The Experts below are selected from a list of 300 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Nie Wen-jun - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Ben Cassidy - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Uncovering values-based practice: VBP's implicit commitments to subjectivism and Relativism.
    Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2013
    Co-Authors: Ben Cassidy
    Abstract:

    Despite assertions to the contrary, KWM Fulford's values-based practice is implicitly committed to subjectivism when it comes to reasoning about values. This renders the approach unworkable. The act of merely uncovering underlying values is not enough to effect change and, therefore, resolve problems if we have no way, even in principle, of determining which values are right and which are wrong. Fulford's only departure from subjectivism about value is his commitment to ‘framework values’, which seems grounded in a version of Ethical Relativism. I argue that we need to reject both subjectivism and Relativism if progress within Ethical discussions about practice is to be meaningful and a real possibility.

Mark A. Lutz - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Ethical Relativism socio economic institutions and human dignity
    Humanomics, 1991
    Co-Authors: Mark A. Lutz
    Abstract:

    Introduction Relativism of all shades and kinds is in fashion. For some decades, it has been trying to enter the very bastion of the academic heartland by questioning the prevailing cognitive realism in the philosophy of science (Kuhn, Feyerabend). More recently a somewhat different and stronger version of Relativism has made some extraordinary advances in literary criticism (the movement of “deconstruction”) and spawned some controversy in the field of law (critical legal studies). The same tendencies have now emerged in architecture (Jencks). More alarmingly, perhaps, in the social sciences we observe a brand new interest in so‐ called “post‐modern” perspectives: post‐modern ethnography in anthropology (Tylor), new voices in sociology (Lash and Urri), and, of course, also the novel ideas representing economics as discourse with a distinctly post‐modern flavor (Amariglio; Rossetti; Milberg; Ruccio).

  • Ethical Relativism, SOCIO‐ECONOMIC INSTITUTIONS AND HUMAN DIGNITY
    Humanomics, 1991
    Co-Authors: Mark A. Lutz
    Abstract:

    Introduction Relativism of all shades and kinds is in fashion. For some decades, it has been trying to enter the very bastion of the academic heartland by questioning the prevailing cognitive realism in the philosophy of science (Kuhn, Feyerabend). More recently a somewhat different and stronger version of Relativism has made some extraordinary advances in literary criticism (the movement of “deconstruction”) and spawned some controversy in the field of law (critical legal studies). The same tendencies have now emerged in architecture (Jencks). More alarmingly, perhaps, in the social sciences we observe a brand new interest in so‐ called “post‐modern” perspectives: post‐modern ethnography in anthropology (Tylor), new voices in sociology (Lash and Urri), and, of course, also the novel ideas representing economics as discourse with a distinctly post‐modern flavor (Amariglio; Rossetti; Milberg; Ruccio).

Jeffrey Unerman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Ethical Relativism a reason for differences in corporate social reporting
    Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 1999
    Co-Authors: Linda Lewis, Jeffrey Unerman
    Abstract:

    Abstract Much research into corporate social reporting (CSR) studies how organisations might account for their positive and negative impacts on society. Implicit in many such studies is an understanding of what members of society regard as positive (or good) and negative (or bad). A key question in moral philosophy is whether Ethical rules which determine what is good and bad are absolute, or vary relative to cultural differences or individual beliefs. If ethics are relative then what is considered good at a particular point in time by one society, individual or stakeholder group might not be regarded as good at other times or by other societies, individuals or stakeholder groups, and CSR that addresses these moral values will similarly vary.@e@qThis paper argues in favour of a reasoned form of Relativism. While it does not maintain that Ethical Relativism is the only possible cause of differences in CSR practices, it contends that Relativism could be an important cause of such differences and attempts to make explicit the arguments about what is regarded as good and bad in society as a determining influence on CSR and as a way of raising the moral debate on the subject.

David Sztybel - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.