Drawing from the varieties of capitalism theoretical framework, the study explores the home country influences of multinational corporations on their corporate social responsibility practices when they operate outside their national/regional institutional contexts. The study focusses on a particular CSR practice of seven MNCs from three varieties of capitalism – coordinated, mixed and liberal market economies – operating in the oil and gas sector of the Nigerian economy. The study concludes that the corporate codes of conduct of these MNCs operating in (...) Nigeria, to a large extent, reflect the characteristics of their home countries' model of capitalism, respectively, albeit with certain degree of modifications. The home countries' model of capitalism is also found to have implications for the degree of adaptability of these MNCs' CSR practices to the Nigerian institutional context – with the mixed market economy model of capitalism adapting more flexibly than the liberal and coordinated market economies, respectively. The findings of this study will contribute to the emerging literature on the institutional embeddedness of CSR practices in transnational social spaces, understanding of varieties of capitalism, and CSR in developing economies. (shrink)

This review summarizes and critiques the empirical ethical decision-making literature from 1996-2003. One hundred and seventy-four articles were published in top business journals during this period. Tables are included that summarize the findings by dependent variable - awareness, judgment, intent, and behavior. We compare this review with past reviews in order to draw conclusions regarding trends in the ethical decision-making literature and to surface directions for future research.

This review summarizes and critiques the empirical ethical decision-making literature from 1996–2003. One hundred and seventy-four articles were published in top business journals during this period. Tables are included that summarize the findings by dependent variable – awareness, judgment, intent, and behavior. We compare this review with past reviews in order to draw conclusions regarding trends in the ethical decision-making literature and to surface directions for future research.

��This paper investigates how an evolutionary al- gorithm with an indirect encoding exploits the property of phenotypic regularity, an important design principle found in natural organisms and engineered designs. We present the first comprehensive study showing that such phenotypic regularity enables an indirect encoding to outperform direct encoding con- trols as problem regularity increases. Such an ability to produce regular solutions that can exploit the regularity of problems is an important prerequisite if evolutionary algorithms are to scale to high-dimensional real-world (...) problems, which typically contain many regularities, both known and unrecognized. The indirect encoding in this case study is HyperNEAT, which evolves artificial neural networks (ANNs) in a manner inspired by concepts from biological development. We demonstrate that, in contrast to two direct encoding controls, HyperNEAT produces both regular behaviors and regular ANNs, which enables HyperNEAT to significantly outperform the direct encodings as regularity increases in three problem domains. We also show that the types of regularities HyperNEAT produces can be biased, allowing domain knowledge and preferences to be injected into the search. Finally, we examine the downside of a bias toward regularity. Even when a solution is mainly regular, some irregularity may be needed to perfect its functionality. This insight is illustrated by a new algorithm called HybrID that hybridizes indirect and direct encodings, which matched HyperNEAT’s performance on regular problems yet outperformed it on problems with some irregularity. HybrID’s ability to improve upon the performance of HyperNEAT raises the question of whether indirect encodings may ultimately excel not as stand-alone algorithms, but by being hybridized with a further process of refinement, wherein the indirect encoding produces patterns that exploit problem regu-. (shrink)

This text predicts that the 21st century will see great steps forward in biotechnology, producing controversial ethical debates relating to the use of this technology. Taking an interdisciplinary approach, it addresses key issues in bioethics, such as medicine, nursing, law and administration.

Roman Catholic teaching on torture has undergone evolution. At one time the Church endorsed the use of torture in trials and investigations. Today theproscription of torture is absolute, according to the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. What accounts for this development? This essaymaintains that Catholicism’s increased appreciation for the centrality of freedom to the experience of human dignity provides the rationale for the church’steaching on torture. While utilitarian and other forms of argument may be used by opponents (...) to torture, the Catholic argument is fundamentally deontological.Contemporary forms of torture have as their aim the breakdown of a victim’s inner freedom. For that reason torture, as it is practiced today, is judged to beespecially antithetical to the Catholic understanding of the image of God within the person, the exercise of freedom as self-determination. (shrink)

The relationship between unethical peer behavior and observers’ unethical behavior traditionally has been examined from a social learning perspective. We employ two additional theoretical lenses, social identity theory and social comparison theory, each of which offers additional insight into this relationship. Data from 600 undergraduate business students in two universities provide support for all the three perspectives, suggesting that unethical behavior is influenced by social learning, social identity, and social comparison processes. Implications for managers and future research are discussed.

