This paper analyses the arguments for two competing ethical models of business. On the one hand there are theorists like Milton Friedman who claim that the sole social responsibility of business leaders is to maximise stockholder profits. On the other, there are those who argue that a business has ethical responsibilities to many stakeholders: employees, stockholders, retailers, customers, and so on. I argue that a business has ethical responsibility over those functions and purposes over which it has the most autonomous (...) control. The production and selling of products and services for customers is the primary purpose of a business. The generation of profit is a contingent purpose dependent on the exchange between the business and the customer. I define excellent functioning businesses as those that synergise the purposes of stakeholders to provide products and services with ethical outcomes. When ethical considerations and business interests between stakeholders conflict, the responsibility of a business to its customers has primacy over those related to business input stakeholders such as employees, stockholders and suppliers. (shrink)

_Critical essays on Hegel's views concerning the relationship between religion and politics._.

Market structures have come to dominate every area of our society, and market logic—in the form of rational choice theory, the law and economics movement, and the like—has equally dominated our thinking about society. In this thesis, I will examine one critique of this state of affairs: that offered by G.W.F. Hegel. I compare Hegel’s critique of the market to the similar critique of modern communitarians like Charles Taylor and Michael Sandel, and argue that Hegel’s distinctive conception of freedom allows (...) him to capture what is right about the modern communitarian view while avoiding most of the common criticisms. (shrink)

The article considers the Ukrainian translation of the latest edition of Hegel's work “The Phenomenology of Spirit”. The analysis focuses on the conformity of this translation with the generally accepted world requirements and norms that put forward the translation and publication of classical philosophical texts. The historical circumstances of the appearance of “Phänomenologie des Geistes” are briefly considered, as well as the history of its editing and republishing in the 19-20th cent., and it is shown that without this history any (...) translation cannot be considered as acceptable. Manuscript received 01.03.2020. (shrink)