Literature papers summary
Why ethical reflection matters (and why moralizing is
something else), Engelen & Sie - L2
Introduction
● Moral philosophy (/ethics): the systematic and critical reflection on what is good and bad,
right and wrong, morally speaking
○ Concerned with articulating and examining moral reasons that concern us all as
they govern our everyday interactions, whether we are aware of them or not
○ Concerned with examining both internal coherence of our moral reasons and
their strengths and weaknesses in justifying how we lead our lives & run our
societies
● 3 most influential ethical theories are introduces: consequentialism, deontology, virtue
ethics
Introducing three main ethical theories
● Philosophers typically ask why? Which difference makes for a moral difference?
○ Answer by systematically and critically reflecting on what is good and
bad, right and wrong, morally speaking → first sort out values
, ● 3 theories who take different approaches to reflecting on these questions
● Each theory explains what matters and why we care about certain things in
different ways → different ethical theories provide different descriptions and
evaluations of our actions → different normative consequences for what we
should do
● Each of these theories identifies a class of moral reasons we sometimes appeal to when
making decisions or justify what we do
Consequentialism
● Consequences are the only thing that matters, morally speaking
○ Intentions do not matter
Utilitarianism (Bentham, Mill, Singer)
● Utilitarianism: specific consequentialist theory → try to generate most utility
(happiness)
● No absolute values/rights and no absolute principles/rules to respect
● Why is it so influential? → happiness and pleasure are what all humans strive
for
● Identifies considerations to which we can all relate to with ease → look out for
both our interests and other people’s interests as their happiness matters as
much as our own
○ Whose interests matter and who belongs to the circle of moral concern?
● Disagreement on what exactly happiness and suffering are and why we
should attend to them → do all kinds of suffering and happiness matter
equally? Do both quality and quantity matter?
● Disagreement on whether we should maximize the consequences of every single action
or rather stick of general rules or principles
○ ‘rule utilitarians’: overall utility will be maximized if everyone would follow simple
rules (eg. never betray someone’s confidence)
○ ‘Act utilitarians’: every single action should maximize overall utility →
problematic implication that it is fine to sacrifice someone’s interest for
that greater good
Deontology (Kant)
● Focuses on rights that should be respected and duties that should be fulfilled,
irrespective of their consequences
● Make a distinction between what is good or valuable < > the rights and
duties individuals have → do not violate someone else’s rights
● Follow absolute rules and principles → somethings we are never allowed to do
(eg. violating someone’s privacy)
○ We have certain rights and corresponding duties simply in virtue of being
humans
, ● Kant: each of us can, by virtue of our rationality, figure out what our moral
duties are → ‘hypothetical imperatives’: unconditional requirements to reach
pursuations
○ ‘Universalizability principle’: act only according to that maim whereby you can at
the sametime will that it should become a universal law”
○ “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the
person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same
time as an end’
Virtue ethics (Aristotle)
● Thinks about morality in the light of virtues (eg. honesty, trustworthiness, friendliness)
● Strive to become a good virtuous person to acquire “practical wisdom’, wisdom to act
morally without the need to consciously reflect or deliberate
● Goodness of something always relates to its purpose or function → humans
are good, morally, if they excel in what makes them human, which relates to
their reason (practical knowledge)
● Through practice and habituation, we develop practical wisdom enabling us to know
what to , which is how to achieve happiness/human flourishing
● Disagreement about which virtues are most relevant and how they relate to each other
○ However, all stress how crucial virtues are for answering: what is the good life?
