moral limits
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

167
(FIVE YEARS 24)

H-INDEX

11
(FIVE YEARS 1)

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Raciti ◽  
Foluké Abigail Badejo ◽  
Josephine Previte ◽  
Michael Schuetz

Purpose This commentary extends our 2020 11th SERVSIG Panel The moral limits of service markets: Just because we can, should we?, inspired by Michael J. Sandel’s book What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets. In Sandel’s (2012) book, the pursuit of “the good life” is a common motivation for pushing the moral boundaries of markets and “the good life” is dominated by service consumption. Design/methodology/approach Like Sandel (2012), this commentary begins with a provocation regarding the need for moral development in services marketing. Next, we present three real-life case studies about a modern slavery survivor service, aged care services and health-care services as examples of moral limits, failings and tensions. Findings The commentary proposes four guidelines and a research agenda. As service marketers, we must reignite conversations about ethics and morality. Taking charge of our professional moral development, exercising moral reflexivity, promoting an ethics of care and taking a bird’s-eye perspective of moral ecologies are our recommended guidelines. Morality is an essential condition – a sine qua non – for service marketers. Hence, our proposed research agenda focuses first on the service marketer and embeds a moral gaze as a universal professional protocol to engender collective moral elevation. Originality/value This commentary highlights the need for a moral refresh in services marketing and proposes ways to achieve this end.


2021 ◽  
pp. 369-378
Author(s):  
Lainie Friedman ◽  
J. Richard Thistlethwaite, Jr

Given the gap between demand and supply, living donation is not going away any time soon. This chapter explores the book’s initial premise that the field of living donor organ transplantation is ethical, even if some specific applications are not, eg pre-mortem organ procurement of an imminently dying patient. Concerns regarding the appropriate moral limits to living solid organ donation by both eminent transplant physicians (Joseph Murray, Felix Rapaport) and the social scientists (Renée Fox, Judith Swazey) embedded in evaluating the practice are explored. This chapter reiterates the book’s primary position: only if living organ donors are regarded as patients in their own right can the moral limits of living solid organ donation be realized and living donors be given the full respect that they deserve.


2021 ◽  
pp. 336-391
Author(s):  
Martijn W. Hesselink

This chapter addresses the question of whether a society committed in principle to the legal recognition and enforcement of contracts is free, nevertheless—or even required—to withhold recognition and enforceability from certain contracts, by declaring them ‘null’ or ‘void’ under contract law doctrines such as ‘good morals’ or ‘public policy’, because of their unacceptable content, purpose, or consequences. This is the classical question of freedom of contract, which can be rephrased, to a large extent, in contemporary terms of ‘commodification’ and, for the European Union, as the question of the moral limits to the internal market.


Author(s):  
Maurizio Manzin

AbstractThis short essay aims at discussing the opposition between two different views on limits in legal interpretations: I will call them (i) “no-limits option” and (ii) “pro-limits option”. As for (i), it is based on a widely diffused understanding of individual freedom: that of an unceasing breaking of all limits. This idea involves nowadays not only a number of once accepted moral limits, nor the material or social limits suffered by people, but also the limits of conceptual determinations. As for (ii), it is based on the conjecture that limit would be the condition of “no longer, not yet”—as such, a matter of authentic freedom. The “no-limits option” can easily lead, in legal interpretation, to a radical contextualism according to which there would be unlimited meanings for a syntactically and semantically same legal text. The “pro-limits option”, on the contrary, maintains that the existence of limits is reasonable, and that reasonableness is itself a limit to interpretation. In other words, the undetermined space of “no longer, not yet” in which the limits consist of is open to exploration on and beyond through appropriate procedures of reason-giving. According to the “pro-limits option”, a reasonably common core-meaning of a legal text should be sought also when cases of application vary—and that would be precisely the nature of legal interpretation. Arguments in favor of this thesis can be found in Western philosophy from Aristotle to contemporary neurosciences (according to which reasonableness is natural). A remarkable consequence of my discussion on these two options deals with the concept of normativity, given that option (i) conceives normativity only as an expression of will (the one to establish and to infringe limits), whereas option (ii) links normativity to reasonableness.


2021 ◽  
pp. 201-214
Author(s):  
Shashi Motilal ◽  
Keya Maitra ◽  
Prakriti Prajapati

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document