When confronted with an ethical dilemma, most of us like to think we would stand up for our principles. But we are not as ethical as we think we are. In Blind Spots, leading business ethicists Max Bazerman and Ann Tenbrunsel examine the ways we overestimate our ability to do what is right and how we act unethically without meaning to. From the collapse of Enron and corruption in the tobacco industry, to sales of the defective Ford Pinto, the downfall (...) of Bernard Madoff, and the Challenger space shuttle disaster, the authors investigate the nature of ethical failures in the business world and beyond, and illustrate how we can become more ethical, bridging the gap between who we are and who we want to be. Explaining why traditional approaches to ethics don't work, the book considers how blind spots like ethical fading--the removal of ethics from the decision--making process--have led to tragedies and scandals such as the Challenger space shuttle disaster, steroid use in Major League Baseball, the crash in the financial markets, and the energy crisis. The authors demonstrate how ethical standards shift, how we neglect to notice and act on the unethical behavior of others, and how compliance initiatives can actually promote unethical behavior. They argue that scandals will continue to emerge unless such approaches take into account the psychology of individuals faced with ethical dilemmas. Distinguishing our "should self" from our "want self", the authors point out ethical sinkholes that create questionable actions. Suggesting innovative individual and group tactics for improving human judgment, Blind Spots shows us how to secure a place for ethics in our workplaces, institutions, and daily lives. (shrink)

The book "Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience" is an engaging criticism of cognitive neuroscience from the perspective of a Wittgensteinian philosophy of ordinary language. The authors' main claim is that assertions like "the brain sees" and "the left hemisphere thinks" are integral to cognitive neuroscience but that they are meaningless because they commit the mereological fallacy—ascribing to parts of humans, properties that make sense to predicate only of whole humans. The authors claim that this fallacy is at the heart of Cartesian (...) dualism, implying that current cognitive neuroscientists are Cartesian dualists. Against this claim, we argue that the fallacy cannot be committed within Cartesian dualism either, for this doctrine does not allow for an intelligible way of asserting that a soul is part of a human being. Also, the authors' Aristotelian essentialistic outlook is at odds with their Wittgensteinian stance, and we were unconvinced by their case against explanatory reductionism. Finally, although their Wittgensteinian stance is congenial with radical behaviorism, their separation between philosophy and science seems less so because it is based on a view of philosophy as a priori. The authors' emphasis on the a priori, however, does not necessarily commit them to rationalism if it is restricted to conceptual or analytical truths. (shrink)

The way that the questions of our symposium are framed causes me some concern. At a general level this is for three reasons. First there is a principle of statutory interpretation – Expressio unius...

Reductionist forms of moral realism, such as naturalist realism, are often thought immune to epistemological objections that have been raised against nonnaturalist realism in the form of reliability worries or evolutionary debunking arguments. This article establishes that reductionist realist views can only explain the reliability of our moral beliefs at the cost of incurring repugnant first-order conclusions.

In the pair of articles of which this is the second, I present a set of problems and philosophical proposals that have in recent years been associated with the term “relativism”. These problems are related to the question of how we should represent thought and speech about certain topics. The main issue is whether we should model such mental states or linguistic acts as involving representational contents that are absolutely correct or incorrect, or whether, alternatively, their correctness should be thought (...) of as varying with some (more or less surprising) factor. In the first article, “Relativism 1: Representational Content”, I discussed the general issue of relativism about representational content. I argued for the conciliatory view that both relativist and absoutist conceptions of representational content can be legitimate. In the present continuation, I look in more detail at a special case of the general issue, namely the question of whether semantic contents, i.e. the contents assigned to linguistic utterances in the semantics of natural language, should be construed in an absolutist or in a relativist way. (shrink)

In the pair of articles of which this is the first, I shall present a set of problems and philosophical proposals that have in recent years been associated with the term “relativism”. All these problems and proposals concern the question of how we should represent thought and speech about certain topics. The main issue here is whether we should model such mental states or linguistic acts as involving representational contents that are absolutely correct or incorrect, or whether, alternatively, their correctness (...) should be thought of as varying with some (more or less surprising) factor. In this, first, article, I shall discuss the general issue of relativism about representational content. I shall claim that there are legitimate ways of attributing contents that are absolute truth-bearers, and there are also equally legitimate ways of attributing relativistic representational contents. In the companion piece “Relativism 2: Semantic Content”, I look in more detail at the more specific question whether semantic contents (i.e. the contents assigned to linguistic utterances in the semantics of natural language) should be construed in an absolutist or a relativist way. (shrink)

