Results for 'Narasimhan Srinivasan'

7 found
Order:
  1. Societal-Level Versus Individual-Level Predictions of Ethical Behavior: A 48-Society Study of Collectivism and Individualism.David A. Ralston, Carolyn P. Egri, Olivier Furrer, Min-Hsun Kuo, Yongjuan Li, Florian Wangenheim, Marina Dabic, Irina Naoumova, Katsuhiko Shimizu, María Teresa Garza Carranza, Ping Ping Fu, Vojko V. Potocan, Andre Pekerti, Tomasz Lenartowicz, Narasimhan Srinivasan, Tania Casado, Ana Maria Rossi, Erna Szabo, Arif Butt, Ian Palmer, Prem Ramburuth, David M. Brock, Jane Terpstra-Tong, Ilya Grison, Emmanuelle Reynaud, Malika Richards, Philip Hallinger, Francisco B. Castro, Jaime Ruiz-Gutiérrez, Laurie Milton, Mahfooz Ansari, Arunas Starkus, Audra Mockaitis, Tevfik Dalgic, Fidel León-Darder, Hung Vu Thanh, Yong-lin Moon, Mario Molteni, Yongqing Fang, Jose Pla-Barber, Ruth Alas, Isabelle Maignan, Jorge C. Jesuino, Chay-Hoon Lee, Joel D. Nicholson, Ho-Beng Chia, Wade Danis, Ajantha S. Dharmasiri & Mark Weber - 2014 - Journal of Business Ethics 122 (2):283–306.
    Is the societal-level of analysis sufficient today to understand the values of those in the global workforce? Or are individual-level analyses more appropriate for assessing the influence of values on ethical behaviors across country workforces? Using multi-level analyses for a 48-society sample, we test the utility of both the societal-level and individual-level dimensions of collectivism and individualism values for predicting ethical behaviors of business professionals. Our values-based behavioral analysis indicates that values at the individual-level make a more significant contribution to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  2. No Platforming.Robert Mark Simpson & Amia Srinivasan - 2018 - In Jennifer Lackey (ed.), Academic Freedom. Oxford, UK: pp. 186-209.
    This paper explains how the practice of ‘no platforming’ can be reconciled with a liberal politics. While opponents say that no platforming flouts ideals of open public discourse, and defenders see it as a justifiable harm-prevention measure, both sides mistakenly treat the debate like a run-of-the-mill free speech conflict, rather than an issue of academic freedom specifically. Content-based restrictions on speech in universities are ubiquitous. And this is no affront to a liberal conception of academic freedom, whose purpose isn’t just (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  3. Radical Externalism.Amia Srinivasan - manuscript
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  4. Anger, Affective Injustice, and Emotion Regulation.Alfred Archer & Georgina Mills - 2019 - Philosophical Topics 47 (2):75-94.
    Victims of oppression are often called to let go of their anger in order to facilitate better discussion to bring about the end of their oppression. According to Amia Srinivasan, this constitutes an affective injustice. In this paper, we use research on emotion regulation to shed light on the nature of affective injustice. By drawing on the literature on emotion regulation, we illustrate specifically what kind of work is put upon people who are experiencing affective injustice and why it (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  5.  28
    Han Feizi’s Genealogical Arguments.Lee Wilson - forthcoming - In Eirik Lang Harris & Henrique Schneider (eds.), Adventures in Chinese Realism: Classic Philosophy Applied to Contemporary Issues. Albany, NY, USA: SUNY Press.
    Han Feizi’s criticisms of Confucian and Mohist political recommendations are often thought to involve materialist or historicist arguments, independently of their epistemological features. Drawing largely on Amia Srinivasan’s recent taxonomy of genealogical arguments, this paper proposes a genealogical reading of passages in “The Five Vermin [五蠹 wudu]” and “Eminence in Learning [顯學 xianxue].” This reveals Han Feizi’s arguments to be more comprehensively appreciated as problematizing Confucian and Mohist political judgments as arising from undermining contingencies, rendering them irrelevant, if not (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  6. Radical Epistemology, Structural Explanations, and Epistemic Weaponry.Richard Pettigrew - forthcoming - Philosophical Studies.
    When is a belief justified? There are three families of arguments we typically use to support different accounts of justification: arguments from our intuitive responses to vignettes that involve the concept; arguments from the theoretical role we would like the concept to play in epistemology; and arguments from the practical, moral, and political uses to which we wish to put the concept. I focus particularly on the third sort, and specifically on arguments of this sort offered by Clayton Littlejohn in (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  7.  50
    Some Problems with the Anti‐Luminosity‐Argument.Wim Vanrie - 2020 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 101 (3):538-559.
    I argue that no successful version of Williamson's anti‐luminosity‐argument has yet been presented, even if Srinivasan's further elaboration and defence is taken into account. There is a version invoking a coarse‐grained safety condition and one invoking a fine‐grained safety condition. A crucial step in the former version implicitly relies on the false premise that sufficient similarity is transitive. I show that some natural attempts to resolve this issue fail. Similar problems arise for the fine‐grained version. Moreover, I argue that (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark