Ana Marta González

Ethics in Global Business and in a Plural Society

The contemporary confluence of globalization and ethical pluralism is at the origin of many ethical challenges that confront business nowadays, both in practice and in theory. One of the challenges arising from the development of globalization has to do with respect for cultural diversity. It is often said that the success of economic globalization tends towards social and cultural homogeneity. To the extent that cultural diversity is usually seen as a valuable reality, that global trend seems to contradict our efforts to respect ethical pluralism, both personal and cultural, within society. In this paper I argue that (a) ethical minimalism, despite its emphasis on tolerance and justice, does not take pluralism seriously into account in present-day society, and (b) ethical minimalism is not suited to balancing the homogenizing trend of globalization. Certainly ethical norms are necessary, but by no means are they sufficient in themselves to encourage either justice or tolerance; nor are they sufficient to inspire and encourage good practices and sound regulations. Instead, virtue-based ethics has the capacity of inspiring and encouraging good practices. Particularly, virtue-based ethics is able to inspire a serious dialogue about ethical and legal issues both in the public arena and within organizations.

Kant's contributions to social theory

Abstract Although Kant is not usually counted among the forerunners of social sciences, any look at the work of the most prominent social theorists of the past century shows the pervasive influence of Kants philosophy. This influence is obvious and crucial at the epistemological level, if only because Kant himself set the frame for subsequent discussion of the difference between human and natural sciences. Yet, Kants work is also rich in substantive contributions to social theory, which may be articulated around his conception of culture and cultural progress.

Instituciones, principios y juicio: la relevancia de la tradición de la ley natural para la articulación ética de los negocios en un contexto global

In this article I argue the relevance of natural law for framing and addressing ethical issues raised by the practice of business in a global context. There are historical, as well as systematic reasons for this. On the historical side, it can be argued that the origin of modern economics is linked to a cultural context, still influenced by modern natural law theories. Thus, even if Hume’s moral theory is everything but a natural law theory, either in the traditional or the modern sense, his “laws of nature” (fixation of property, rules for its transference, and promises) represent a systematization of the rules of justice necessary to preserve the space of economic freedom required for development of a commercial society. This systematization is in line with the classical approach to natural law, which nevertheless presents further advantages for developing an ethical approach to economic activity, since it brings with itself a conception of economic agency richer than that of Hume: a conception that is not necessarily linked to pursuit self-interest, but rather is inspired by ethical motives right from the start. Indeed, on the systematic side, the classical natural law is seen as the law of practical reason: a set of principles in charge of inspiring both virtuous action and legal practice, so that we can realize the human good. Assuming the embodied and social nature of human beings, as well as the various cultural realizations of humanity, a natural law approach to ethics is in a position to stimulate a dynamic and bottomup articulation of the personal and common good, concern for progress and sustainable development, universal principles and cultural variations.

Missing emotions: the Z-axis of collective behavior.

Bentley et al. bypass the relevance of emotions in decision-making, resulting in a possible over-simplification of behavioral types. We propose integrating emotions, both in the north-south axis (in relation to cognition) as well as in the west-east axis (in relation to social influence), by suggesting a Z-axis, in charge of registering emotional depth and involvement.

Natural Right and Coercion

What is the relationship between natural right and coercion? After an introduction aimed at clarifying the implications of the Aristotelian notion of natural right for this topic, I try to answer this question by focusing in Kant’s approach to natural right. While Kant is not usually considered a natural right thinker, I argue that his reflection on natural right retains crucial elements of the iusnaturalist tradition, and serves to the purpose of highlighting the relationship between natural right and coercion. Kant points out that natural right is not to be divided into natural and social right, but rather into natural and civil right. In this division natural right is to be identified with private right (MM, 6: 242). A significant feature of private right is that the distinction between “mine” and “thine” is not guaranteed by public laws. In the state of nature, therefore, this distinction is only a provisional one, although it can be called juridical by comparison (MM, 6: 256–7). However, since all law—hence also natural law- is inseparably linked to coercion (MM, 6: 231) how are we to justify coercion in the state of nature?

Norma moral y cambio social. La aproximación de los filósofos

The purpose of this article is to analyz:e the way in which three moral philoso· phers Aquinas, Hume, Kant have approached the relationship between moral norm and social change. To this aim, I take as a point of reference the institutionaliz:ation of the moral norm in the traditional division of duties; this approach reveals itself as a promising path, to explore the way in which modern social theory has recogniz:ed the effect of social change on the strength with which the moral bond presents itself in consciences.

Bioethics Between Nature And Culture

A primary concern of practical contemporary philosophy is to discover an ethical rationale which makes possible the justification of determined decisions in the context of a multicultural society eager to respect diversity within a common political frame. Bioethics is a field in which this necessity is perhaps especially pressing. However, the proposals that have been put forth, along the lines of promoting a “minimalist ethics”– be it in principle (Beauchamp and Childress 1994) or in practice (Engelhardt 1986), are open to criticism, and do not appear to be sufficient. I would like to explore another path, more in tune with the ethics of virtue and the classical doctrine of Natural Law. Yet, before doing so, I will expound the reasons that advise against tackling the question of multiculturalism merely from the perspective of minimalist ethics.