Social Values and Ethics for Communicating the Corporate Identity

The on-going changes--as both opportunities and threats--push companies to look for competitive advantages and differentiation from competitors by making the best use of certain strategic levers; they are mainly represented by intangible resources （as harder to imitate） such as trade marks, brands, intellectual properties, ethics, and social values. Values in particular become more relevant if taking into consideration the company as a set of ＂human beings＂; companies must be more integrated with its reference society and need to communicate with both external and internal audience covering different expectations, needs and cultures. In this sense, the traditional communication may be now defined as ＂integrated communication＂. Accordingly, ethical principles and corporate social responsibility values are fundamental drivers of this integrated communication policies and are more and more reflected into the company＇s mission. The aim of the present paper is to analyze--at both a quality and an empirical level--the effectiveness of ethics and corporate social responsibility values as drivers for integrated communication. A sample of Italian listed food and beverage companies has been considered to establish if and how ethical principles and sharing corporate values have been built and implemented during the last years; the expected results are to demonstrate the link between literature and empirical evidence concerning effectiveness of integrated communication and its impact on company＇s financial results and--in particular--on value creation for shareholders. Eventually, the study results show that there might be huge benefits in using an integrated communication; talking to people in a coherent way and sharing values constantly make firms achieve best results.

Moral Generalism or Particularism？

Moral generalism and particularism are two positions in meta-ethics which have different views regarding the relation between moral thought and principles. By accepting this relationship, generalists emphasize the necessity of principles in decision making process, and claim that the rationality of moral thought depends on the provision of a suitable supply ofmoral principles. In contrast, particularists have rejected, or at least doubted, the existence of moral principles, and believe that the rationality of moral thought depends on recognizing special features of a case and relevant conditions. This is why, unlike generalists, they use case study method rather than syllogism in decision making process and moral judgment. Consequently, to support their view, particularists commonly resort to holism in the theory of reasons, while atomism is in support of generalism. To evaluate these two attitudes, this study surveys some arguments that particularists and generalists proposed to justify their view and criticize the rival＇s one, and also explains their positions concerning the epistemological and metaphysical role of moral principles and reasons. Finally, after evaluating their claims, the importance of both approaches in meta-ethics is stressed.

The False Promise of Kant＇s Humanity Formula

Kant＇s Humanity Formula of the Categorical Imperative is arguably its most widely preferred formulation, having been defended as a moral principle and employed in the evaluation of particular moral problems by a number of leading contemporary ethicists. For them and many other readers of Kant, the idea that we are not to treat persons as mere means to our own ends but are rather to respect their rational agency as intrinsically valuable holds great promise for qualifying as, in Kant＇s words, ＂the supreme principle of morality.＂ In the present paper I argue that the Humanity Formula cannot deliver on this promise. After setting forth three conditions of adequacy for any genuine supreme principle of morality, I argue that the Humanity Formula, on three textually grounded interpretations each of which has been advocated by a prominent Kantian ethicist, does not satisfy these conditions. Whichever of these textually grounded interpretations is taken, the Humanity Formula is open to compelling counterexamples.

The Exploration of relationship among benevolence, wisdom and courage in the context of Putnam＇s value theory

Confucius attaches great importance to the relationship between benevolence, wisdom and courage. Benevolence is the core of Confucius＇s moral principle, which reflects the principle of Confucius values; Wisdom is the recognition of the principle of benevolence and other values; Courage is the inner belief to achieve benevolence. Putnam rejected the dichotomy, of facts and value, he thought value problem also have cognitive meaning. This theory maintenance the relationship between benevolence, wisdom and courage is reasonable. To discuss the relationship between benevolence, wisdom and courage in the context of Putnam＇s value theory will help us to achieve the benevolence thought modernization.

Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems and Responsibility Gaps

This paper argues that delegation of lethal decisions to autonomous weapon systems opens an unacceptable responsibility gap, which cannot be effectively countered unless we enforce a preemptive ban on lethal autonomous weapon systems （LAWS）. Initially, the promises and perils of artificial intelligence are brought forward in pointing out （1） that it remains an open question whether moral decision making, understood as situated ethical judgement, is computationally tractable, and （2） that the kind of artificial intelligence, which would be required to cause ethical reasoning, would imply a system capable of operating as an independent reasoner in novel contexts （sec. 2）. In continuation thereof, issues of responsibility are discussed （sec. 3 and 3.1） and it is claimed that unacceptable responsibility gaps may occur since unpredictability would presumably follow full system autonomy. These circumstances call for a strong precautionary principle, in the form of a preemptive ban.