...
首页> 外文期刊>European business review >Ethical relativism vs absolutism: research implications
【24h】

Ethical relativism vs absolutism: research implications

机译:伦理相对主义与专制主义:研究意义

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Purpose - The constructs of relativism and absolutism have a significant role to play in the development of ethical theory; however, they are commonly simplified in their depictions and are philosophically more complex than we give them credit for. The purpose of this paper is to undertake an in-depth examination of ethical relativity and ethical absolutism before concluding with a discussion of which research implications warrant further investigation.rnDesign/methodology/approach - A descriptive, historical, anthological approach has been taken. Findings - Ethical relativism is regrettably subject to a proliferation of related terminology and, in many instances with different meanings ascribed to similar terms. In addition, ethical relativity appears to attract different research perspectives that are heavily dependent on their academic origins. A clear distinction needs to be made between ethical and situational relativity. It is suggested that relativism is present in the process of moral justification and that ethical relativism should be analyzed from three levels: the individual level, the role and group level, and the cultural levels. The over-riding objection to ethical relativism rests on the consequences of accepting relativism, which undermines the existence and strength of global moral standards and the inherent positioning of ethical absolutism. Absolutism does not deny the existence of multiple moral practices evident around the world, but proposes that variations in ethical actions could still be rooted in common universal moral standards based on our requirements as human beings and the necessities of long-term survival. Research limitations/implications - The ensuing discussions of relativism and absolutism open up a rich vein of research opportunities and suggest caution is required in regard to research methodologies. From a methodological perspective, care needs to be taken. For example, using hypothetical ethical dilemmas that are often unrelated to a specific industry or cultural setting has resulted in many researchers observing situational relativity rather than true ethical relativity. Originality/value - This paper specifically examines whether there are differences in underlying and basic moral standards even though similarities in ethical behaviour have been determined, or whether differing ethical actions could, as the absolutists believe, originate from common universal standards despite apparent differences in perceptions and actions across cultures.
机译:目的-相对主义和专制主义的建构在伦理理论的发展中起着重要作用;但是,它们通常在描述中被简化,并且在哲学上比我们认为的要复杂。本文旨在对伦理相对论和伦理专制主义进行深入研究,然后讨论需要进一步研究的研究意义。设计/方法论/方法-已采用描述性,历史性,人类学方法。研究结果-伦理相对论令人遗憾地受到相关术语的泛滥,而且在许多情况下,相似术语赋予不同的含义。此外,伦理相对论似乎吸引了严重依赖其学术渊源的不同研究观点。伦理和情境的相对性之间必须有明显的区别。建议在道德辩护的过程中存在相对主义,应从个人,角色和群体,文化三个层面对伦理相对主义进行分析。对伦理相对主义的压倒一切是基于接受相对主义的后果,这种后果削弱了全球道德标准的存在和力量以及伦理绝对主义的固有定位。专制主义并不否认世界上存在着多种多样的道德习俗,但他提出,基于我们对人类的要求和长期生存的必要性,道德行为的差异仍可以根植于共同的普遍道德标准。研究的局限性/含义-相对论和专制主义的随后讨论为研究提供了丰富的机会,并建议在研究方法论方面需要谨慎。从方法论的角度来看,需要格外小心。例如,使用通常与特定行业或文化环境不相关的假设伦理困境,导致许多研究人员观察到情境相对论而不是真实的伦理相对论。原创性/价值-本文专门研究了即使确定了道德行为的相似性,基本道德标准和基本道德标准是否存在差异,或者尽管绝对的看法存在明显差异,但绝对主义者认为,不同的道德行为是否可能源自共同的普遍标准和跨文化的行动。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号