ABSTRACT:The purpose of this paper is to formulate and defend a set of moral principles applicable to management. Our motivation is twofold: 1) to increase the coherence and utility of Integrative Social Contracts Theory (ISCT); and 2) to initiate an alternative stream of business ethics research. To those ends, we specify what counts as adequate guidance in navigating the ethical terrain of business. In doing so, a key element of ISCT, Substantive Hypernorms, is found to be flawed beyond repair. So we propose and defend a remedy: prima facie moral principles. After delineating the appropriate criteria and format for such principles, we formulate, explain, and defend five of them. We conclude with a brief comment on future research possibilities.

No abstract

One out of every five combatants carrying a machine gun in Iraq is not a soldier, but an employee. Many, particular those in military service, may consider the men and women working for private military firms to be performing a radically different function than their military counterparts, but, 'Iraqi citizens do not distinguish between employees of Blackwater and the U.S. military. All they see is Americans with guns.' In this article, I will investigate the normative and economic implications of using these private security personnel in contingency operations such as the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. In order to accomplish this task, I will investigate the frequently mentioned economic justifications in favor of outsourcing as well as the less frequently investigated normative considerations against particular acts of outsourcing. This analysis will be used to defend a normative principle that can help determine if a particular act of outsourcing is morally problematic. Finally, I will argue that the continued use of mercenaries harms the professional soldiers fighting along side them by undermining the profession of arms. The continued use of private military contractors will turn all those who fight, even professional soldiers, into mercenaries.

Researchers from various disciplines have built impressive but distinct compendia on climate change; the defining challenge for humanity. In the spirit of Lord Dahrendorf, this paper represents the output of interdisciplinary collaboration and integrates state-of-the-art academic expertise from the fields of philosophy, economics and governance. Our focus is on Europe, which is widely perceived as a leader in climate change mitigation and adaptation. However, leadership weakness on climate over recent years, largely due to recession and political vacillation, is eroding this perception. What is needed is a firm justification for strong climate action, acknowledgement of the available tools, awareness of the reasons for our failures to date, and a realistic, but goal-oriented strategy for an integrated climate policy. We therefore present current normative insights from climate justice research highlighting the need to make institutions responsive to those most vulnerable; we discuss the economics of the transition to a low-carbon economy, pointing to key policy instruments and post-2020 climate targets for the EU; we contrast the normative and quantitative synoptic principles with the particularistic implementation schemes and politics of (not) implementing measures on the ground; and we suggest a careful coordination of European climate policies with acute challenges that could increase both climate justice and political feasibility. Policy Implications• Climate justice demonstrates that action on climate change is a moral imperative.• Modern public economics provides a rich framework for examining the climate change problem through the lens of imperfect economies with policy for market failures.• Politics remain inadequate, as specific implementation schemes follow rationales that are decoupled from synoptic moral and economic principles.

Climate change is undeniably a global problem, but the situation is especially dire for countries whose territory is comprised entirely or primarily of low-lying land. While geoengineering might offer an opportunity to protect these states, international consensus on the particulars of any geoengineering proposal seems unlikely. To consider the moral complexities created by unilateral deployment of geoengineering technologies, we turn to a moral convention with a rich history of assessing interference in the sovereign affairs of foreign states: the just war tradition. We argue that the just war framework demonstrates that, for these nations, geoengineering offers a justified form of self-defense from an unwarranted, albeit unintentional, aggression. This startling result places our own carbon-emitting activities in a stark new light: in perpetrating climate change, we are, in fact, waging war on the most vulnerable."We live in constant fear of the adverse impacts of climate change. For a coral atoll nation, sea level rise and more severe weather events loom as a growing threat to our entire population. The threat is real and serious, and is of no difference to a slow and insidious form of terrorism against us." -Saufatu Sopoanga, former Prime Minister of Tuvalu (Long and Wormworth 2012, 402) Kyle Fruh is an assistant professor of philosophy and humanities at Duke Kunshan University. His published interests include climate change ethics, the normative dimensions of commitments such as promises, and moral heroism.Marcus Hedahl is an associate professor of philosophy at the U.S. Naval Academy. His primary area of research involves second-personal normative relations within collective structures.