Research in ethical decision making has consistently demonstrated a positive relationship between others’ unethical behavior and observers’ unethical behavior, providing support for the “Monkey See, Monkey Do” perspective (e.g., Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly, Acad Manage J 41:658–672, 1998 ). However, the boundaries of this relationship have received little research attention. Guided by theory and research in interpersonal distancing, we explore these boundaries by proposing and examining “moral differentiation,” the set of individual and situational characteristics that affect the degree to which one (...) is willing to be influenced by others’ unethical behavior. Using data from 655 undergraduate business students in two U.S. universities, we test moderating hypotheses regarding the influence of moral differentiation characteristics on the relationship between others’ unethical behavior and observers’ unethical behavior. Results suggest that strong moral identity, low need for affiliation, and extraversion weaken the relationship between others’ unethical behavior and observers’ unethical behavior. Implications for managers and future research are discussed. (shrink)

Biological evolution provides a creative fount of complex and subtle adaptations, often surprising the scientists who discover them. However, because evolution is an algorithmic process that transcends the substrate in which it occurs, evolution’s creativity is not limited to nature. Indeed, many researchers in the field of digital evolution have observed their evolving algorithms and organisms subverting their intentions, exposing unrecognized bugs in their code, producing unexpected adaptations, or exhibiting outcomes uncannily convergent with ones in nature. Such stories routinely reveal (...) creativity by evolution in these digital worlds, but they rarely fit into the standard scientific narrative. Instead they are often treated as mere obstacles to be overcome, rather than results that warrant study in their own right. The stories themselves are traded among researchers through oral tradition, but that mode of information transmission is inefficient and prone to error and outright loss. Moreover, the fact that these stories tend to be shared only among practitioners means that many natural scientists do not realize how interesting and lifelike digital organisms are and how natural their evolution can be. To our knowledge, no collection of such anecdotes has been published before. This paper is the crowd-sourced product of researchers in the fields of artificial life and evolutionary computation who have provided first-hand accounts of such cases. It thus serves as a written, fact-checked collection of scientifically important and even entertaining stories. In doing so we also present here substantial evidence that the existence and importance of evolutionary surprises extends beyond the natural world, and may indeed be a universal property of all complex evolving systems. (shrink)

Early last year, the GenEthics Consortium (GEC) of the Washington Metropolitan Area convened at George Washington University to consider a complex case about genetic testing for Alzheimer disease (AD). The GEC consists of scientists, bioethicists, lawyers, genetic counselors, and consumers from a variety of institutions and affiliations. Four of the 8 co-authors of this paper delivered presentations on the case. Supplemented by additional ethical and legal observations, these presentations form the basis for the following discussion.

Analogy and similarity are central phenomena in human cognition, involved in processes ranging from visual perception to conceptual change. To capture this centrality requires that a model of comparison must be able to integrate with other processes and handle the size and complexity of the representations required by the tasks being modeled. This paper describes extensions to Structure-Mapping Engine since its inception in 1986 that have increased its scope of operation. We first review the basic SME algorithm, describe psychological evidence (...) for SME as a process model, and summarize its role in simulating similarity-based retrieval and generalization. Then we describe five techniques now incorporated into the SME that have enabled it to tackle large-scale modeling tasks: Greedy merging rapidly constructs one or more best interpretations of a match in polynomial time: O); Incremental operation enables mappings to be extended as new information is retrieved or derived about the base or target, to model situations where information in a task is updated over time; Ubiquitous predicates model the varying degrees to which items may suggest alignment; Structural evaluation of analogical inferences models aspects of plausibility judgments; Match filters enable large-scale task models to communicate constraints to SME to influence the mapping process. We illustrate via examples from published studies how these enable it to capture a broader range of psychological phenomena than before. (shrink)

