Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
Alternativ können Sie versuchen, selbst über Ihren lokalen Bibliothekskatalog auf das gewünschte Dokument zuzugreifen.
Bei Zugriffsproblemen kontaktieren Sie uns gern.
10 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
Unlike many important leaders and historical figures, Abraham Lincoln is generally regarded as a singularly good and morally virtuous human being. Lincoln's Ethics assesses Lincoln's moral character and his many morally fraught decisions regarding slavery and the rights of African-Americans, as well as his actions and policies as commander in chief during the Civil War. Some of these decisions and policies have been the subject of considerable criticism. Lincoln undoubtedly possessed many important moral virtues, such as kindness and magnanimity, to a very high degree. Despite this, there are also grounds to question the goodness of his character. Many fault him as a husband, father and son, and many claim that he was a racist. Carson explains Lincoln's virtues and assesses these criticisms
This is a comprehensive and up-to-date investigation of moral and conceptual questions about lying and deception. Carson argues that there is a moral presumption against lying and deception that causes harm, he examines case-studies from business, politics, and history
In: Philosophical studies series in philosophy 31
In: Business and Society Review, Band 123, Heft 2, S. 217-242
ISSN: 1467-8594
ABSTRACTIn 1992, I sent Milton Friedman a draft of my 1993 paper "Friedman's Theory of Corporate Social Responsibility." He and I corresponded at length. My 1993 paper argues that Friedman's published formulations of his theory are not equivalent and that they prescribe different courses of action in many possible cases. In our correspondence, Friedman conceded that his two formulations of his theory are inconsistent and, at my suggestion, he endorsed a modified version of the view he presented in Capitalism and Freedom as the preferred version of his theory. This modified theory is an important formulation of his position. In one of his letters to me, Friedman writes: "I agree that corporate executives might have duties to the general public which sometimes outweigh their duties to the shareholders." I argue that this creates major problems for his theory. I also answer Friedman's published response to one of my criticisms.
In: Philosophy & public affairs, Band 14, Heft 1, S. 66
ISSN: 0048-3915
In: Social theory and practice: an international and interdisciplinary journal of social philosophy, Band 14, Heft 2, S. 173-214
ISSN: 2154-123X