Many nongovernmental forms of business regulation aim at reducing ethical violations in commerce. We argue that such nongovernmental ethics standards, while often laudable, raise their own ethical challenges. In particular, when such standards place burdens upon vulnerable market participants (often, though not always, SMEs), they do so without the backing of traditional legitimate political authority. We argue that this constitutes a structural analogy to wars of humanitarian intervention. Moreover, we show that, while some harms imposed by such standards are desirable, (...) others are best thought of as a form of collateral damage. We thus look at the well-developed literature on just war theory for inspiration and find that the principles of jus ad bellum and jus in bello contain many insights that can be fruitfully adapted to the case of nongovernmental standard-setting. Consequently, we propose the Ius ad Normam—a set of principles that should guide would-be standard-setters in assessing whether imposing those burdens is ethically justifiable in particular cases. We also discuss how powerful multinational businesses often act simultaneously as standard-takers and standard-setters and explore the normative implications of this dual role. (shrink)

The present article shifts the focus and burden of whistleblowing away from an individual to the collective and argues for the necessary incorporation of whistleblowing into an ethical infrastructure in institutions of higher education. The authors argue that institutions of higher learning should be understood as collective agents bestowed with ethical responsibility which obliges them to act in an ethical manner. The fundamental principle guiding the ethical practice of all higher-learning institutions should be a culture of voice because conscientization – (...) the purpose of education – necessitates dialogue to emerge. However, this culture of voice is not self-evident in institutions of higher learning and transpires in the harmful ways in which some of these institutions react to the disclosure of their problematic practices by whistleblowers. In light of this, the authors propose that one should not expect individuals to assume a whistleblower role; it is the higher-education institution’s ethical responsibility to create an infrastructure which integrates channels for critical engagement with problematic practices and supports a culture of voice. This infrastructure should consist of four fundamental elements: whistleblowing’s enablement, whistleblowers’ protection, the correction of problematic practices, and the recognition of the whistleblower’s action. (shrink)

Treason is one of the most serious legal offences that there are, in most if not all jurisdictions. Laws against treason are rooted in deep-seated moral revulsion about acts which, in the political realm, are paradigmatic examples of breaches of loyalty. Yet, it is not altogether clear what treason consists in: someone’s traitor is often another’s loyalist. In this paper, my aim is twofold: to offer a plausible conceptual account of treason, and to partly rehabilitate traitors. I focus on informational (...) treason, as the act of passing secret intelligence to foreign actors without authorization. I argue that informational treason is sometimes justified, indeed morally mandatory; even when it is morally wrong, its beneficiaries are sometimes justified, indeed obliged, to make use of the intelligence thereby provided. (shrink)