In Erwiderung auf Kohlbergs Theorie moralischer Entwicklung betont Gilligan (1982, 2. Aufl.: 1993, S. 18 – 9), dass seine Theorie völlig von ihrem postulierten Ziel abhänge, nämlich einer prinzipien-geleiteten Urteilskraft. Hier wird nun analysiert, inwiefern Gilligans Diagnose nur die Spitze eines moralischen sowie theoretischen Eisbergs dadurch beleuchtet, dass ihre Untersuchungen der Klärung dienen, inwiefern Kohlbergs Etappen „Fünf“ und „Sechs“ eine spezifische Theorie des „moralischen Standpunkts“ voraussetzen, bei der Fragen der Gerechtigkeit und zu viel von dem, was wir einander und auch (...) uns selbst schulden, vernachlässigt werden. Um dies zu zeigen, untersuche ich zunächst, wie klassische Gerechtigkeitsfragen für teleologische Ethiktheorien nicht nur einmal, sondern zweimal verloren gegangen sind (§ 2). Ein wichtiges Beispiel dafür ist die radikale Kehre in der „ethischen Theorie“ zu Beginn des anglophonen 20. Jahrhunderts (C.E.), repräsentiert durch die Kehre von Moore, Prichard und Ross hin zu Partikularismus und Intuitionismus und deren prinzipielle Missachtung des tatsächlichen Verhaltens im tatsächlichen Kontext eines jeglichen Agenten (§ 3). Ein zweiter wichtiger Fall betrifft die liberal-individualistische Grundlage von Untersuchungen zu „der“ moralischen Sichtweise aus der Mitte des 20. Jahrhunderts (C.E.) und Vorstellungen von „Unparteilichkeit“, die Kant oft, aber fälschlicherweise zugeschrieben werden (§§ 4 – 7). Diese Überlegungen ermöglichen es, einige zentrale methodologische Verwirrungen zu identifizieren (§ 8), die unvermeidlich auch einige schwerwiegende moralische Verwirrungen erzeugen – Verwirrungen, die Kohlbergs Theorie der moralischen Entwicklung zugrunde liegen, von denen einige durch Gilligans Einwände gegen seine Theorie identifiziert werden (§ 9). Diese kritischen Überlegungen erlauben es mir dann, wesentliche Züge von Kants kritischem Ansatz zur Moralphilosophie zu charakterisieren (§ 10). Kants scharfsinnige Theorie moralischer Urteile und moralischer Rechtfertigung erfordert keine Berufung auf den einzigen inkommensurablen Wert der „Würde“; auch ist seine Darstellung nicht individualistisch: Die „Universalität“, die erforderlich ist, um Prinzipien, Handlungen und unsere moralischen Verpflichtungen, Erlaubnisse oder Verbote zu identifizieren und zu bewerten, ist im Prinzip und in der Praxis kosmopolitisch. Kants ‚konstruktiver‘ Ansatz zu diesen Fragen ist nicht der von Rawls; er wird vielmehr von Onora O’Neill korrekt identifiziert. Kants Explikation des rationalen Urteils und der rationalen Rechtfertigung kann das Pyrrhonsche Kriteriumsdilemma auflösen; alternative Methoden, die in der Moralphilosophie bevorzugt worden sind, können dies nicht. (shrink)

Why would God create a world at all? Further, why would God create a world like this one? The Neoplatonic framework of classical philosophical theology answers that God’s willing is an affirmation of God’s own goodness, and God creates to show forth God’s glory. Mark Johnston has recently argued that, in addition to explaining why God would create at all, this framework gives extremely wide scope to divine freedom. Timothy O’Connor objects that divine freedom, on this view, cannot be so (...) wide as Johnston supposes: the creation of a fundamentally unjust world, for instance, could not be a way of affirming the divine goodness. I argue that O’Connor does not go far enough. While the Neoplatonic framework helps to explain why God would create at all, it does nothing to secure God’s freedom to create less than the best. (shrink)

Responds to the reviews by K. O'Doherty and J. W. Clegg of the current author's book, Relational being: Beyond self and community . One of my chief reactions to the resistances represented in these reviews is that the volume failed to make clear a vision of how we might go on together in the academic world where different viewpoints dominate. To elaborate: both reviewers take issue with my relational account in terms of its seeming dismissal or eradication of cherished concepts—including (...) for Clegg, personal experience, genuine selfknowledge, and independent moral agency; and for O’Doherty, individual awareness, agency, and causality. In a certain sense their resistances are justified. My account raises critical concerns with such concepts, and in certain cases offers a radical reconceptualization. Both reviewers also suggest that these are questions of fundamental ontology, and offer arguments against what they see as my faulty foundations. However, as I tried to explain in the work, I approach theory development from a social constructionist perspective. This means replacing the traditional goal of the theorist to “tell the truth” about the world, with the attempt to generate an intelligibility that may foster different—and possibly more viable—forms of life. In effect, I am not attempting to articulate a final philosophy; I neither propose nor wish to argue ontology. From a constructionist perspective such arguments are futile; on what grounds other than those we construct could we settle such differences? Now to be fair, both Clegg and O’Doherty recognize this constructionist background, and my attempt to avoid eliminating alternative traditions or conceptions. However, this recognition does not deter them from returning to questions of fundamentals; they seem to want a knock-down conflict in which “justified true belief” will win out. 2012 APA, all rights reserved). (shrink)

