Business ethics is once again a hot topic as examples of improper business practices that violate commonly accepted ethical norms are brought to our attention. With the increasing number of scandals business schools find themselves on the defensive in explaining what they are doing to help respond to the call to teach ‘‘more’’ business ethics. This paper focuses on two issues germane to business ethics teaching efforts: the ‘‘targeted output’’ goals of teaching business ethics and when in the curriculum business (...) ethics should be taught. (shrink)

Three of the most venerable objections to anthropomorphic conceptions of the divine are traceable to Xenophanes and his critique of the early Greek gods. Though suitably revised, these ancient criticisms have persisted over the centuries, plaguing various religious communities, particularly those of classical Christian commitment. Xenophanes complained that anthropomorphism leads to unseemly characterizations, noting that both over the ages, the list of unseemly characteristics has expanded somewhat.

The recent corporate scandals in the United States have caused a renewed interest and focus on teaching business ethics. Business schools and their faculties are reexamining the teaching of business ethics and are reassessing their responsibilities to produce honest and truthful managers who live lives of integrity and ethical accountability. The authors recognize that no agreement exists among business schools and their faculties regarding what should be the content and pedagogy of a course in business ethics. However, the authors hold (...) that regardless of one’s biases regarding the content and pedagogy, the effective teaching of business ethics requires that the instructor in designing and delivering a business ethics course needs to focus particular attention on four principal questions: (1) what are the objectives or targeted learning outcomes of the course? (2) what kind of learning environment should be created? (3) what learning processes need to be employed to achieve the goals? and (4) what are the roles of the participants in the learning experience? The answers to these questions provide the foundations for any business ethics course. The answers are major determinants of the impact of a business ethics course on the thinking of students and the views on the ethical and professional accountabilities and responsibilities of managers in the workplace. (shrink)

First Published in 1999. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.

avant propos This paper is basically Keenan (1992) augmented by some new types of properly polyadic quantification in natural language drawn from Moltmann (1992), Nam (1991) and Srivastav (1990). In addition I would draw the reader's attention to recent mathematical studies of polyadic quantiicationz Ben-Shalom (1992), Spaan (1992) and Westerstahl (1992). The first and third of these extend and generalize (in some cases considerably) the techniques and results in Keenan (1992). Finally I would like to acknowledge the stimulating and constructive (...) discussions ofthe earlier paper with many scholars, notably Dorit Ben-Shalom, Jaap van der Does, Hans Kamp, Uwe Mormich, Arnim von Stechow, Mats Rooth, and Ede Zimmermann. And I repeat here the acknowledgment in the earlier paper to Jim Lambek, Ed Stabler and two anonymous referees for Linguistics and Philosophy (the latter responsible for substantial improvements in the proofs - see footnote 10). (shrink)

This special issue presents developments in research on the cognitive mechanisms and consequences of surprise. Amidst much progress, surprise research has often been siloed, so, as editors, we have sought to juxtapose insights, theories, and findings, to support cross‐fertilization in future research. The present paper sets the stage by presenting a historical summary, highlighting contrasts in definitions, and tracing major threads running through this issue and the larger surprise literature.

In 1992, James Keenan put forward a renewed interpretation of the development of Aquinas’s thought to the effect that he shifted from an intellectual determinism in his early works, to an understanding of the autonomy of the will in the Prima Secundae of the Summa theologiae; this autonomy is the ground for Keenan’s (and others’) distinction between moral goodness and moral rightness. The present essay analyzes Keenan’s interpretation in terms of the body of criticism that it has generated over the (...) past ten years. In particular, it highlights five important implications that Keenan draws from his theory of the will’s autonomy: the separation of volition from knowledge in the dynamic of freedom, the virtue of charity as formal and non-specific, the moral neutrality of the acquired virtues, the two measures of moral action, and sin as moral “badness.”. (shrink)

In his recent review of the Galileo affair, Pope John Paul II confidently proclaimed the intellectual autonomy of religion, comfortably affirming that the methods and ideas of religion are cleanly separable from those of the sciences. Unfortunately, a close review of the actual details of the Galilean controversy reveals that the lesson to be learned from that famous case is not one of sanitary intellectual compartmentalization, but one of entangling interdependencies among scientific, religious, and philosophical thought.

a transitive verb, Lt b) is its minimal correspondent built with a reciprocal verb.* (I) a. m+aN+enjika (Manenjika) an-dRabe Rakoto. pREs+AcT+cltase Acc-Rabe Rakoto..

