Quantitative Ethics: Business Bribery Index (BBI)
Amir Farmanesh
Visiting Faculty, Centre for Ethics, University of Toronto
The new Journal of Global Ethics is out (here), containing a selection of the papers presented last October at the Centre for Ethics, “Thinking Beyond Distribution” conference, organized by Monique Deveaux and Kathryn Walker.
Introduction
Monique Deveaux and Kathryn Walker
We fight for roses too: time-use and global gender justice
Alison M. Jaggar
Global care ethics: beyond distribution, beyond justice
Fiona Robinson
Is the capability approach a sufficient challenge to distributive accounts of global justice?
Christine Koggel
Ideal theory in an nth-best world: the case of pauper labor
Joseph Heath
Non-domination’s role in the theorizing of global justice
Mira Bachvarova
Postcolonialism and global justice
Margaret Kohn
The sentimentalist paradox; on the normative and visual foundations of humanitarianism
Fuyuki Kurasawa
Place-related attachments and global distributive justice
Margaret Moore
Revising global theories of justice to include public goods
Heather Widdows and Peter G.N. West-Oram
Joseph Heath, Director, Centre for Ethics and Professor in the Department of Philosophy, and School of Public Policy and Governance, has been named a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada.
Joseph Heath is an international leader in political philosophy and the theory of rationality, as well as one of Canada’s leading public intellectuals. He has made fundamental contributions in two areas: the understanding of the relations between rationality, morality and culture, and the foundations of business ethics.
The Good, the Bad and the Trivial
Chrisoula Andreou,
Department of Philosophy, University of Utah
Monday, Sept. 16, 4-6pm.
Larkin 200
Abstract: Dreadful and dreaded outcomes are sometimes brought about via the accumulation of individually trivial effects. Think about inching toward terrible health or toward an environmental disaster. In some such cases, the outcome comes about through a sequence of actions, each of which is trivial in its impact. Cases of this sort are not only practically challenging, but theoretically challenging as well. They raise puzzling questions about the assessment of conduct. Sometimes each action in an extended sequence of moves can be correctly assessed as permissible (relative to a certain set of concerns) even though the sequence foreseeably leads to an outcome that is unacceptable (relative to the same set of concerns) and even though acceptable outcomes are available.This seems paradoxical. I argue that this (apparent) puzzle glosses over complications associated with action individuation and units of agency. Reflection on these complications makes it clear that in the paradoxical cases there is an accurate way of seeing what is being done at various particular moments that clearly brings out the tight connection between the current action and the non-trivial damage that is to be expected.