My aim in this article is to introduce readers to the topic of exploratory experimentation and briefly explain how the three articles that follow, by Richard Burian, Kevin Elliott, and Maureen O'Malley, advance our understanding of the nature and significance of exploratory research. I suggest that the distinction between exploratory and theory-driven experimentation is multidimensional and that some of the dimensions are continuums. I point out that exploratory experiments are typically theory-informed even if they are not theory-driven. I also distinguish (...) between research programs and experiments. Research programs that are largely exploratory, such as the ones discussed in these case studies, can involve both exploratory and theory-driven experimentation. (shrink)

Stage Theory is the view that ordinary objects are instantaneous things. Nevertheless, an object O can have counterparts, which are instantaneous objects appropriately related to O. O “persists” by way of its counterparts. In this paper, I argue that stage theory implies that persons cannot do temporally extended acts, since in order to do such an act, one must do each part of the act, and no instantaneous person can do each part of a temporally extended act. Thus, since it (...) is obvious that persons do temporally extended acts, we should reject stage theory. (shrink)

Este ensayo argumenta que el análisis conceptual inmodesto es epistémicamente inviable para seres como nosotros, porque no tenemos forma de justificar afirmaciones inmodestas acerca de la naturaleza de algo. Como argumento más adelante, las afirmaciones inmodestas no pueden ser justificadas por medios a priori o a posteriori. Si como suponen nuestras prácticas epistemológicas evaluativas tradicionales, no hay otras formas de justificar una creencia, entonces no podemos justificar afirmaciones inmodestas sobre la naturaleza de algo. El análisis conceptual inmodesto es epistemológicamente inviable, (...) entonces, porque nosotros no tenemos una forma confiable de identificar y justificar afirmaciones inmodestas sobre la naturaleza de algo. El ensayo finaliza con una evaluación de las teorías jurídicas de Scott Shapiro y Mark Greenberg desde el punto de vista de una aproximación desde el análisis modesto, por ejemplo, lo que implican nuestras prácticas conceptuales sobre la naturaleza del derecho. (shrink)

Few if any of Kant’s critics were more trenchant than Hegel. Here I reconstruct some objections Hegel makes to Kant in a text that has received insufficient attention, the chapter titled ‘the Moral World View’ in the Phenomenology of Spirit. I show that Kant holds virtually all the tenets Hegel ascribes to ‘the moral world view’. I concentrate on five of Hegel’s main objections to Kant’s practical metaphysics. First, Kant’s problem of coordinating happiness with virtue (as worthiness to be happy) (...) is contrived. Kant denies that there is any inherent connection between acting rightly and being happy, but his denial depends on his defining happiness in terms of satisfying inclinations, rather than in terms of achieving ends in general. Second, Kant’s view of moral motivation is contrived; he ultimately admits that we cannot resolve to act without taking inclinations into account. (We cannot resolve to act apart from the matter of our maxim.) Third, Kant’s idea about perfecting our virtue in an infinite progress is incoherent. Kant defines virtue, and evidence of virtue, in terms of overcoming inclinations. Inclinations die with the body. Therefore there can be neither virtue nor evidence of virtue after death. Fourth, Kant’s view of the autonomy of moral agency is inconsistent with viewing the moral law as a divine command. Fifth, Kant’s moral principles cannot be put into practice in concrete circumstances because he supplies inadequate guidance for classifying acts. I conclude that Hegel’s objections to Kant’s practical metaphysics are sound, and I show that the problems Hegel raised against Kant’s account of autonomy and moral motivation are still current, since they have not been resolved, e.g., by Onora O’Neill’s Constructions of Reason. (shrink)

U ovome radu zagovaram stajalište koje uključni pozitivisti dijele s Ronaldom Dworkinom. Prema tezi o uključenosti morala , logički je moguće da pravni sustav uključuje moralne kriterije pravnosti . Do ovoga trenutka rasprava je uvijek imala oblik napada na koherentnost TUM-a, pri čemu su branitelji TUM-a samo pokušavali osporiti napadajući argument. Ja u prilog TUM-u iznosim pozitivan argument, koji započinjem objašnjenjem logike dokazivanja mogućnosnih tvrdnji kao što je to TUM. Pritome na samom početku vrijedi istaknuti da se logika dokazivanja mogućnosnih (...) tvrdnji umnogome razlikuje od logike dokazivanja kontingentnih deskriptivnih tvrdnji ili nužnih tvrdnji. Zbog toga će ovdje biti potrebno dati neka pojašnjenja važnih obilježja semantike modalne logike. Nakon prikladne razrade strukturnog okvira, argument u prilog TUM-a bit će zasnovan na iznenađujuće jednostavnom mislenom eksperimentu. Zapravo, argument pronalazi svoje nadahnuće u Razovom argumentu u prilog mogućnosti postojanja pravnog sustava koji se ne temelji na prisilnoj mašineriji izvršavanja prava; prema njemu, društvo anđela i dalje bi imalo sustav prava, iako u tom sustavu ne bi postojala prisilna mašinerija. Moj argument sadržavat će dvije teorijski važne značajke koje sadrži i Razov snažno jednostavan, ali u konačnici neuspješan argument. (shrink)

