Online research in philosophy

Hill, John In a previous article, I discussed the arguments and tactics of those who are variously called 'restorationists' and 'reformers of the reform', in the liturgical areas of the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament, the eastward position (or otherwise) of the priest at Mass and liturgical translation. In this article, I wish to go more deeply into their arguments, specifically by examining the language they use. I propose, in other words, to examine their grammar (in a wide sense), in (...) order to subject their arguments to greater scrutiny. (shrink)

It is difficult to talk about ethics in Australia these days, because (a) the different metamoral languages make it difficult for people to communicate on moral matters; (b) there are no generally accepted criteria for assessing the meaning and truth of moral propositions; and (c) witness talks larger in these matters than theoretical expertise, and the ideals that favour the acceptance of credible role models are no longer generally accepted. We should not assume that we can say anything meaningful about (...) business ethics. One reason for this arises from the Australian experience of the ''80s: the fruits of a profound cynicism are now with us, as prominent figures find themselves in court to defend their actions, and seem amazed that they are accused of doing anything wrong at all. We may want to stop something like this from happening again, but if the language of business ethics meant nothing to these people, how can we hope that it will mean much to us, or to future generations? A second reason (or group of reasons) arises from the nature of ethics itself. Business ethics, after all, does not exist in a vacuum; its language will not mean much to people who do not agree on what they mean whenever they talk about right and wrong. Some people, for example, measure the rightness or wrongness of actions in terms of their consequences; for others, on the other hand, some actions are wrong, no mater what the consequences. How are they to talk to each other? What is at issue here is what ethical propositions mean, and how one can measure their truth. And there is another reason. As Socrates pointed out long ago, ethics is not a theoretical science, which can be taught and learnt as dispassionately as mathematics. It is practical, and so engages teacher and pupil in an entirely different way: one cannot say one thing, and do another. When you have read a journal like this, will you necessarily be a better person or a more honest businessman/woman? (shrink)

The United States Sentencing Commission’s guidelines for the sentencing of organizations found guilty of violating federal laws recently became effective. Dramatically increased penalties are possible under these gudelines, but so too is a substantial reduction in the penalties imposed on organizations that have an effective program in place to prevent and detect violations. This provides corporations with a tremendous new incentive in inaugurate organizational ethics audits both to avoid violations in the first instance and to reduce the penalty imposed in (...) the event that a violation occurs. We argue, however, that there have always been very good reasons for organizations to conduct such audits, which emphasize the identification of the organizational factors that create incentives for unethical behavior. Corporate ethics programs initiated without reference to such factors cannot reasonably be expected to be effective in improving a company’s internal ethical environment. (shrink)

The growing secularization of society makes Christian moral education ever more difficult. Many well-meaning approaches to Christian moral education make it ineffective, if not counterproductive. This seems to have occurred because Christians have accepted an unreal polarization of morality, and have consented to do battle for one of the poles. The author of this essay argues for a via media which would be more truly human and so more truly Christian.