List of figures Preface Translator's note Introduction: orientation in economic-ethical thinking Part I. Fundamental Concepts of Modern Ethics and the Approach of Integrative Economic Ethics: 1. The phenomenon of human morality: the normative logic of interpersonal relations 2. The moral point of view: philosophical developmental lines of rational ethics 3. Morality and economic rationality: integrative economic ethics as the rational ethics of economic activity Part II. Reflections on the Foundations of Economic Ethics I: A Critique of Economism: 4. 'Inherent necessity' of competition? A critique of economic determinism 5. 'Morality' of the market? A critique of economic reductionism Part III. Reflections on the Foundations of Economic Ethics II: Rational Economic Activity and the Lifeworld: 6. The question of meaning: economic activity and the good life 7. The question of legitimation: economic activity and the just social life Part IV. A Topology of Economic Ethics: The 'Sites' of Morality in Economic Life: 8. Economic citizens' ethics 9. Regulatory ethics 10. Corporate ethics Bibliography Indexes.

Integrative Economic Ethics: Foundations of a Civilized Market Economy

I defend the following version of the ought-implies-can principle: (OIC) by virtue of conceptual necessity, an agent at a given time has an (objective, pro tanto) obligation to do only what the agent at that time has the ability and opportunity to do. In short, obligations correspond to ability plus opportunity. My argument has three premises: (1) obligations correspond to reasons for action; (2) reasons for action correspond to potential actions; (3) potential actions correspond to ability plus opportunity. In the bulk of the paper I address six objections to OIC: three objections based on putative counterexamples, and three objections based on arguments to the effect that OIC conflicts with the is/ought thesis, the possibility of hard determinism, and the denial of the Principle of Alternate Possibilities.

/pdf/i-ought-therefore-i-can-1523lt8h8a.pdf

I ought, therefore i can

How valuable is the market mechanism for practical morality? What is its moral standing? We can scarcely doubt that as individuals we do value tremendously the opportunity of using markets. Indeed, without access to markets most of us would perish, since we don't typically produce the things that we need to survive. If we could somehow survive without using markets at all, our quality of life would be rather abysmal. It is natural to feel that an institution that is so crucial to our well-being must be valuable. And since moral evaluation can hardly be indifferent to our interests and their fulfillment, it might appear that there is nothing much to discuss here. The market's moral standing “has to be” high.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0265052500003186

The Moral Standing of the Market

The aim of this review article is to explore some theoretical issues regarding the nature and scope of violence. There are two ways of thinking about violence: in terms of an act of force, or in terms of a violation. Those who define violence as an intentional act of excessive or destructive force endorse a narrow conception of violence (the Minimalist Conception of Violence or MCV), while those who see violence in terms of a violation of rights champion a broader conception of violence (the Comprehensive Conception of Violence or CCV). The strengths and weaknesses of both approaches will be assessed.

Two Concepts of Violence

This paper provides a framework for thinking about oppression and how to overcome it. It considers the value premise underlying the use of the term “oppression.” It then discusses the nature of oppression, the forms it takes, and what keeps it in place. In its final two sections, it focuses on awakening the sense of injustice and the strategies and tactics for overcoming injustice.

A Framework for Thinking about Oppression and Its Change

The threat to the survival of humankind posed by nuclear weapons has been a frightening and essential focus of public debate for the last four decades and must continue to be so if we are to avoid destroying ourselves and the natural world around us. One unfortunate result of preoccupation with the nuclear threat, however, has been a new kind of "respectability" accorded to conventional war. In this radical and cogent argument for pacifism, Robert Holmes asserts that all war--not just nuclear war--has become morally impermissible in the modern world. Addressing a wide audience of informed and concerned readers, he raises dramatic questions about the concepts of "political realism" and nuclear deterrence, makes a number of persuasive suggestions for nonviolent alternatives to war, and presents a rich panorama of thinking about war from St. Augustine to Reinhold Niebuhr and Herman Kahn.Holmes's positions are compellingly presented and will provoke discussion both among convinced pacifists and among those whom he calls "militarists." "Militarists, " we realize after reading this book, include the majority of us who live a friendly and peaceful personal life while supporting a system which, if Holmes is correct, guarantees war and risks eventual human extinction.

On war and morality

The threat to the survival of humankind posed by nuclear weapons has been a frightening and essential focus of public debate for the last four decades and must continue to be so if we are to avoid destroying ourselves and the natural world around us. One unfortunate result of preoccupation with the nuclear threat, however, has been a new kind of \"respectability\" accorded to conventional war. In this radical and cogent argument for pacifism, Robert Holmes asserts that all war--not just nuclear war--has become morally impermissible in the modern world. Addressing a wide audience of informed and concerned readers, he raises dramatic questions about the concepts of \"political realism\" and nuclear deterrence, makes a number of persuasive suggestions for nonviolent alternatives to war, and presents a rich panorama of thinking about war from St. Augustine to Reinhold Niebuhr and Herman Kahn.Holmes's positions are compellingly presented and will provoke discussion both among convinced pacifists and among those whom he calls \"militarists.\" \"Militarists, \" we realize after reading this book, include the majority of us who live a friendly and peaceful personal life while supporting a system which, if Holmes is correct, guarantees war and risks eventual human extinction.

On War and Morality.

Is morality a system of hypothetical imperatives

The Idea of Freedom: Essays in Honour of Isaiah Berlin

This text presents a systematic approach to ethical theories, shedding light on their historical roots as well as contemporary concerns. Throughout, the author presents assessments of various theories, helping students develop a viewpoint that engages them in doing ethics rather than passively reading about the theories of others. In addition, by placing individual theories in the broader content of moral philosophy's basic problems, the book gives students a clear sense of the issues stemming from concern with ethics of virtue versus ethics of conduct, ethics of rules and principles versus moral particularism, and relativism versus universalism.

Robert L. Holmes

Papers

On war and morality

On War and Morality.

Is morality a system of hypothetical imperatives

The Idea of Freedom: Essays in Honour of Isaiah Berlin

Basic Moral Philosophy