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:' CHRISTOLOGY FROM ABOVE' AND ' CHRISTOLOGY FROM BELOW' TIE TERMS ' Christology from above ' and ' Chrisogy from below' are much used today, nort only or en primarily in the serious literature of teology, hurt rather in V'aJiious polemical contexts, both theological and ecclesiastical. Here they often serve as symbols which distinguish one's own Chrristological position from those with which one disagrees. In this way they have (...) become practically equa.ted with two other terms, ' high ' Christology and ' low ' Christology, the former representing a position in which the divinity of Ohrist is stressed (its opponents often holding that this is to the detriment of the humanity), the latter a position in which his humanity is stressed (its opponents often holding that this is to the detriment or even exclusion of the divinity). 'Dhe position taken in this ess·a.y will be that such use of the terms ' Christology from above ' and ' Christology from below' is indeed a misuse, that it is an error,to equate them w~th ' high ' Christology and ' low ' Christology respectively. Rather, our position will be that ' Christology from above' and ' Christology from below' should refer both to an initial process from which Ohristo1ogy originates, as well as to a method for elaborating Ghristology on the basis of that process, while ' high ' Christology and ' 1ow ' Christology refer to the possible terms of Christologies ' from above ' ·and ' from below '. 'Christology from Below' The Process, or the Proximate Ground of Christology ' Christology from below ' as a process refers to the proximate origins of Ohristology in the apostolic response to Jesus of Nazareth, and in the deV'eloping understanding of the implications of that response in the history of the early Church. Although God's action in t:he Incarnation preceded in absolute priority the public ministry of Jesus •and the apostolic re- ~99 300 EDWARD L. KRASEVAC, O.P. sponse to it, that action was only fully understood in all of its implications in a gradual historical process thait took place over many years. In a re.al siense, the foundation or proximate source of Ohristian faith is the apostolic witness to God's salvific actions, rather than those actions themselves (which aire its ultimate source). Christofogical faith is an apostolic faith that has its origins in a historical process which began with the public ministry of the Lord, and which was developed and clarified over many centuries. 'Christology from Above' The Process, or the Ultimate Ground of Christology The final term of 1 the process 'Christology from below '-the ' high ' Christology of ithe Church-brought to light the ultimate ground of the historical phenomenon that was Jesus of Nazareth. It made possible the insight that Christology really did not begin at the public manifestation of Jesus (his baptism ), but rather began in the eternal moment when God decided to send his son into the world, and had its first decisive tempmal moment when the humanity of that son wais conceived in the womb of Mary. In other words, the historical process, 'Christology from below', was grounded in an ontological reality-the hypostatic (or personal) union (or identificrution ) of Jesus with the eternal Word of God-thait preceded it. In this sense the ' above ' in ' Christology from above ' refers to God's actions in the Incarnation, and the ontological result of that action (the hypostatic union), whereas the ' below ' in ' Christology from below ' refers to the gradual process by which the ·apostolic understanding of that action developed. As a process, ' Christology from above ' holds absolute priority over ' Christology from below.' 'Christology from Above:' The Method Only when the final term of the process of ' Christology from below' was reached-a 'high ' Chrisrtology thait recognized both the full humanity and the full divinity of Christ-was it possible to recogn:ize the :actions of God which were prior to the ' CHRISTOLOGY FROM ABOVE AND BELOW ' 301 historical public manifestation of Jesus. It was only at this point that it became possible to ' trace', as it were, the ultimate origin and ground of Jesus Christ in the Godhead and the ontological 'process' of t·he Incarnation. Only now was it possible to evolve a method for the academic construction of a... (shrink)

