law of People; and the capability approach developed by Noble Laureate economists Amartya Sen. As demonstrated, those equalizing works cannot support a policy that would advocate an end to global inequities. Those theories also propose no practical solutions for the end of those extreme inequities. Thus, the paper attempts to present other solutions.

This paper discusses two theories that are very helpful in supporting those without much wealth. Mohammad Yunus’ Grameen Bank and its provision of small free-interest loans to poor businesses (in particular women) in Bangladesh has been very successful. Another alternative advocating interest-free banking that was proposed by the proponents of binary economics is discussed.

The author believes the arguments used to support the theses of this paper be unique and novel.