● Each virtue is a mean between the extremes of deficiency and excess
○ Overconfidence < courage > cowardice → moderation
Ethical reflection and everyday life
● On the one hand, philosophical discussions in ethics often employ far-fetched examples
that seem completely unrelated to our everyday lives (eg. trolley dilemma)
○ Purpose: discuss strength and weakness and (im)plausibility of
competing ethical theories, and their ability to guide us in our life →
can be frustrated when looking for practical advice
● On the other hand, philosophers who do have explicit practical advice and have firm
ideas on what you should (not) do are often perceive of as preachy and moralistic
○ Seem difficult to follow or taking all the fun out of our lives
● Ethical theories are highly systematic and abstract elaborations that are
founded in everyday moral intuitions and considerations → radical
conclusions from the willingness of philosophers to think things through and
go where the argument leads them
● Open to us to explain what is wrong with the view in question → think critical
about moral intuitions, beliefs, and claims of ourselves, others and society
○ (Humility and openness when engage in philosophical reflections)
● Some philosophers claim that these theories fail to capture the nature of
everyday moral reasoning / over demanding and psychologically unrealistic /
, the way in which ethics is practices in mainstream theories is wrongheaded
at its core → lead to several alternative approaches
Alternative approaches in ethics
● Deontologism & consequentialism: characterized by a specific way of thinking involving
impersonal pov & strict principles of rules translated into action-guiding prescriptions
○ Some philosophers claim this fails to capture nuances and complexities of our
lives + neglect shaping of lives due to relationship & relational history
● Walker: this failure and neglect led to biased understanding about what morality
and moral agency are about → hard to capture different responsibilities in life
and taking care of people around you in the all-or-nothing vocabulary of
rules, principles, duties and rights
● We cannot do proper moral philosophy without attending to and being critical of existing
and widespread power imbalances in our society
● Surge of interest in moral motivations behind everyday decisions and prompted more
realistic accounts of our moral psychology and agency + ethichists continue to offer
highly critical analyses of our societies which are fundamentally racist, sexist, ableist
● Many challenges continue to change the way ethicists and people think about
morality → challenge frameworks to take a critical look
Where are we heading
● Rapid advancement of technological innovation → raise ethical issues (eg. AI)
● Other issues (eg climate change, poverty ) will remain/become relevant as well
● Low-stake decisions making up everyday life → reflect and discuss to lead a
better life and design better institutions
Renouar & Ezvan: Corporate social responsibility
towards human development: a capabilities
framework -L3
1 Introduction
● CSR has become a collective & shared responsibility
○ CSR as a shared responsibility of companies towards human development in the
long term.
○ CSR as a direct liability model towards each human being directly impacted by a
given company’s activity.
● Relevance of the capabilities framework? Recognize companies’ ultimate goal
should not be unconditional profit maximization and philanthropy → CSR
beyond dominant paradigm that considered CSR as a concept whereby
companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business
Why ethical reflection matters (and why moralizing is
something else), Engelen & Sie - L2
Introduction
● Moral philosophy (/ethics): the systematic and critical reflection on what is good and bad,
right and wrong, morally speaking
○ Concerned with articulating and examining moral reasons that concern us all as
they govern our everyday interactions, whether we are aware of them or not
○ Concerned with examining both internal coherence of our moral reasons and
their strengths and weaknesses in justifying how we lead our lives & run our
societies
● 3 most influential ethical theories are introduces: consequentialism, deontology, virtue
ethics
Introducing three main ethical theories
● Philosophers typically ask why? Which difference makes for a moral difference?
○ Answer by systematically and critically reflecting on what is good and
bad, right and wrong, morally speaking → first sort out values
, ● 3 theories who take different approaches to reflecting on these questions
● Each theory explains what matters and why we care about certain things in
different ways → different ethical theories provide different descriptions and
evaluations of our actions → different normative consequences for what we
should do
● Each of these theories identifies a class of moral reasons we sometimes appeal to when
making decisions or justify what we do
Consequentialism
● Consequences are the only thing that matters, morally speaking
○ Intentions do not matter
Utilitarianism (Bentham, Mill, Singer)
● Utilitarianism: specific consequentialist theory → try to generate most utility
(happiness)
● No absolute values/rights and no absolute principles/rules to respect
● Why is it so influential? → happiness and pleasure are what all humans strive
for
● Identifies considerations to which we can all relate to with ease → look out for
both our interests and other people’s interests as their happiness matters as
much as our own
○ Whose interests matter and who belongs to the circle of moral concern?
● Disagreement on what exactly happiness and suffering are and why we
should attend to them → do all kinds of suffering and happiness matter
equally? Do both quality and quantity matter?
