Corporate Risk Management: Philosophers Frequently

Corporate Risk Management: Philosophers

Philosophers frequently appears to consider the wisdom or appropriateness of actions, relating these to the outcomes of the actions, and the ultimate benefits of these actions to humankind. Wisdom and morality are however problematic issues, as they are not static concepts. Indeed, they change along with social dynamics and the human ideal of what is true, good and moral in terms of society. However, some philosophical statements are sufficiently general that they can be applied to a variety of time periods and human paradigms. These are the ideal in terms of philosophy, as the discipline aims to investigate humanity and its nature.

One such statement is the one by Plato, which states that wise action is directed towards the ideal situation. This can be applied to almost any human situation. Parents for example, aim to be wise in raising their children, aiming for the ideal outcome of these children becoming productive citizens. In politics, the wise politician is seen as one working towards the ideal of benefit to the society he or she serves, and so on. This is equally true today as it was during Plato's time.

I am not however sure that I agree with Aristotle in his statement that right actions avoid undesirable extremes. It appears that this philosopher aims to avoid extremes of any kind. Embracing all extremes, whether desirable or not, is a vital learning experience that brings more wisdom than avoiding extremes.

I feel the same about Epicurus' statement regarding pleasure and pain. While I believe that it is human nature to pursue pleasure rather than pain, I do not believe that this has anything to do with wisdom. In fact, "wise action" often endures pain for the sake of wisdom or for the sake of delayed pleasure or the pleasure of others. Humanity is much more complex than just the pursuit of pleasure. I believe Epicurus' view therefore focuses only on the physical aspect of humanity, rather than considering emotional and spiritual elements.

I believe that Hume's statement regarding conformation to the "common sentiments of mankind" is outdated. With globalization and intercultural development and communication, there are so many diverse "sentiments" that it is difficult to identify what exactly is right, wrong, or indeed common to everybody. I therefore do not believe that this statement can still be regarded as true in today's society.

Kant's statement regarding the universal law again may hold for humanity in general, but only because it is so individual. A rule that I would make the universal law for example would not be agreeable to a person from a different culture or with a different background. While the statement may therefore apply to each individual, it does not hold in terms of the general truth that Kant apparently applies to it.