Online research in philosophy

This paper is the first phase of a longitudinal study of the class of 2014 on the effectiveness of ethics education at a business university. This phase of the project establishes the baseline attributes of incoming college freshmen with a pretest of the students’ ethical proclivity as measured by Defining Issues Test (DIT-2) scores. The relationship between the students’ ethical reasoning and their behavior in experimental stock trading sessions is then examined. In the trading simulations, randomly selected students were provided (...) with the option of receiving privileged insider information about the final payoff of several stocks. The students could either accept or reject such information, with acceptance considered illegal insider trading. The results of the pretest indicate that moral reasoning as measured by the DIT-2 is related to insider trading behavior, with students with higher DIT-2 scores being less likely to accept insider information. The paper also presents demographic differences across DIT-2 scores and trading behavior as a foundation for the longitudinal examination of changes in students’ moral cognition characteristics and behavior during their undergraduate career. (shrink)

In a series of articles specifically commossioned for this volume, some of today's most distinguished business ethicists survey the main areas of interest and ...

In this paper we present six criteria for assessing proposed solutions to environmental risk problems. To assess the final criterion-the criterion of ethical responsibility-we suggest another series of criteria. However, before these criteria can be used to address ethical problems, business persons must be wiIling to discuss the problem in ethical terms. Yet many decision makers are unwilling to do so. Drawing on research by James Waters and Frederick Bird, we discuss this “moral muteness”-the inability or unwillingness to use morallanguage (...) to solve moral problems-and suggest some underlying causes of moral muteness. (shrink)

In this paper we consider whether one type of individual investor, which we call at risk investors, should be denied access to securities markets to prevent them from suffering serious financial harm. We consider one kind of paternalistic justification for prohibiting at risk investors from participating in securities markets, and argue that it is not successful. We then argue that restricting access to markets is justified in some circumstances to protect the rights of at risk investors. We conclude with some (...) suggestions about how this might be done. (shrink)

In both the Principles and the Dialogues Berkeley argues that physical objects cannot exist independently of minds. In this paper I suggest an interpretation of the argument in the Dialogues that shows that his argument either relies on an invalid inference or begs the question. I conclude that his attempt to defeat scepticism by making physical objects mind-dependent is unsuccessful.