an article by Tetiana Pavlova, Roman Pavlov and Oleksandra Kolomoichenko (Oles Honchar Dnipro National University, Ukraine) and Elena Zarutska (University of Customs and Finance, Dnipro, Ukraine) published in International Journal of Ethics and Systems Volume 34 Issue 4 (2019)
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to consider the complementarity of ethics and law with regard to the problem of their common existence in society through the identification of common and different characteristics in the philosophy of I. Kant.
Design/methodology/approach
This study is based on the observation that in modern society ethics and law remain the main social regulators and their co-existence requires the definition of their interaction and complementarity. Also, as this problem is closely related to issues of freedom and obligation, it is necessary to show their role in ethics and law.
Findings
The results show that the complementarity of ethics and law is due to the obligation that unites them, and the categorical imperative is the only postulate of ethics and the rights to execute, which allows a person to always remain worthy of his name. Ethics also has the meaning of legal capacity, and law means the recognition of people moral independence by public authorities. Thus, the law must protect a person not only from arbitrariness on the part of other people but also from the state power.
Originality/value
This paper uses a philosophical approach, the utility of which is that ethics and law are studied as elements of normative regulation system of the society in terms of the phenomenal and noumenal nature of a man. It is proposed to consider ethics and law not only as different social regulators, which have their own specifics but also as complementary elements of a single social being, which should exist together and not attempt to substitute one another.
Showing posts with label freedom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label freedom. Show all posts
Monday, 16 December 2019
Monday, 30 September 2019
Digital communication in and beyond organizations: unintended consequences of new freedom
an article by Elisa Maria Entschew (Leipzig Graduate School of Management, Germany) published in Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society Volume 17 Issue 3 (2019)
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to address the following question: In times of permanent connectivity, what forms of freedom need to be considered to prevent permanent availability as an unintended consequence? By using the Hegelian perspective on freedom, the paper categorizes three forms of freedom to transfer them to a common, contemporary understanding of freedom relating it to freedom through human-to-human digital communication. The aim is to show that freedom is not only about independence and realizing choices but also about embedding and committing oneself.
Design/methodology/approach
This mainly conceptual paper derives implications based on the Hegelian theory. This is supplemented by an interdisciplinary approach, whereby categories of other philosophers, ethicists, economists and sociologists are applied. The analysis of the contemporary perspective on freedom is enriched by referencing empirical studies.
Findings
Digital communication offers new freedom such as working with fewer restrictions from time and space, especially for knowledge workers. It is theoretically possible to work 24 h per day from anywhere (independence), as well as to decide on the final location and timing of one’s work (realizing choices). When solely focusing on these – seemingly advantageous – forms of freedom in times of permanent connectivity, unintended consequences such as the expectation of permanent availability develop. The key message of the paper is that considering one’s temporal and social dependencies (embeddedness) is an indispensable part of actual freedom to avoid unintended consequences.
Practical implications
Organizations need to invest in moral discernment to understand unintended consequences, as well as to cope with them.
Originality/value
Applying the Hegelian theory on freedom based on digital communication to better understand social dynamics of digital communication is a largely unexplored avenue in the existing scientific literature. The decision to undertake this venture resulted from the identified necessity of understanding freedom better. It is often not clear what is meant by freedom through digital communication. Although freedom is a complex construct, it is often reduced to independence/having a choice and realizing choices. When solely focusing on independence and realizing choices, unintended consequences such as permanent availability often go unnoticed. It is exactly because of these issues that this paper endeavors to examine the (deep) meaning of the powerful, yet complex, term of freedom.
I wasn’t clear from reading this abstract just what the author was saying. Yes, I understand many of the individual words and phrases but not necessarily in the context in which they are used.
Maybe Wikipedia can help.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hegelianism is the philosophy of G. W. F. Hegel which can be summed up by the dictum that "the rational alone is real", which means that all reality is capable of being expressed in rational categories. His goal was to reduce reality to a more synthetic unity within the system of absolute idealism.
Rational appeals to me but I wonder who decides what is rational.
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to address the following question: In times of permanent connectivity, what forms of freedom need to be considered to prevent permanent availability as an unintended consequence? By using the Hegelian perspective on freedom, the paper categorizes three forms of freedom to transfer them to a common, contemporary understanding of freedom relating it to freedom through human-to-human digital communication. The aim is to show that freedom is not only about independence and realizing choices but also about embedding and committing oneself.
Design/methodology/approach
This mainly conceptual paper derives implications based on the Hegelian theory. This is supplemented by an interdisciplinary approach, whereby categories of other philosophers, ethicists, economists and sociologists are applied. The analysis of the contemporary perspective on freedom is enriched by referencing empirical studies.
