David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Social Responsibility Journal 6 (4):536-550 (2010)
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the internal structure of Gandhi's ethics as a way to determine opportunities for improving that system's ability to influence behavior. In this paper, the author aims to work under the idea that a system of ethics is a guide for social responsibility. Design/methodology/approach – The data source is Gandhi's set of ethics as described by Naess. These simple (primarily quantitative) studies compare the concepts within the code of ethics, and their relationships to one another. Findings – Gandhi's ethics are robust at the 0.25 level (the scale is zero to one – zero is lowest). This is consistent with theories of the social sciences (that do not work well in practice). Gandhi's success might be ascribed to his leadership ability. Research limitations/implications – Some suggest this approach is reductionist because of its superficial similarity to approaches of physical science. The implications for research are profound. First, this approach provides an objective method for comparing (and so, advancing) systems of ethics. Second, this paper suggests the opportunity to compare the internal structure of ethics with “external” aspects – the implementation of ethical systems. Practical implications – By itself, Gandhi's system of ethics cannot be reliably applied in practice - it cannot be expected to change behavior more than any other system of ethics. This raises concerns about other ethical codes as well. The practical implications of the form of analysis presented in this paper are immense because it provides a way for practitioners to objectively compare two codes of ethics and determine which one will be more effective. Originality/value – The approach documented in the paper has never been applied to the field of ethics. It is unique in that it addresses the “internal” structure of a system of ethics (compared to the “external”, or application, of ethical systems).
|Keywords||metaethics ethics corporate social responsibility|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Steven E. Wallis (2014). Abstraction and Insight: Building Better Conceptual Systems to Support More Effective Social Change. Foundations of Science 19 (4):353-362.
Steven E. Wallis (2015). Structures of Logic in Policy and Theory: Identifying Sub-Systemic Bricks for Investigating, Building, and Understanding Conceptual Systems. Foundations of Science 20 (3):213-231.
William H. Bishop (2013). The Role of Ethics in 21st Century Organizations. Journal of Business Ethics 118 (3):635-637.
Steven E. Wallis (2015). Abstraction and Insight: Building Better Conceptual Systems to Support More Effective Social Change. Foundations of Science 20 (2):189-198.
Steven E. Wallis (forthcoming). The Science of Conceptual Systems: A Progress Report. Foundations of Science:1-24.
Similar books and articles
Betsy Stevens (2008). Corporate Ethical Codes: Effective Instruments for Influencing Behavior. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 78 (4):601 - 609.
Margaret Anne Cleek & Sherry Lynn Leonard (1998). Can Corporate Codes of Ethics Influence Behavior? Journal of Business Ethics 17 (6):619 - 630.
Mark S. Schwartz (2005). Universal Moral Values for Corporate Codes of Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 59 (1-2):27 - 44.
Jeremiah Conway & John Houlihan (1982). The Real Estate Code of Ethics: Viable or Vaporous? [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 1 (3):201 - 210.
Bryan W. Husted & David B. Allen (2000). Is It Ethical to Use Ethics as Strategy? Journal of Business Ethics 27 (1-2):21 - 31.
R. Murray Lindsay, Linda M. Lindsay & V. Bruce Irvine (1996). Instilling Ethical Behavior in Organizations: A Survey of Canadian Companies. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 15 (4):393 - 407.
Scott J. Vitell & Encarnación Ramos Hidalgo (2006). The Impact of Corporate Ethical Values and Enforcement of Ethical Codes on the Perceived Importance of Ethics in Business: A Comparison of U.S. And Spanish Managers. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 64 (1):31 - 43.
Steven Weller (1988). The Effectiveness of Corporate Codes of Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 7 (5):389 - 395.
Heather E. Canary & Marianne M. Jennings (2008). Principles and Influence in Codes of Ethics: A Centering Resonance Analysis Comparing Pre- and Post-Sarbanes-Oxley Codes of Ethics. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 80 (2):263 - 278.
Sean Valentine & Gary Fleischman (2008). Professional Ethical Standards, Corporate Social Responsibility, and the Perceived Role of Ethics and Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 82 (3):657 - 666.
Jiyun Wu & Kirk Davidson (2010). How Corporate Social Responsibility and Business Ethics Are Perceived in China. Proceedings of the International Association for Business and Society 21:23-31.
David Hess (2001). Regulating Corporate Social Performance. Business Ethics Quarterly 11 (2):307-330.
Nigel Duncan (2010). Preparing Ethical Lawyers: A Prescription and a Practical Proposal. Legal Ethics 13 (1):79-92.
Jacob M. Rose (2007). Corporate Directors and Social Responsibility: Ethics Versus Shareholder Value. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 73 (3):319 - 331.
Mark S. Schwartz (2002). A Code of Ethics for Corporatecode of Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 41 (1-2):27 - 43.
Added to index2011-10-22
Total downloads10 ( #332,048 of 1,796,251 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #349,760 of 1,796,251 )
How can I increase my downloads?