First Published in 1999. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.

Recent research illustrates substantial gaps between entrepreneurial intentions and behavior. This is a challenge for entrepreneurship promotion interventions that have primarily focused on stimulating entrepreneurial intentions. However, extant literature suggests that implementation intentions enhance the likelihood of acting congruently to the behavioral intention. Furthermore, theory also suggests the condition effects of situations and the perceived control over them. We therefore hypothesized that implementation intentions mediate the relationship between entrepreneurial intention and action, while perceived family support moderates the movement from implementation (...) intention to entrepreneurial action. Using two-wave survey data from a sample of students at an African university, we measured two psychological attributes as important precursors of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial intentions present before undertaking an innovations and entrepreneurship course. Implementation intentions regarding entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial actions, and perceived parental support for entrepreneurial activities were also measured 2 weeks after completion of the course. Our results demonstrate support for the proposed moderated double mediation model in which the effects of the two psychological attributes on entrepreneurial actions are explained via entrepreneurial intentions and implementation intentions. We further find moderation effects of perceived family support indicating that implementation intentions more likely predicted entrepreneurial actions in cases of higher family support. (shrink)

In this paper, I argue that joint action permits a certain degree of luck. The cases I have in mind exhibit the following structure: each participant believes that the intended ends of each robustly support the joint action. This belief turns out to be false. Due to lucky circumstances, the discordance in intention never becomes common knowledge. However, common knowledge of the relevant intentions would have undermined the joint action altogether. The analysis of such cases shows the extent to which (...) common knowledge of the participants’ intentions can be harmful to joint action. This extends a recent line of research that has questioned the necessity of common knowledge in joint action. (shrink)

We investigated the influence of personality and culture on effects of mortality salience over cultural worldview defense. We hypothesized that CWVD reactions to MS differ between Germany and Poland because of the higher conservatism of the latter country, and that they are moderated by action vs. state orientation. In this study German and Polish, participants were exposed either to MS or to a control condition. Punishment ratings to trivial offences and serious social transgressions were measures of CWVD. Results showed that (...) social transgressions in both conditions were more strongly punished in Poland than in Germany. Additionally, compared to the control condition, under MS action oriented punished serious transgressions more strongly in Germany whereas state oriented punished serious transgressions more strongly in Poland. That is, the effects of MS on CWVD are moderated by personality and culture. We interpret the opposite pattern of punishment to serious social transgressions given by action and state orientedin in Germany and Poland, respectively, according to the higher emotional autonomy of action-oriented persons in either culture. (shrink)

Davidson vertritt die Auffassung, daß Handlungen durch Gründe verursacht werden, daß Gründe als Werturteile zu analysieren sind, und daß die Befolgung der Norm „Vollziehe die Handlung, die du situativ als die beste beurteilst“ eine notwendige Bedingung für intentionales Handeln darstellt. Damit scheint eine bestimmte Form von Willensschwäche, das intentionale Unterlassen der Handlung, die man situativ als die beste beurteilt, aus begrifflichen Gründen ausgeschlossen, was vielfach als explanatorischer Nachteil einer solchen Handlungstheorie angesehen wird. Davidson bestreitet die begriffliche Unmöglichkeit. Um Willensschwäche zu (...) erklären, interpretiert er den Geist als unterteilt in Subsysteme, die, da ihre Binnenstruktrur der A-priori-Norm gemäß ist, auf partikular intentionale Weise interagieren können – mit dem möglichen Resultat, daß das Gesamtsystem die Norm verletzt und das Subjekt dennoch intentional handelt. Ich argumentiere, daß Handlungen, die durch solche irrationalen mentalen Kausalprozesse verursacht werden, mit einem Kontrollverlust verbunden sind, der mit der üblichen Phänomenbeschreibung von willensschwachem als freiem, kontrolliertem Handeln unvereinbar ist. Insofern das intentionale Handeln generell als vom Akteur kontrolliertes Handeln angesehen wird, muß innerhalb einer Handlungstheorie, wie Davidson sie vertritt, der propositionale Gehalt der vermeintlichen A-priori-Norm nicht normativ, sondern assertorisch qualifiziert werden: „Intentionales Handeln ist der Vollzug der situativ als die beste beurteilten Handlung.“. (shrink)

Die egalitaristische Position in der Debatte um distributive Gerechtigkeit wird üblicherweise so verstanden, dass sie die These enthält, der Relation der Gleichheit komme ein intrinsischer Wert zu. Diese These ist dem Levelling-down-Einwand ausgesetzt. Unter dem Eindruck dieses Einwandes ist vielfach argumentiert worden, Gerechtigkeit sei kein relationaler Begriff; Gerechtigkeit herrsche vielmehr dann, wenn nicht-relationale moralische Standards erfüllt seien. Ich versuche zu zeigen, dass Gleichheit zwar tatsächlich keinen intrinsischen Wert besitzt, dass Gerechtigkeitsstandards jedoch nicht mit den non-relationalen Standards, auf die die Kritiker (...) des Egalitarismus verweisen, identisch sind. Es geht, so meine These, bei der Frage nach der gerechten Verteilung nämlich um die höherstufige Frage, ob die basalen non-relationalen moralischen Standards für alle gleichermaßen erfüllt sind. Gerechtigkeit besitzt auch ein genuines normatives Gewicht, das sich – wie auch das Gewicht der basalen moralischen Standards – aus bestimmten Präferenzen speist. Während die basale Moral im Mitleid fundiert ist, gründet die Gerechtigkeit in generalisiertem Neid. Neid jedoch ist von Missgunst zu unterscheiden, er fordert – anders als letztere – nicht levelling down, sondern levelling up. Der intrinsische Wert liegt somit nicht in der Gleichheit, sondern in der Angleichung nach oben. (shrink)

