The Problem with Yuppie Ethics

Utilitas ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-53 ◽  
Author(s):  
IASON GABRIEL

How much personal partiality do agent-centred prerogatives allow? If there are limits on what morality may demand of us, then how much does it permit? For a view Henry Shue has termed ‘yuppie ethics’, the answer to both questions is a great deal. It holds that rich people are morally permitted to spend large amounts of money on themselves, even when this means leaving those living in extreme poverty unaided. Against this view, I demonstrate that personal permissions are limited in certain ways: their strength must be continuous with the reasons put forward to explain their presence inside morality to begin with. Typically, these reasons include non-alienation and the preservation of personal integrity. However, when personal costs do not result in alienation or violate integrity, they are things that morality can routinely demand of us. Yuppie ethics therefore runs afoul of what I call the ‘continuity constraint’.

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 169-194
Author(s):  
M. Ali Musyafak

There is no doubt, that poverty is great danger of the religious beliefs, Especially extreme poverty severe, who were in front of the eyes of rich egoistic people. More worried, if poor people do not have jobs,and rich people do not want to give their hand. That is when the poverty will invite doubt against sunnatullah (provisions god) above this world. And cangive confidence in the injustice in a division of fortune. That is the dangerous of  declining of aqeedah that is caused by poverty. As the word of Rasulullah, “almost poverty make people become atheist.”Sayyidina Ali ra said that if the poverty like a men, I will kill them. Al Quran and Hadis give guidance to against poverty, the guidance has two aspects. The guidance from individual as hard work and simple living, and the guidance from social as management zakat productive, charity productive and infaq.


Author(s):  
Iolanda Costa Galinha ◽  
Miguel Ángel Garcia-Martín ◽  
Clara Gomes ◽  
Shigehiro Oishi
Keyword(s):  

2001 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven E. Kaplan ◽  
Stacey M. Whitecotton

An AICPA ethics ruling prohibits auditors from considering employment with a client during the audit engagement in order to minimize the concerns that financial statement users may have regarding the auditor's independence, in fact or appearance. The objective of this study is to examine auditors' reporting intentions when it is discovered that another auditor is considering employment with the client and has failed to comply with the ethics ruling. We test a model that predicts that auditors' reporting intentions will be influenced by their perceptions of the seriousness of the act, the personal costs of reporting, their responsibility for reporting, and their commitment to the accounting profession. The results indicate that auditors' reporting intentions are stronger when personal costs of reporting are perceived to be lower or personal responsibility for reporting is perceived to be higher. Implications of the findings for audit practice are discussed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document