Unlike some other reproductions of classic texts (1) We have not used OCR(Optical Character Recognition), as this leads to bad quality books with introduced typos. (2) In books where there are images such as portraits, maps, sketches etc We have endeavoured to keep the quality of these images, so they represent accurately the original artefact. Although occasionally there may be certain imperfections with these old texts, we feel they deserve to be made available for future generations to enjoy.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Buddhist-Christian Studies 21.1 (2001) 103-106 [Access article in PDF] The 2000 Meeting of the Society for Buddhist-Christian Studies Edward L. Shirley St. Edward's University The annual meeting of the Society for Buddhist-Christian Studies met in Nashville on Friday and Saturday, November 17 and 18, 2000. This year's papers addressed the theme "Beyond the Usual Alternatives in Buddhist-Christian Dialogue," with usual alternatives being the categories of exclusivism, inclusivism, (...) and pluralism.The first session was held Friday afternoon. The first presenter, Terry Muck, spoke from a Christian perspective. He first addressed the adequacies of these three categories.Were these legitimate categories?Were they the only categories? Were there better ways to categorize theoretical positions involving the truth claims of the other? Terry suggested first that it seemed unnecessary to expand these three categories to include a fourth or fifth. Nor did he feel that it was necessary to do away with said categories altogether. He proposed, rather, that we make use of these three categories as helpful but that we be careful not to use them to label people. Indeed, he suggested, the same person might be inclusivist at one point in the dialogue but pluralist at another. It was especially important not to use these categories to dismiss another's position: "Oh, she's just an inclusivist." Terry pointed out that much of the discussion concerning the truth claims of the other were ultimately grounded in questions of soteriology: who will be saved (from a Christian perspective), or who can be liberated (from a Buddhist perspective)?The second presenter was Miriam Levering, speaking from a Buddhist perspective. In her paper, she used three medieval Chinese Buddhist teachers who seemed to represent these three categories: Kuei-feng Tsung-mi, Ch'eng-kuan, and Ta-hui Tsung-kao (with whom she also associated contemporary Buddhist teacher Thich Nhat Hanh). The three teachers were facing questions about the relationship of Buddhism to Confucianism and Taoism. Kuei-feng Tsung-mi taught that there were three types of teachings: those that were nonliberative, those that were partially liberative, and those that were fully liberative. Lao-Tzu and Confucius, he maintained, were liberated beings, but were not fully liberated. Their liberation was partial or shallow. Ta-hui Tsung-kao, on the other hand, taught that words and concepts were not as important as the experience of emptiness and non-self, which could take place outside a Buddhist context. This seems to be the position, Miriam suggested, ofThich [End Page 103] Nhat Hanh. Finally, Ch'eng-kuan taught that only Buddhism contained the truth and that the teachings of Taoism and Confucianism were poison and led one to hell.Virginia Straus responded from a Buddhist perspective. She appreciated Terry's suggestion that we shift from seeing the three categories as labeling and use them as instrumental categories: people tend to function in this way. She felt that Miriam's paper resonated with Terry's as she presented three types of teaching from within the Buddhist tradition.Virginia felt, however, that perhaps Terry had too quickly written off attempts to expand the number of categories to a set of four or five. Indeed, she pointed out, both presenters either ignored or dismissed this important work. Virginia also questioned why Terry seemed to let the positive and negative aspects of dialogue rise and fall on the question of salvation. What of David Chappell's suggestion that dialogue be based on responses to cultural and economic oppression rather than the search for truth? Global ethics, she suggested, would give a larger framework within which to dialogue.Afterwards, there was general group discussion. A question was raised as to whether there was a parallel between this discussion of dialogical positions and the debate in studies of mysticism between the perennialists and pluralists. Others questioned Thich Nhat Hanh's position that dialogue could only take place from the position of nonduality. Were these categories merely ways religious liberals had to label others? Can there be a Christian or Buddhist ethics without the experience of grace or non... (shrink)

While reports of sensory encounters with the divine come from a variety of religious traditions, philosophers as diverse as Thomas Aquinas and Robert Oakes have argued that such experiences of incorporeal divine beings are impossible. Nevertheless, by clarifying various relations among acts of perception, perceptual detections of presence and kinds of perceptual recognition, the sensory perception of imperceptible things emerges as a coherent possibility. So, even if they are essentially unobservable, incorporeal divine beings still fall well within the range of (...) normal human sense perception. (shrink)

First Published in 1999. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.

We consider the logical form of a natural language sentence to be a formal object which determines both the logical properties of the sentence and, more generally, the ways the sentence is logically related to other sentences. Thus if some NL sentence logically entails another, this fact must follow, given the logical forms of the two sentences. The power of a theory of logical forms of natural language then lies first in what logical properties and relations it can define, and (...) second, in which NL sentences it can show to be logically related to which others. (shrink)

Excerpt from Heredity, Correlation and Sex Differences in School Abilities: Studies From the Department of Educational Psychology at Teachers College, Columbia University The Relationships between the Different Abilities Involved in the Study of Arithmetic. By W. A. Fox and E. L. Thorndike. About the Publisher Forgotten Books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and classic books. Find more at www.forgottenbooks.com This book is a reproduction of an important historical work. Forgotten Books uses state-of-the-art technology to digitally reconstruct the work, preserving (...) the original format whilst repairing imperfections present in the aged copy. In rare cases, an imperfection in the original, such as a blemish or missing page, may be replicated in our edition. We do, however, repair the vast majority of imperfections successfully; any imperfections that remain are intentionally left to preserve the state of such historical works. (shrink)