Hume and contemporary Humeans contend that moral sentiments form the sole and sufficient basis of moral judgments. This thesis is criticised by appeal to Hume’s theory of justice, which shows that basic principles of justice are required to form and to maintain society, which is indispensable to human life, and that acting according to, or violating, these principles is right, or wrong, regardless of anyone’s sentiments, motives or character. Furthermore, Hume’s theory of justice shows how the principles of justice are (...) artificial without being arbitrary. In this regard, Hume’s theory belongs to the unjustly neglected modern natural law tradition. Some key merits of this strand in Hume’s theory are explicated by linking it to Kant’s constructivist method of identifying and justifying practical principles (à la O’Neill), and by showing how and why Hegel adopted and further developed Kant’s constructivism by re-integrating it with Hume’s central natural law concern with our actual social practices. (Slightly revised English translation by the author of „Von der Konvention zur Sittlichkeit. Humes Begründung einer Rechtsethik aus nach-Kantischer Perspektive“, on which see below.). (shrink)

O artigo reexamina as concepções habermasianas de política deliberativa e democracia procedimental à luz de outras teorias deliberativas, de forma a explorar as suas semelhanças e diferenças e investigar o quanto devem à ideia de razão pública e as implicações práticas daquela ideia.

O artigo procura mostrar que a idéia liberal de assegurar uma igual liberdade para todos deve ser reexaminada em dois âmbitos de discussões acerca de um desejável equilíbrio entre liberdade e igualdade, de forma a evitar a separação tanto da liberdade e da igualdade como dos domínios opondo reivindicações formais e substantivas. Estas devem antes ser consideradas em suas condições correlatas, exigidas para um exercício democrático efetivo da autonomia privada e pública dos cidadãos, como foi sugerido por Habermas.O artigo mostra (...) que a questão da igualdade de condição não pode evitar as difíceis questões suscitadas pelo chamado debate sobre a “diferença” e tentativas de ir “além da igualdade e da diferença “ ou de “reconstruir” um ideal de igual cidadania numa democracia. Deve lidar com aspectos levantados em discussões sobre a igualdade de condição e o respeito. PALAVRAS-CHAVE – Democracia. Habermas. Igualdade. Liberdade. Respeito. (shrink)

Onora O’Neill has contributed enormously to moral philosophy (broadly speaking, including both ethics and political philosophy) by identifying Kant’s unique and powerful form of normative constructivism. Frederick Neuhouser has contributed similarly by showing that all of Hegel’s standards of moral rationality aim to insure the complete development of three distinct, complementary forms of personal, moral and social freedom. However, Neuhouser’s study does not examine Hegel’s justificatory methods and principles. The present article aims to reinforce and extend Neuhouser’s findings by explicating (...) Hegel’s basic principles for justifying practical norms. Surprisingly, Hegel’s basic principles of normative justification are rooted in Kant’s constructivism, as explicated by O’Neill. Hegel’s adaptation and development of Kant’s constructivism results in a powerful form of constructivism about moral principles which merits contemporary interest because it is more powerful and more objectivist than familiar contemporary forms of constructivism. (Slightly revised English translation by the author of „Objektive Gültigkeit zwischen Gegebenem und Gemachtem. Hegels kantischer Konstruktivismus in der praktischen Philosophie“). (shrink)

Hegel identified in Kant’s practical philosophy precisely the powerful kind of constructivism about the identification and justification of norms that has recently been explicated by Onora O’Neill. If so (I have argued elsewhere this is so), what then did Hegel contribute to practical philosophy? This essay partly answers this question by examining Kant’s and Hegel’s views of the aim and structure of practical philosophy, and what is required to determine specific duties. This theme is specified by examining these issues: two (...) oversights in Kant’s justification of rights to possession (§2), the role of philosophical anthropology in Kant’s universalization tests (§3), the roles of social institutions in specifying our ethical obligations (§4), Kant’s under-developed view of government (§5), and Hegel’s claim that, in contrast to Kant’s Rechtslehre, his Rechtsphilosophie provides an „immanent“ doctrine of duties (§6). I argue that Hegel attempted to respond to his own criticisms of Kant’s Categorical Imperative, and in doing so, Hegel contributed to practical philosophy in ways that Kantians and other moral, social and legal philosophers should consider seriously. (shrink)