Radial excitations of hadrons carrying zero instanton number are investigated. The mass relations among relevant non-strange and strange mesons and baryons have been derived consistently with the observed data.
This article considers the reach of arguments for saving the greater number without interpersonal aggregation, and argues that interpersonal aggregation is useful to encompass the proper respect due to each separate person. I first give a precise definition of interpersonal aggregation, which many non-utilitarians try to avoid. Then, I show that consequentialism and Scanlon can justify the case for the greater number without interpersonal aggregation. However, I propose the Aggregation Approach, which justifies the case for the greater number in some (...) cases and the case for tossing a fair coin in other cases. I conclude that interpersonal aggregation does not disrespect the separate person. (shrink)
Business ethics in Japan has developed in five stages. Especially in the last stage (in the 1990s), there have appeared two clear-cut trends in business ethics activities: positive and passive. For the rise of business ethics, the passive trend is much more important. Once entered the 1990s, an increasing number of business scandals have been revealed. Because of this, the Japanese business community cannot but help take business ethics much more seriously than it ever has.Not only business practitioners but also (...) business ethicists have inaugurated a variety of ethics-related studies and activities. This article mainly puts focus on the studies, which have been done in the 1990s. At the end of the article, ethical challenges, which the Japanese business and academia meet presently, are described. (shrink)
This article describes three characteristics of the Japanese Leadership Style (JLS): self-realization, appreciation of diverse abilities, and trust in others, which have both positive and negative ethical implications. In addition to illustrating how JLS allows Japanese corporations to avoid some of the ethical problems plaguing U.S. corporations, the authors will explain how these characteristics engender the loyalty and initiative of Japanese employees which promote incremental innovation and competitive advantages. Implicit in this discussion is the premise that both the American and (...) Japanese business communities, by analyzing their own ethical issues and leadership styles, can learn from each other. (shrink)
Some people believe that the equality of people's well-being makes an outcome better, other things being constant. Call this Telic Egalitarianism. In this paper I will propose a new interpretation of Telic Egalitarianism, and compare it with the interpretation that is proposed by Derek Parfit 1995 and widely accepted by many philosophers. I will argue that my proposed interpretation is more plausible than Parfit's. One of the virtues in my interpretation is that it shows his Levelling Down Objection does not (...) undermine Telic Egalitarianism. I also believe that my interpretation better explains the important similarity and difference between Telic Egalitarianism and his proposed Priority View. (shrink)
Section II of this article originated as a commentary on Véronique Munoz-Dardé’s “The Distribution of Numbers and the Comprehensiveness of Reasons.” (Her piece is now forthcoming in the Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society.) I have delivered subsequent versions of this article at the University of Reading, UCLA, the University of Bristol, the University of Leeds, and the University of Oxford, and thank all who commented on those occasions. I am also grateful to G. A. Cohen, Iwao Hirose, Véronique (...) Munoz-Dardé, Alex Voorhoeve, and the Editors of Philosophy & Public Affairs for their written comments. (shrink)
This paper considers the simple two-person two-period case of distributive judgement, and argues (a) that sensible intertemporal distributive principle should consider both the distribution of people's life time well-being and the distribution of people's well-being at each period and (b) that, if (a) is correct, Egalitarianism is more acceptable than Prioritarianism since the latter must choose either one.
Many critics of utilitarianism claim that we should reject interpersonal aggregation because aggregative principles do not take the separateness of persons seriously. In this article, I will reject this claim. I will first elucidate the theoretical structure of aggregation. I will then consider various interpretations of the notion of the separateness of persons and clarify what exactly those critics are trying to reject by appealing to the notion of the separateness of persons. I will argue that none of these interpretations (...) can serve as the ground for rejecting aggregation. (shrink)
In this dissertation, I discuss two distributive principles in moral philosophy: Derek Parfit's Prioritarianism and Egalitarianism. I attempt to defend a version of Egalitarianism, which I call Weighted Egalitarianism. Although Parfit claims that Egalitarianism is subject to what he calls the Levelling Down Objection, I show (a) that my proposed Weighted Egalitarianism is not subject to the Objection, and (b) that it gives priority to the worse off people. The real difference between the two principles lies in how the weight (...) of each person's well-being is determined. Prioritarianism assumes that there is a moral scale of the goodness of well-being, independently of distributions of people's well-being. I raise two objections to this claim: firstly, it is hard to believe that the choice of the level of well-being affects our distributive judgement; secondly, it is hard to believe that there is such a moral scale independently of distributions of people's well-being. On the other hand, Weighted Egalitarianism claims that the weight is given by the rank order position of the person in the ranking by well-being level. This means that, in Weighted Egalitarianism, the goodness of a distribution is an increasing, linear function of people's well-being. Weighted Egalitarianism is not affected by the choice of the level of people's well-being. Nor does it require require the moral scale of the goodness of well-being independently of distributions of people's well-being. Leximin, which might be a version of Prioritarianism, avoids my objections. But it is hard to support Leximin, because it rules out the trade off between the better off and the worse off. I conclude that Weighted Egalitarianism is more acceptable than Prioritarianism. (shrink)
Although “fairness” and “social responsibilities” form part of the business ethics agenda of Japanese corporations, the meaning of these terms must be understood in the context of the distinctive Japanese approach to ethics. In Japan, ethics is inextricably bound up with religious dimension (two normative environments) and social dimension (framework of concentric circles). The normative environments, influenced by Confucianism, Buddhism, and other traditional and modern Japanese religions, emphasize that not only individuals but also groups have their own spirit (numen) which (...) is connected to the ultimate reality. The framework of concentric circles lets moral agents apply different ethical rules to the respective circles. The dynamics of these religious and social dimensions lead to a different view of both individuals and corporations from that dominant in the West. (shrink)