Business Ethics Quarterly. Oct2011, Vol. 21 Issue 4, p679-686. 8p.
Chief executive officers, Boards of directors, Fiduciary responsibility, Income, Wages, Business ethics, Executive compensation, Unreasonable compensation, Negotiation, Corporate directors, Executives -- Moral & ethical aspects, and Ethics
In this joumal, Jeffrey Moriarty argued that CEOs must refuse to accept compensation above the minimum compensation that will induce them to accept and perform their jobs. Acting otherwise, he maintains, violates the CEO's fiduciary duty, even for a CEO new to the firm. I argue that Moriarty's conclusion rests on a failure to adequately distinguish when a person acts as a fiduciary from when she acts on her own account as a person. Further, Moriarty's argument assumes that the CEO knows this minimum level of compensation. However, we learn the suitability of compensation only through the market process of wage negotiation, not through some process of introspection. I conclude that a CEO who abstains from interfering with the board of directors and its compensation committee is morally free to negotiate for the highest wage available. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Allameh Taba-tabaei, Intellectual Abstemiousness, literalism, faithfulness, Philosophy (General), and B1-5802
Allameh Taba-tabaei (1281-1360 Hijri) is the first contemporary thinker who has paid serious attention to epistemological discussions. In his book, philosophy principles and realism method, written to clarify the contrariety between Islamic philosophy principles and materialism, he removes doubts instilled by sophists, skeptics and empiricism about confidence in reason (intellect) in attaining truths, and introduces Islamic philosophy as a realistic constitution based on rationalism rather than idealism. Allameh has been well-informed of the serious attention of European philosophers especially after Kant to epistemological discussions, and has had conscientious effort to explain the defense of Islamic philosophers of intellect dignity and the validity of its issues. He has also paid attention to the unique role of intellect in the comprehension of religious facts, and comments on important points in Almizan-Exegesis regarding this issue. It can be said that Allameh Taba-tabaei defended rationality in two fronts. First, against excessive sensualism and positivism that resulted in negation and rejection of all kinds of philosophical and religious sovereignty, and culminated in skepticism and relativism in all realms of belief and ethics. Second, against literalism (formalism) and Akhbarism, which through denying the authority of rationally, disparaged the bases of revelation itself and have led to agnosticism and obscurantism at the same time. This article considers the position of Allameh on these two issues.
Observer, The (London, England), April 13, 2014 Life and style, p. 5 2pp
In 1995 I was breakfasting, at 2.30pm, with the "King of the Clubs" at his apartment next to Stringfellows itself. He was in his dressing gown but planning his day. "After this egg I probably won't eat anything again until tonight, at my club," he noted. "In the evening my girlfriend will be at a debate in Greenwich called 'Rock Girls and Bisexuality' or something...
Business Ethics Quarterly. Oct2011, Vol. 21 Issue 4, p686-691. 6p.
Executive compensation, Wages, Unreasonable compensation, Business ethics, Chief executive officers, Fiduciary responsibility, Boards of directors, Corporate directors, Monetary incentives, Labor incentives, Executives -- Moral & ethical aspects, and Ethics
The article presents a reply from Jeffrey Moriarty to a paper in the current issue by Robert Kolb entitled "Must CEOs be Saints? Contra Moriarty on CEO Abstemiousness." In that paper Kolb criticized the findings contained in an earlier work by Moriarty entitled "How Much Compensation Can CEOs Permissably Accept?" Specifically, Kolb objected to Moriarty's conclusion that there is a limit to how much compensation a chief executive officer can morally accept. In the current paper Moriarty cites three objections of Kolb to his earlier work, and offers rebuttals to each.
administrative law, civil procedure, constitutional law, evidence, and governments
The political question doctrine is, to put the matter most succinctly, a doctrine employed by the courts to avoid resolving certain controversies on the grounds that the issues in the case are essentially political, not legal. The doctrine emerges out of key U.S. Supreme Court cases in which the Court declined to intervene in constitutional disputes on the grounds that these disputes raised political, rather than legal, questions and were therefore not appropriate for judicial resolution. 1 This doctrine has been rightly described as one of the classic nonjusticiability doctrines, sharing in common with standing, mootness, ripeness, and abstention, the quality that there are certain rights for which there is not a judicial remedy. 2 The case for the doctrine as articulated in case law and commentary is essentially prudential. As Justice Frankfurter wrote in Colegrove v. Green, 3 there are practical reasons for courts to avoid entering into the "political thicket." 4 These reasons are myriad, although Alexander Bickel captured perhaps most succinctly the core of the deference logic when he wrote of the "passive virtues" of leaving political matters to the political branches. 5 Such abstemiousness safeguards the political capital of the courts, as well as assigns the most politically controversial matters to those who are charged with making these difficult policy decisions. Although some of the analysis draws a line between the legal and policy functions of the legislative and judicial branches, a richer, and ultimately more plausible, normative account of the political question doctrine acknowledges the ...
Human overuse of antibiotics is the main driver of antibiotic resistance. Thus, more knowledge about factors that promote sustainable antibiotic use is urgently needed. Based upon findings from the management of other sustainability and collective action dilemmas, we hypothesize that interpersonal trust is crucial for people's propensity to cooperate for the common objective. The aim of this article is to further our understanding of people's antibiotic consumption by investigating if individuals' willingness to voluntarily abstain from antibiotic use is linked to interpersonal trust. To fulfill the aim, we implement two empirical investigations. In the first part, we use cross-section survey data to investigate the link between interpersonal trust and willingness to abstain from using antibiotics. The second part is based on a survey experiment in which we study the indirect effect of trust on willingness to abstain from using antibiotics by experimentally manipulating the proclaimed trustworthiness of other people to abstain from antibiotics. We find that interpersonal trust is linked to abstemiousness, also when controlling for potential confounders. The survey experiment demonstrates that trustworthiness stimulates individuals to abstain from using antibiotics. In conclusion, trust is an important asset for preserving effective antibiotics for future generations, as well as for reaching many of the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]