Øjvind Larsen

Philanthropy and Human Rights in Business Ethics

Philanthropy has become a concern which is taken seriously in the Western world. Normal people give donations and volunteer on a large scale within the institutions of civil society. This is the case for business corporations as well in the big global CSR movement, which has now been integrated in the UN Global Compact.

The Ethical Demand in Societal Perspective: Zygmunt Bauman’s Sociological Interpretation of the Danish Philosopher K. E. Løgstrup’s Moral Philosophy

Zygmunt Bauman’s entire body of work has been dedicated to exploring sociological issues. However, problems of moral philosophy have come to play an increasingly crucial role for his understanding of social life in later works. In particular, the Danish philosopher Knud Ejler Løgstrup’s moral philosophy has shaped Bauman’s thinking. Løgstrup argued that there is an unconditional imperative in the ethical demand to take care of the Other, and this imperative cannot be superseded, rationalized, calculated, or strategically managed. Bauman is right in telling us that the personal ethics is the point of departure for a moral judgement. In this context it is very relevant to integrate Levinas’ and Løgstrup’s considerations. However, this perspective cannot stand alone. It is necessary to move forward to a form of Habermasian communicative ethics that can transmit the substantial moral judgement from a spontaneous communal perspective to a pragmatic societal perspective expressed in political terms. In other words, both perspectives are essential: on the one hand Bauman’s, Levinas’ and Løgstrup’s substantial phenomenological perspective, on the other hand Habermas’ pragmatic communicative perspective. Therefore, it would be more fruitful to consider these two perspectives as complementary instead of as in opposition, as is mostly done. They are both needed.

Moderne refleksiv ledelse

Modern reflexive ledership The communicative transformation of modernity has made it necessary to formulate a new understanding of leader-ship which is in contrast to the dominating management thinking. The global communication society opens up for a new form of leadership, which could be called reflexive leadership. The reflexive leadership is founded on a radical free communication, where there is no hinderance of the possibility to get information and where all participants have the possibility to have a reflexive relation to communication. The concept of reflexive leadership is developed both from a sociological and a philosophical perspective. From the sociological perspective it is developed through a critique of Max Weber’s three ideal types of leadership, namely the traditional, the charismatic and the legal form of leadership. From the philosophical perspective the concept is developed through a critique of the concept of leader-ship by Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel and Habermas. It is shown that communication has to be in the centre of leadership in a communicative oriented modern society. On this background it is shown that reflexive leadership has the advantage that it makes possible to reflect normative problems in modern society. Reflexive leadership can be seen as a further development of modern demo-cratic society towards an open society which is building on reflexive social relations in all the institutions of society.

Individualisering og institutionalisering - om individualiseringens betydning i et moderne demokratisk samfund

Individualisation and institutionalisation: The Significance of Individualisation in a modern democratic society In recent years modern sociology has discussed the increasing individualisation. However there is no consensus about how this individualisation should be understood. In this article, I present the thesis that individualisation is not a new phenomenon, but is rather a fundamental feature of modern society, as Hegel discussed maintained in his Philosophy of Law from 1821. Individualisation, as we witness it today should then be seen as the development of modern society, and it isn’t a problem in itself. But it becomes a problem when it cannot be institutionalised. Put in another manner, the problem arises when institutions are not adapted to individual development. In modern society the state has become plural, it can no longer maintain the sovereignty that it is given in Hegel’s philosophy. Institutions within the state such as the market and civil society can no longer be summarized within one framework. This means that there is no final instance that can secure individual?s continual self-reflection. The question then is if such a modernity can be normatively cohesive if there no longer is a final instance that can judge normative questions. Sociology must point out this question of the connection between individualisation and institutionalisation and the necessity of democratising institutions if modernity is to be a successful project.