Nietzsche's and Dewey's contextual challenge to value theory

The historical context of this project is situated at the intersection of post-Kantian European philosophy and American Pragmatism as it concentrates on the works of Friedrich Nietzsche and John Dewey. Nietzsche and Dewey are two of the most significant figures in post-Kantian value theory, and they cast a long shadow both within and beyond the philosophical discussion. The focal point of this project however is not merely to draw historical parallels between Nietzsche's and Dewey's views, but rather to work out the common space that is created and shared by these figures within the realm of value theory. By weaving together the thought of Nietzsche and Dewey it explores their common contextual outlook regarding the sources of values; a view which presents an important challenge to traditional philosophical ways of thinking about values.Traditional ways thinking about values are essentialist. They emphasize detachment from the contingencies of context. In contrast Nietzsche and Dewey stress the thoroughly contextual nature of values systems. They show that values have to do with concrete social and historical situatedness and not with an abstract or universal world. Noting the complex interrelationships between different domains of values, they dispute the idea that beliefs about what is valuable can be grounded by reference to absolute givens or a-historical principles. This is part of what makes their conception of values non-foundational (and hence at least implicitly non-metaphysical). More specifically, Nietzsche's and Dewey's brand of contextualism can be characterized as being both interpretive and naturalistic.U of I OnlyETDs are only available to UIUC Users without author permissio

Moral Dilemmas in Business Ethics: From Decision Procedures to Edifying Perspectives

There have been many attempts during the history of applied ethics that have tried to develop a theory of moral reasoning. The goal of this paper is to explicate one aspect of the debate between various attempts of offering a specific method for resolving moral dilemmas. We contrast two kinds of deliberative methods: deliberative methods whose goal is decision-making and deliberative methods that are aimed at gaining edifying perspectives. The decision-making methods assessed include the traditional moral theories like utilitarianism and Kantianism, as well as second order principles, such as principlism and specified principlism. In light of this assessment, we suggest taking a closer look at two perceptive models, casuistry and particularism. These models are used for dealing with moral dilemmas that provide for edifying perspectives rather than decision-making. These perceptive models, though less scientific and not as good at prescribing an action, are more human in the sense that they enrich our moral sensibilities and enhance our understanding of the meaning of the situation. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007casuistry, decision theory, humanism, moral deliberation, particularism,

Stretching the Frontiers: Exploring the Relationships Between Entrepreneurship and Ethics

The relationship between entrepreneurship and ethics can be characterised as an intense love-hate relationship. On the one hand, entrepreneurs, who are regarded as creative innovators, are praised for their contribution to the development of society by creating new products, employment opportunities and thus opening new possibilities for all of us. On the other hand, entrepreneurs are often criticised for a one-sided pursuit of business success and being willing to compromise moral values if needed. This complex and multifaceted relationship between entrepreneurship and ethics was taken as the central topic for the 2004 annual conference of the European Business Ethics Network (EBEN). It is a tradition that some of the best papers from this annual event are published in a special issue of the Journal of Business Ethics. As usual for the Journal of Business Ethics, all those featuring in this issue have gone through a double blind-review procedure