Hm.
I think Dave's point was more that philosophy is, by nature, a more
wide-ranging subject than business ethics or legal environment of
business, and can reasonably cover more ground.
Ken
-----Original Message-----
From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Sally Gunz
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 2:23 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: And Business Ethics? Continued
Now that is an interesting question. Philosophers have more freedom than
we do in the classroom? I don't agree -- we are all protected by
academic freedom and we are all governed roughly by our curriculum. Lots
of scope for debates, philiosphical discussions within both classes and
an enormous range of approaches.
Sallky
Dave Schein wrote:
> Yes, I understood that you were attempting to make an analogy. My
> point is that your analogy is not appropriate! Philosophers have a
> great deal more freedom in their classes then we do teaching business
> subjects. That was my point. We are teaching different kinds of
> classes. DDS
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask]
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 1:33 PM
> Subject: Re: Politics and Science - And Business Ethics?
>
> Why would/should we hold philosophers to a lesser standard than you
> suggest we impose upon ourselves. Aren't we all academics? My
> comment was meant as an analogy - not as a proposition that we teach
> about God in business law classes.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Dave Schein
> <javascript:parent.ComposeTo([log in to unmask], '');>
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> <javascript:parent.ComposeTo([log in to unmask], '');>
> *Sent:* Monday, January 08, 2007 1:27 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Politics and Science - And Business Ethics?
>
> Well, first of all, we do not debate the existence of God in my
> business ethics classes. If you are teaching philosophy, which I
> do not think is a subject covered by ALSB's mission, then
> certainly you can debate it. My issue is that this whole package
> of global warming is a political malestrom with insufficient
> credible proof. And for inclusion in business ethics courses, it
> does not meet a meaningful standard. If you want to debate it in a
> philosophy course, then be my guest.
>
> One thing most faculty seem to agree on these days is that
> students do not seem to know how to write research papers. They
> Google a few articles, use poor citation form, and think they are
> done. As faculty, if we do not address issues from a meaningful
> standard, how can we expect the same of our students?
>
> David
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask]
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 12:52 PM
> Subject: Re: Politics and Science
>
> Lordy - what did I start from posting a possible suggestion for a
> class discussion. HOWEVER, I think the response below can't be
> taken too seriously. It's like saying that we can't debate the
> issue of whether there is a God because none of us here can prove
> or disprove it sufficiently for publication review..
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Dave Schein
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Sent:* Monday, January 08, 2007 12:41 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Politics and Science
>
> Don - I revert to an earlier point of mine: When the material
> meets the standards for publication in ALSB or SIM-AOM
> peer-reviewed publications, and is clearly not associated with
> a political agenda, then that is something worth sitting down
> and discussing. And, if we can find some consensus, then we
> might consider adding this to the MBA curriculum. Your
> attachment is exactly the kind of material that we should not
> be imposing on our students. However, we should be helping
> them develop a healthy dose of cynicism about such material.
>
> David (Not sure if I'm I or II in this debate, but my son,
> II, might care!)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask]
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 11:06 AM
> Subject: Re: Delete now if uninterested: Global Warming and
> Union of Concerned Scientists
>
> But, goldurnit, saying that "the politics drives the science
> on both sides of the debate" is a cop-out, a throwing up of
> hands and a "pox on both their houses," as if there were no
> ascertainable truth or probability.
>
> Worse, saying that the UCS folks represent one "slice" of the
> scientific community (on what basis do we know this, by the
> way?) suggests that the scientific community is somehow
> equally divided, or that skeptic have substantial heft and
> credibility? But how many peer-reviewed articles do the
> global warming skeptics sponsored by ExxonMobil really have,
> compared to those whose findings and theories they attack? (Or
> is there a "liberal media scientific journal conspiracy" going
> on?)
>
> Finally, and once again, David's use of the phrase "true
> believers" suggests a kind of fanatacism. If there are "true
> believers" on both sides, we (implicitly) should just go about
> our business, because it's all (as the other David seems to
> say) "bunk."
>
> And, speaking of "arguments from authority," the best example
> of agenda-driven science appears to be our current
> administration,. See, e.g. the attached, which will no doubt
> be viewed as "politically driven" since it was a minority
> report issued in 2003.
>
> I'm outahere. Davids I and II can have the last word.
>
> Cheers from here,
>
> Don
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* David Opderbeck
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Sent:* Monday, January 08, 2007 10:18 AM
> *Subject:* Re: Delete now if uninterested: Global Warming
> and Union of Concerned Scientists
>
> I don't know if this was David Schein's point, but I'll
> say it: when it comes to global warming, the politics
> drives the science, on both sides of the debate. The bios
> for the UCS folks impress me as representing a one-sided
> slice of the scientific community. They surely are smart
> and well-educated, but I'd add that they also appear to be
> true believers in their cause. That isn't necesarily a
> bad thing, but the argument from authority, always a weak
> argument, is particularly weak when the authorities in
> question have a strong agenda.
> David W. Opderbeck
> Assistant Professor of Business Law
> Baruch College, City University of New York
> (646) 312-3602
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Check out the new AOL*
>
<http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/1615326657x4311227241x4298082137/aol?redi
r=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eaol%2Ecom%2Fnewaol>.
> Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free
> access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web,
> free AOL Mail and more.
>
|
