The Experts below are selected from a list of 312 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Krzysztof Tapek - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Craig Turner - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Kant’s Categorical Imperative and Mandatory Minimum Sentencing
    2016
    Co-Authors: Craig Turner
    Abstract:

    Deterrence-based punishment systems are scattered throughout history, and exist in the American legal system today. One such method of deterrence prescribes mandatory punishments for violations of certain crimes, without regarding to underlying circumstances or an assessment of the the individual accused of such crimes. These types of sentencing requirements restrict judicial discretion and are designed to serve as an example for other would-be offenders. While perhaps justifiable under a utilitarian code of ethics, mandatory minimums are morally suspect when assessed through the lens Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative. The fundamental premise of the second formulation of Kant’s Categorical Imperative rests upon human freedom and autonomy. By forcing individuals to personally serve punishments meant to deter others from committing the same crime can have the effect of treating such individual merely as a means to some other end. Because of this, mandatory punishments which seek to deter, and not rehabilitate offenders likely violate Kant’s Categorical Imperative. This Note examines the historical and current status of mandatory sentencing laws, and applies Kantian ethics to assess these laws’ morality.

  • kant s Categorical Imperative and mandatory minimum sentencing
    Washington University Jurisprudence Review, 2016
    Co-Authors: Craig Turner
    Abstract:

    Deterrence-based punishment systems are scattered throughout history, and exist in the American legal system today. One such method of deterrence prescribes mandatory punishments for violations of certain crimes, without regarding to underlying circumstances or an assessment of the the individual accused of such crimes. These types of sentencing requirements restrict judicial discretion and are designed to serve as an example for other would-be offenders. While perhaps justifiable under a utilitarian code of ethics, mandatory minimums are morally suspect when assessed through the lens Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative. The fundamental premise of the second formulation of Kant’s Categorical Imperative rests upon human freedom and autonomy. By forcing individuals to personally serve punishments meant to deter others from committing the same crime can have the effect of treating such individual merely as a means to some other end. Because of this, mandatory punishments which seek to deter, and not rehabilitate offenders likely violate Kant’s Categorical Imperative. This Note examines the historical and current status of mandatory sentencing laws, and applies Kantian ethics to assess these laws’ morality.

Balazs Kovacs - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • the Categorical Imperative and structural reproduction dynamics of technological entry in the semiconductor industry
    Organization Science, 2015
    Co-Authors: Gianluca Carnabuci, Elisa Operti, Balazs Kovacs
    Abstract:

    Extant organizational literature argues that straddling institutionalized categories begets an illegitimacy discount, leading organizations to reproduce established Categorical boundaries. If gaining legitimacy requires compliance with this “Categorical Imperative,” why do we frequently observe Categorical straddling even in uncontested and fully institutionalized Categorical structures? To address this question, we propose that de novo (i.e., newly founded) and de alio (i.e., diversifying) organizations respond differently to the Categorical Imperative. Specifically, de novo organizations are more likely to enter and fit in high-contrast categories than in low-contrast ones, whereas the opposite is true for de alio entrants. To test these hypotheses, we follow technological entry dynamics within the semiconductor industry between 1976 and 2002. Using patent information, we examine how category contrast affects which technological categories de novo and de alio organizations enter, and the performance ass...

Gianluca Carnabuci - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • the Categorical Imperative and structural reproduction dynamics of technological entry in the semiconductor industry
    Organization Science, 2015
    Co-Authors: Gianluca Carnabuci, Elisa Operti, Balazs Kovacs
    Abstract:

    Extant organizational literature argues that straddling institutionalized categories begets an illegitimacy discount, leading organizations to reproduce established Categorical boundaries. If gaining legitimacy requires compliance with this “Categorical Imperative,” why do we frequently observe Categorical straddling even in uncontested and fully institutionalized Categorical structures? To address this question, we propose that de novo (i.e., newly founded) and de alio (i.e., diversifying) organizations respond differently to the Categorical Imperative. Specifically, de novo organizations are more likely to enter and fit in high-contrast categories than in low-contrast ones, whereas the opposite is true for de alio entrants. To test these hypotheses, we follow technological entry dynamics within the semiconductor industry between 1976 and 2002. Using patent information, we examine how category contrast affects which technological categories de novo and de alio organizations enter, and the performance ass...

A.v. Tarasova - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • THE INFLUENCE OF MORAL DILEMMAS UPON THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE KANT’S Categorical Imperative
    2017
    Co-Authors: I.y. Larionov, A.v. Tarasova
    Abstract:

    In this paper, we discuss the possibility of theoretical exploration of moral dilemmas as well as the elaboration the solution strategy from the standpoint of the deontological ethics. The main difficulties the deontological ethics in this area are identified. Hereafter we analyze the main provisions of the moral doctrine of I. Kant, who is usually regarded as the main authority for strict deontological position in ethics. We try to prove that it is not the Categorical Imperative, but the «‘ought’ implies ‘can’» principle should be considered as the starting point for the analysis of moral dilemmas in Kantian deontology, taking into consideration that Kant himself claimed the conflict of duties to be fundamentally impossible. We suggest that the modifying the basic principles of deontology would allow it to explore moral dilemmas. The most effective modification would be that comprises the concept of responsibility without sacrificing the «‘ought’ implies ‘can’» principle. At the same time, there is no necessity to construct a moderate version of deontology with the ranking of moral responsibilities. So we analytically discuss the closest theoretical positions of H. Jonas who modified the Kantian moral requirement, showing its anthropological limitations. The role the prediction of the technological development consequences plays the principle of responsibility by H. Jonas is shown. R. Barkan Marcus focuses attention on the unanticipated character of the moral dilemmas that may interfere with the implementation of the postulates of practical reason. She develops the concept of duty, aimed at providing certain condition that will facilitate the performance of moral acts in the future.

  • the influence of moral dilemmas upon the transformation of the kant s Categorical Imperative
    Vestn. Ross. univ. družby nar. Ser. Filosofiâ, 2017
    Co-Authors: I.y. Larionov, A.v. Tarasova
    Abstract:

    In this paper, we discuss the possibility of theoretical exploration of moral dilemmas as well as the elaboration the solution strategy from the standpoint of the deontological ethics. The main difficulties the deontological ethics in this area are identified. Hereafter we analyze the main provisions of the moral doctrine of I. Kant, who is usually regarded as the main authority for strict deontological position in ethics. We try to prove that it is not the Categorical Imperative, but the «‘ought’ implies ‘can’» principle should be considered as the starting point for the analysis of moral dilemmas in Kantian deontology, taking into consideration that Kant himself claimed the conflict of duties to be fundamentally impossible. We suggest that the modifying the basic principles of deontology would allow it to explore moral dilemmas. The most effective modification would be that comprises the concept of responsibility without sacrificing the «‘ought’ implies ‘can’» principle. At the same time, there is no necessity to construct a moderate version of deontology with the ranking of moral responsibilities. So we analytically discuss the closest theoretical positions of H. Jonas who modified the Kantian moral requirement, showing its anthropological limitations. The role the prediction of the technological development consequences plays the principle of responsibility by H. Jonas is shown. R. Barkan Marcus focuses attention on the unanticipated character of the moral dilemmas that may interfere with the implementation of the postulates of practical reason. She develops the concept of duty, aimed at providing certain condition that will facilitate the performance of moral acts in the future.