Within psychology, the thought of L. Wittgenstein tends to be confused with that of the behaviorists and social constructionists. However, by considering the manner in which Wittgenstein's thought might be used to address the question of responsibility, one will find that the positions taken by the behaviorists and social constructionists differ substantially from the position taken by Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein, like the behaviorists and social constructionists, repudiates the Cartesian 'mind' or 'inner,' and thus demonstrates how responsibility can be assigned. But unlike (...) the behaviorists and social constructionists who struggle with deterministic and relativistic explanations, Wittgenstein maintains a view of human beings which allows responsibility to be assigned without compromising the nature of that responsibility. Wittgenstein thus brings one back to that ordinary understanding of men in which it is possible and makes sense to hold men responsible for their actions. He thereby stands apart from the behaviorists and social constructionists. 2012 APA, all rights reserved). (shrink)

It is a standard feature of the BSA and its variants that systematizations of the world competing to be the best must be expressed in the same language. This paper argues that such single language privileging is problematic because it enhances the objection that the BSA is insufficiently objective, and it breaks the parallel between the BSA and scientific practice by not letting laws and basic kinds be identified/discovered together. A solution to these problems and the ones that prompt single (...) language privileging is proposed in the form of privileging the best system competition. (shrink)

Chaque science comprend des jugements ayant trait à Fa venir, non seulement par la formation de „types abstraits“ et de lois (ce qu’on a appelé la „prévision“), mais par des „prédictions“ concrètes, impliquées dans chaque loi scientifique. Les jugements hypothétiques et catégoriques (prévisions et prédictions) exercent, dans le développement des sciences, une influence mutuelle les uns sur les autres. — A l’encontre de la conception traditionnelle, H. est d’avis que la prévision scientifique est facilitée si elle porte plutôt sur des (...) objets pour lesquels la volonté joue un rôle que si elle porte sur la nature hors de l’homme. La prédiction sociologique sera d’autant plus exacte que les événements historiques perdront le caractère de faits provenant d’un mécanisme aveugle et seront en réalité l’oeuvre de la liberté de l’homme.Every science utilizes judgments which embody prediction of the future : this is so, not only in the construction of „abstract types“ and laws (prévision) but also of concrete predictions (prédiction) which are implicated in such laws. Hypothetical and categorical judgments mutually influence each other in the progress of science. H. argues in opposition to the traditional conception, that scientific prediction is less difficult and more reliable in such fields where human freedom plays a role, than in nature external to man. Sociological prediction, will thus become more perfect the more readily social events lose their blind and mechanistic character, and the more they become the works of a rational condition of free man. (shrink)

This paper develops a critique of the concept of ‘ethical identity’ as this has been used recently to distinguish between ‘cynical’ and ‘authentic’ forms of corporate responsibility. Taking as our starting point Levinas’ demanding view of responsibility as ‘following the assignation of responsibility for my neighbour’, we use a case study of a packaging company—PackCo—to argue that a concern with being seen and/or seeing oneself as responsible should not be confused with actual responsibility. Our analysis of the case points first (...) to the allure of programmes of strategic corporate responsibility and the ways in which, through identification, they can provide a tacit form of moral sanction to managers in their aggressive pursuit of profit. It then contrasts the responses of different managers to negative staff feedback to illustrate the difference between managers’ attempts to defend their identity of being ‘responsible’ managers, and responsible conduct itself. The paper concludes that a potent danger of programmes of corporate responsibility is that they allow managers to deceive not just others, but also themselves in relation to the exercise of responsibility. (shrink)

In thought insertion, subjects experience thoughts which they claim not to be their own. What they claim, it is typically said, is that the thought is not theirs in the sense that they are not the agent or author of the thought. But what does it mean to be the agent or author of a thought? The most intuitive idea is that for a thought to be one's own means for the thought to causally originate within the subject. I defend (...) this analysis against rivaling accounts and discuss several challenges that have not been recognized so far. (shrink)

Wallace, Max The results of the 2013 New Zealand Census has Christianity down to around 47 per cent. Retired scientist Ken Perrott's accompanying graph charts Christianity's decline in every recent census and projects its decline to just above 20 per cent by 2030, and further beyond that date.1 It is, of course, very unlikely to disappear altogether, but, equally, the chances of a major Christian revival in New Zealand are very remote.