Conclusion: How to Run an Unethical Business

2021 ◽  
pp. 225-232
Author(s):  
Jason Brennan ◽  
William English ◽  
John Hasnas ◽  
Peter Jaworski

One way to illustrate how to manage a business or oneself for ethical performance is to teach the lesson in a negative form. How would one run a business if one wanted to induce others and oneself to act worse? One would want to create structures that impose perverse incentives, encourage moral blindness, promote moral confusion, create stress and tight deadlines which encourage employees to cut corners, make a mockery of ethics, push people to conform to others’ bad behavior, and reduce their willpower.

2020 ◽  
pp. 324-345
Author(s):  
Mariya L. Kuleshоva ◽  

The article compares the Slovenian particles še and že mainly with the Russian particles еще and уже. Unlike the Russian particle уже, the Slovenian particle že cannot be combined with the negative form of the verb: instead of it, the adverb več is used in such contexts. The most subtle differences between the Slovenian and Russian languages are found in the combinations of še and že with temporal modifiers, where the so-called “plot time” is characteristic of the Slovenian language. The event is interpreted as localized on the time axis, not from the perspective of the «speaker’s time», which is manifested in the possibility of using že in such contexts as umrl je že v devetnajstem stoletju (he died in the nineteenth century already). Moreover, že is not able to express the meaning ‘no earlier / no later than’, because the particle šele replaces it in this function. The author comes to the conclusion that Slovenian particles are more widely used as modal than their Russian equivalents. The particle še has numerous intensifying functions, correlating with the functions of Russian particles даже, еще и, и. The particle že can be used in the same way as two Russian words уже and уж. In contrast to уж, že does not always express displeasure and can add the meaning of a concession to the statement.


2018 ◽  
Vol 35 (02) ◽  
pp. 221-241
Author(s):  
Daniel M. Weinstock

Abstract:In this essay I argue that adversarial institutional systems, such as multi-party democracy, present a distinctive risk of institutional corruption, one that is particularly difficult to counteract. Institutional corruption often results not from individual malfeasance, but from perverse incentives that make it the case that agents within an institutional framework have rival institutional interests that risk pitting individual advantage against the functioning of the institution in question. Sometimes, these perverse incentives are only contingently related to the central animating logic of an institution. In these cases, immunizing institutions from the risk of corruption is not a theoretically difficult exercise. In other cases, institutions generate perverse or rival incentives in virtue of some central feature of the institution’s design, one that is also responsible for some of the institution’s more positive traits. In multi-party democratic systems, partisanship risks giving rise to too close an identification of the partisan’s interest with that of the party, to the detriment of the democratic system as a whole. But partisanship is also necessary to the functioning of such a system. Creating bulwarks that allow the positive aspects of partisanship to manifest themselves, while offsetting the aspects of partisanship through which individual advantage of democratic agents is linked too closely to party success, is a central task for the theory and practice of the institutional design of democracy.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document