Findings
Digital communication offers new freedom such as working with fewer restrictions from time and space, especially for knowledge workers. It is theoretically possible to work 24 h per day from anywhere (independence), as well as to decide on the final location and timing of one’s work (realizing choices). When solely focusing on these – seemingly advantageous – forms of freedom in times of permanent connectivity, unintended consequences such as the expectation of permanent availability develop. The key message of the paper is that considering one’s temporal and social dependencies (embeddedness) is an indispensable part of actual freedom to avoid unintended consequences.
Practical implications
Organizations need to invest in moral discernment to understand unintended consequences, as well as to cope with them.
Originality/value
Applying the Hegelian theory on freedom based on digital communication to better understand social dynamics of digital communication is a largely unexplored avenue in the existing scientific literature. The decision to undertake this venture resulted from the identified necessity of understanding freedom better. It is often not clear what is meant by freedom through digital communication. Although freedom is a complex construct, it is often reduced to independence/having a choice and realizing choices. When solely focusing on independence and realizing choices, unintended consequences such as permanent availability often go unnoticed. It is exactly because of these issues that this paper endeavors to examine the (deep) meaning of the powerful, yet complex, term of freedom.
I wasn’t clear from reading this abstract just what the author was saying. Yes, I understand many of the individual words and phrases but not necessarily in the context in which they are used.
Maybe Wikipedia can help.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hegelianism is the philosophy of G. W. F. Hegel which can be summed up by the dictum that "the rational alone is real", which means that all reality is capable of being expressed in rational categories. His goal was to reduce reality to a more synthetic unity within the system of absolute idealism.
Rational appeals to me but I wonder who decides what is rational.
Saturday, 10 February 2018
Creativity and freedom
a column by Michel Serafinelli and Guido Tabellini for VOX: CEPR’s Policy Portal
Innovation is often concentrated in certain geographic areas, or ‘creative clusters’. This column uses novel data on famous births to explore the dynamics of creativity in European cities between the 11th and 19th centuries. The results show that creativity tends to precede economic prosperity, and that city institutions that protect personal and economic freedoms are conducive to radical innovation in a variety of domains.
Continue reading
Innovation is often concentrated in certain geographic areas, or ‘creative clusters’. This column uses novel data on famous births to explore the dynamics of creativity in European cities between the 11th and 19th centuries. The results show that creativity tends to precede economic prosperity, and that city institutions that protect personal and economic freedoms are conducive to radical innovation in a variety of domains.
Continue reading
Monday, 21 January 2013
New PSI research reveals the erosion of children’s independence
- Unique study covering the last 40-years reveals a dramatic loss of children’s independence outside the home.
- Only 25 per cent of primary school children in England are allowed to travel home from school alone compared with 86 per cent in 1971.
- Primary school children in England have far less freedom than they do in Germany.
Read the full report (PDF 248pp)
Children’s independent mobility: a comparative study in England and Germany (1971-2010) by Ben Shaw, Ben Watson, Bjorn Frauendienst, Andreas Redecker, Tim Jones, with Mayer Hillman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Thursday, 17 January 2013
“Free as in sexist?” Free culture and the gender gap
an article by Joseph Reagle (Northeastern University and Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard) published in First Monday Volume 18 Number 1 (January 2013)
Abstract
Despite the values of freedom and openness, the free culture movement’s gender balance is as skewed (or more so) as that of the computing culture from which it arose. Based on the collection and analysis of discourse on gender and sexism within this movement over a six–year period, I suggest three possible causes:
Abstract
Despite the values of freedom and openness, the free culture movement’s gender balance is as skewed (or more so) as that of the computing culture from which it arose. Based on the collection and analysis of discourse on gender and sexism within this movement over a six–year period, I suggest three possible causes:
- some geek identities can be narrow and unappealing;
- open communities are especially susceptible to difficult people; and,
- the ideas of freedom and openness can be used to dismiss concerns and rationalize the gender gap as a matter of preference and choice.
Monday, 15 October 2012
Research by numbers
via Eurozine articles by Thomas Docherty
Higher education cuts in the UK are hijacking the pursuit of knowledge. The perception has become entrenched that the role of academics is to serve business and do whatever the government decides is necessary for the economy.
Full text (PDF 6pp)
Higher education cuts in the UK are hijacking the pursuit of knowledge. The perception has become entrenched that the role of academics is to serve business and do whatever the government decides is necessary for the economy.
Full text (PDF 6pp)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