Desire-based concepts of practical reason are generally considered incapable of grounding the normativity of universalistic and egalitarian moral rules. This explains the popularity of both non-universalistic conceptions of morality, such as contractarianism, and emphatic notions of practical reason, as in the Kantian tradition. In contrast, I argue that the move from desire-based concepts to universalism is possible if altruistic/benevolent desires are adequately taken into account. Due to the nature of benevolent preferences, which virtually everybody has, far more people than usually (...) thought at least have pro tanto reasons to obey universal and egalitarian norms, moral weakness in many cases resulting only from cognitive deficiencies. I put forward a concept of external reasons compatible with a desire-based theory of practical rationality, which proves a usefull tool in the conceptualization of moral rationality as distinct from prudential rationality. Moral rationality, I argue, is based on the desires of the proponent of a moral claim, not on the desires of its addressees. (shrink)

Dieser Aufsatz handelt von den unterschiedlichen Formen des moralischen Zufalls. Ich werde die These vertreten, dass lediglich konstitutiver Zufall möglich ist, ergebnis- und willensbezogener hingegen nicht. Ich versuche außerdem zu zeigen, dass sich aus den Befunden bezüglich des moralischen Zufalls Konsequenzen für die Frage nach der Vereinbarkeit von moralischer Verantwortung und Determinismus ergeben, und zwar zugunsten des Kompatibilismus.

Kant.--Stammler.--Critiek van Binder. Anticritiek.--Proeve van methodologische critiek aan de hand van Stammler's theorie (zuivere rechtsleer) Jellinek's "Allgemeine staatslehre.".

Science and Technology Ethics re-examines the ethics by which we live and asks the question: do we have in place the ethical guidelines through which we can incorporate these developments with the minimum of disruption and disaffection? It assesses the ethical systems in place and proposes new approaches to our scientific and engineering processes and products, our social contacts, biology and informatics, the military industry and our environmental responsibilities. The volume is multidisciplinary and reflects the aim of the book to (...) promote a state of the art assessment of these issues. Science and Technology Ethics is a much-needed discussion of the scientific developments that have major effects on the way we live. It will be of interest to all students of science and technology and all professionals involved with administrating laws in these fields. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:How Augustinian Is Aquinas's Basic Account of Free Decision?Jamie Anne SpieringIntroductionQuestions about Augustine's influence on Thomas Aquinas are always interesting. In the previous century, leading Thomists such as Marie Dominic Chenu, Jean-Pierre Torrell, and Étienne Gilson wrote about the influence of one great master on the other. However, no one thinks the investigation is complete: the contributions of the new century have begun and are expected to continue.1 In (...) this article, I would like to consider how Augustine influenced Aquinas's account of something known to both authors as liberum arbitrium: free choice, or free decision.2 When we speak of grace and [End Page 435] human freedom, Aquinas's debt to Augustine and the extent of his fidelity to the master have been frequently explored.3 The same is true with regard to the fairly advanced question of the relation between human freedom and divine foreknowledge.4 But in this article I would like to consider Thomas's treatment of what we might call the basic questions surrounding man's ability to choose freely—questions about its essence and its existence. What is this liberum arbitrium, which Augustine repeatedly calls "a gift of nature"? How should we understand its activity? How should we understand its origin? Thomas Aquinas deals with liberum arbitrium as a power of the soul in question 83 of Summa theologiae [ST] I, in question 24 of De veritate, and in chapter 48 of Summa contra gentiles [SCG] II. These texts are not about the role of grace or the causality of God—though they prepare for the discussion—but simply about the powers of an intellectual nature. How Augustinian is Aquinas's account in these texts?5 [End Page 436] I will try to explore the question with reasonable thoroughness in this paper.6It will surprise no one to hear that my answer to "was Aquinas an Augustinian in his basic treatment of free decision?" is "in a way, no, and in a way, yes." It is both surprising and notable how significantly Aquinas departs from the Augustinian path. The first part of this paper will discuss three major ways in which Aquinas's account of liberum arbitrium breaks openly (by medieval standards) from the type of careful loyalty we see in earlier authors. In the second part of the paper, I will argue that Aquinas's account follows Augustine in distinctive ways: instead of prioritizing Augustine's context and preferred evidence for free decision, Aquinas does more to locate free decision within the quest for happiness which provided the ultimate pattern for Augustine's thought. He is an Augustinian, but of a very different kind.Aquinas's Treatment of Liberum Arbitrium Represents a Significant Break with the Augustinian TraditionIt simply was not Thomas's practice to write statements such as: "I am going to treat this topic in a way different from that of Augustine, and I plan to make significant improvements." How, then, can we understand whether, and to what extent, he made a break with Augustine's ideas? Direct comparison of the authors' works is the obvious strategy, but such comparison is complicated by our ignorance of whether Aquinas had actually seen the work in question or was only familiar with quotations from it. So I will employ an additional strategy to reveal Aquinas's breaks with Augustine: I will compare Thomas's work to that of Peter Lombard and Anselm of Canterbury. We know Aquinas had read Peter's work thoroughly, because [End Page 437] he wrote a commentary on it, and citations in De veritate reveal that Thomas knew at least the highlights of Anselm's work on free decision. Both Peter and Anselm are faithful to many aspects of Augustine's treatment: they follow him in the way they contextualize the topic, and they are careful to use Augustinian language in defining it. Aquinas does not. He radically shifts the context for the liberum arbitrium discussion and rejects definitions that use Augustine's formulations. He uses a boldly Aristotelian framework to replace a number of elements in Augustine's treatment. Finally, unlike Augustine, Peter, or Anselm, he asks about the... (shrink)