● Disagreement on whether we should maximize the consequences of every single action
or rather stick of general rules or principles
○ ‘rule utilitarians’: overall utility will be maximized if everyone would follow simple
rules (eg. never betray someone’s confidence)
○ ‘Act utilitarians’: every single action should maximize overall utility →
problematic implication that it is fine to sacrifice someone’s interest for
that greater good
Deontology (Kant)
● Focuses on rights that should be respected and duties that should be fulfilled,
irrespective of their consequences
● Make a distinction between what is good or valuable < > the rights and
duties individuals have → do not violate someone else’s rights
● Follow absolute rules and principles → somethings we are never allowed to do
(eg. violating someone’s privacy)
○ We have certain rights and corresponding duties simply in virtue of being
humans
, ● Kant: each of us can, by virtue of our rationality, figure out what our moral
duties are → ‘hypothetical imperatives’: unconditional requirements to reach
pursuations
○ ‘Universalizability principle’: act only according to that maim whereby you can at
the sametime will that it should become a universal law”
○ “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the
person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same
time as an end’
Virtue ethics (Aristotle)
● Thinks about morality in the light of virtues (eg. honesty, trustworthiness, friendliness)
● Strive to become a good virtuous person to acquire “practical wisdom’, wisdom to act
morally without the need to consciously reflect or deliberate
● Goodness of something always relates to its purpose or function → humans
are good, morally, if they excel in what makes them human, which relates to
their reason (practical knowledge)
● Through practice and habituation, we develop practical wisdom enabling us to know
what to , which is how to achieve happiness/human flourishing
● Disagreement about which virtues are most relevant and how they relate to each other
○ However, all stress how crucial virtues are for answering: what is the good life?
● Each virtue is a mean between the extremes of deficiency and excess
○ Overconfidence < courage > cowardice → moderation
Ethical reflection and everyday life
● On the one hand, philosophical discussions in ethics often employ far-fetched examples
that seem completely unrelated to our everyday lives (eg. trolley dilemma)
○ Purpose: discuss strength and weakness and (im)plausibility of
competing ethical theories, and their ability to guide us in our life →
can be frustrated when looking for practical advice
● On the other hand, philosophers who do have explicit practical advice and have firm
ideas on what you should (not) do are often perceive of as preachy and moralistic
○ Seem difficult to follow or taking all the fun out of our lives
● Ethical theories are highly systematic and abstract elaborations that are
founded in everyday moral intuitions and considerations → radical
conclusions from the willingness of philosophers to think things through and
go where the argument leads them
● Open to us to explain what is wrong with the view in question → think critical
about moral intuitions, beliefs, and claims of ourselves, others and society
○ (Humility and openness when engage in philosophical reflections)
● Some philosophers claim that these theories fail to capture the nature of
everyday moral reasoning / over demanding and psychologically unrealistic /
, the way in which ethics is practices in mainstream theories is wrongheaded
at its core → lead to several alternative approaches
Alternative approaches in ethics
● Deontologism & consequentialism: characterized by a specific way of thinking involving
impersonal pov & strict principles of rules translated into action-guiding prescriptions
○ Some philosophers claim this fails to capture nuances and complexities of our
lives + neglect shaping of lives due to relationship & relational history
● Walker: this failure and neglect led to biased understanding about what morality
and moral agency are about → hard to capture different responsibilities in life
and taking care of people around you in the all-or-nothing vocabulary of
rules, principles, duties and rights
● We cannot do proper moral philosophy without attending to and being critical of existing
and widespread power imbalances in our society
● Surge of interest in moral motivations behind everyday decisions and prompted more
realistic accounts of our moral psychology and agency + ethichists continue to offer
highly critical analyses of our societies which are fundamentally racist, sexist, ableist
● Many challenges continue to change the way ethicists and people think about
morality → challenge frameworks to take a critical look
Where are we heading
● Rapid advancement of technological innovation → raise ethical issues (eg. AI)
● Other issues (eg climate change, poverty ) will remain/become relevant as well
● Low-stake decisions making up everyday life → reflect and discuss to lead a
better life and design better institutions
Renouar & Ezvan: Corporate social responsibility
towards human development: a capabilities
framework -L3
1 Introduction
● CSR has become a collective & shared responsibility
○ CSR as a shared responsibility of companies towards human development in the
long term.
○ CSR as a direct liability model towards each human being directly impacted by a
given company’s activity.
● Relevance of the capabilities framework? Recognize companies’ ultimate goal
should not be unconditional profit maximization and philanthropy → CSR
beyond dominant paradigm that considered CSR as a concept whereby
companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business
