Home  About us  Contact
 

Influential Approach (influential + approach)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Humanities and Social Sciences75%

Selected Abstracts

Relational Group Autonomy: Ethics of Care and the Multiculturalism Paradigm

HYPATIA, Issue 1 2010
FIONA MacDONALD
In recent decades, group autonomy approaches to multiculturalism have gained legitimacy within both academic and policy circles. This article examines the centrality of group autonomy in the multiculturalism debate, particularly in the highly influential approach of Will Kymlicka. I argue that his response to the dilemmas of liberal-democratic multiculturalism relies on an underdeveloped conceptualization of group autonomy. Despite presumably good intentions, his narrow notion of cultural group autonomy obscures the requirements of minority group members' democratic capabilities and thereby works against the kind of transformative change that "accommodated" groups are seeking from the state. Although some critics (Young 1990; Benhabib 2002) have gone so far as to reject autonomy-based approaches to accommodation altogether (Young 1990, 251), I suggest that this position goes too far. In response, I offer an intermediary position between those that defend and those that reject an autonomy-based approach. Instead of fully rejecting autonomy as a guiding principle for multiculturalism, I develop an ethics of care approach to group autonomy based on relationality, which addresses the inadequacies of the dominant approach to multiculturalism. Such an account of group autonomy is a vital step toward reconciling multiculturalism with the necessary components of liberal-democratic citizenship. [source]

What's wrong with business ethics

INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL, Issue 185 2005
David Rodin
The field of business ethics is trapped between two competing and flawed conceptions of corporate responsibility. On the one hand is the shareholder value model, championed by Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman, which claims that corporations owe positive moral obligations only to their shareholders. On the other hand is the normative stakeholder theory, which claims that corporations are morally obliged to secure the interests of a broad range of groups, of which shareholders are only one. In this paper I will argue that if it is to generate a viable account of corporate moral responsibility, business ethics will need to abandon both canonical approaches and adopt a new approach based on a more concrete conception of the business corporation. At the end of the paper I sketch what such a theoretical approach would look like. The argument is not only relevant to business ethics; it also has important consequences for Michael Porter's influential approach to competitive strategy. [source]

Why the Capability Approach is Justified

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHILOSOPHY, Issue 1 2007
SANDRINE BERGES
abstract Sen and Nussbaum's capability approach has in the past twenty years become an increasingly popular and influential approach to issues in global justice. Its main tenet is that when assessing quality of life or asking what kind of policies will be more conducive to human development, we should look not to resources or preference satisfaction, but to what people are able to be and to do. This should then be measured against a more or less narrow conception of what any human being should be able to be and do, i.e. which functions are essentially human. To have a capability is to be able to function in that way. Thomas Pogge has recently argued that despite its many attractions, the capability approach did not present a sufficiently strong challenge to Rawlsian resourcism. In this paper, I address Pogge's criticisms of the capability approach, and I argue that from the point of view of Nussbaum's Aristotelian version of the approach, his objections are not successful. [source]

Where Is the Future in Public Health?

THE MILBANK QUARTERLY, Issue 2 2010
HILARY GRAHAM
Context: Today's societies have far-reaching impacts on future conditions for health. Against this backdrop, this article explores how the future is represented in contemporary public health, examining both its conceptual base and influential approaches through which evidence is generated for policy. Methods: Mission statements and official reviews provide insight into how the future is represented in public health's conceptual and ethical foundations. For its research practices, the article takes examples from epidemiological, intervention, and economic research, selecting risk-factor epidemiology, randomized controlled trials, and economic evaluation as exemplars. Findings: Concepts and ethics suggest that public health research and policy will be concerned with protecting both today's and tomorrow's populations from conditions that threaten their health. But rather than facilitating sustained engagement with future conditions and future health, exemplary approaches to gathering evidence focus on today's population. Thus, risk-factor epidemiology pinpoints risks in temporal proximity to the individual; controlled trials track short-term effects of interventions on the participants' health; and economic evaluations weigh policies according to their value to the current population. While their orientation to the present and near future aligns well with the compressed timescales for policy delivery on which democratic governments tend to work, it makes it difficult for the public health community to direct attention to conditions for future health. Conclusions: This article points to the need for research perspectives and practices that, consistent with public health's conceptual and ethical foundations, represent the interests of both tomorrow's and today's populations. [source]