Institutional self-deception
- Authors: Jacot-Guillarmod, Genevieve Nicole
- Date: 2022-04-07
- Subjects: Self-deception , Business ethics , Social responsibility of business , Responsibility , Collective behavior Moral and ethical aspects , Attribution (Social psychology)
- Language: English
- Type: Academic theses , Doctoral theses , text
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/294548 , vital:57231 , DOI https://doi.org/10.21504/10962/294548
- Description: There are many examples of institutions which have made false claims, or performed certain acts, that have had, to varying degrees, a negative impact on their societies. For example, many corporations go to great lengths to present themselves as being environmentally friendly when in fact they are not. Many corporations have also been forced to recall dangerous products which they at one time or another insisted were safe. Research teams have misled participants with regard to what they can expect from their participation in studies, with grave consequences. Governments throughout the world are mired in corruption, and yet deny that this is so. One possible explanation is that in such situations these institutions are simply lying. However, another possible explanation is that these institutions are self-deceived, or lying to themselves. Recently it has been suggested that self-deception is something that affects certain groups as well as individuals. Given that institutions can wield a great deal of political, social and economic power, if institutions are capable of self-deception there is room for things to go awry on a very large scale with potentially dire consequences. Yet the explanations currently on offer for group-level self-deception appear to amount to instances of individual self-deception (either to certain key individual members of those groups being self-deceived, or to all or most members of a group sharing the same self-deceptive belief), and as such I do not regard the explanations currently on offer as satisfactory. I propose that there are certain situations in which we ought to see institutions themselves as self-deceived or lying to themselves. While the terms ‘self-deception’ and ‘lying to oneself’ are often used interchangeably, I differentiate between the two and argue that both institutional self-deception and an institution lying to itself are institution-level phenomena, and do not rely on any individual within the institution being self-deceived or lying to themselves. That this is so is of relevance to our attributions of accountability, and makes changes to institutional structure and procedures the focus of concern when it comes to preventing an institution succumbing to self-deception or lying to itself. , Thesis (PhD) -- Faculty of Humanities, Philosophy, 2022
- Full Text:
Patents, pills, poverty and pandemic: the ethical issues
- Authors: Brown, Walter
- Date: 2003
- Subjects: Kant, Immanuel, 1724-1804 -- Ethics , AIDS (Disease) -- Treatment -- South Africa -- Moral and ethical aspects , AIDS (Disease) -- Moral and ethical aspects , HIV infections -- South Africa , HIV infections -- Treatment -- South Africa -- Moral and ethical aspects , Social responsibility of business , Pharmaceutical industry -- South Africa -- Moral and ethical aspects
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , MA
- Identifier: vital:2705 , http://hdl.handle.net/10962/d1002835 , Kant, Immanuel, 1724-1804 -- Ethics , AIDS (Disease) -- Treatment -- South Africa -- Moral and ethical aspects , AIDS (Disease) -- Moral and ethical aspects , HIV infections -- South Africa , HIV infections -- Treatment -- South Africa -- Moral and ethical aspects , Social responsibility of business , Pharmaceutical industry -- South Africa -- Moral and ethical aspects
- Description: This thesis argues that corporations qua corporations are moral agents sui generis and hence capable of being held morally responsible. I argue that corporations qua corporations are responsible for the actual and foreseen consequences of their actions. I analyse normative theories and the different proscriptive responsibilities they place on moral agents and hence corporations. I examine Kantianism, utilitarianism and virtue ethics. I argue for a unique normative ethical theory that incorporates reasoning from all three of the normative theories. I argue for a broad range of reasons to factor into deciding whether an act is ethical or not. One of the claims of this thesis is that ethical theories must incorporate an agent’s motivation, intention and character traits as relevant to deciding on whether an action is ethical or not. My thesis argues for an indispensable role for the virtues while at the same time incorporating impartial beneficence and universal rationality from utilitarianism and Kantianism. This position I, following the literature, refer to as moderate virtue theory. Having established corporate qua corporate responsibility I question the pharmaceutical corporation’s practice of patenting life saving medication during a state of pandemic in poor countries. The moderate virtue theory position prioritises contexts and the actual human condition and criticises normative theories that attempt to give universal, abstracted answers to ethical problems. It is for this reason and the current (2003) HIV/AIDS pandemic that I focus on a particular context. I examine the practice of patenting life saving medication within South Africa and argue, applying moderate virtue theory, that this act cannot be justified. I argue that a pharmaceutical corporation that patents life saving medication in South Africa cannot justify that action and thus is morally responsible for that action. I also argue that corporations patenting HIV/AIDS medication in South Africa have unethical motivations and intentions.
- Full Text: