Sandel or Stevenson Globalization Has

Sandel or Stevenson Globalization has brought the world closer in communication, economics, politics, and especially business. The Internet and technological improvements have allowed instantaneous communication almost anywhere. The idea of globalism continues to break down cultural barriers, and even psychological and philosophical differences. As this continues it will be essential for organizations to not only understand, but embrace cultural differences and styles. The changing demands of global stakeholders require new ways of approaching our views of human nature, conviviality, and how we look at basic human values across the globe.

One view comes from Michael Sandel, professor of philosophy at Harvard University. In his book, Justice, Sandel argues that humans are by nature set in certain cognitive presumptions that it is impossible to have what John Rawls called a "veil of ignorance." Instead, as in ties with our family, we are "wired" in making presumptions within the social groups to which we belong.

Sandel gives us a stern critique of three ways of thinking about the concept of justice: 1) the utilitarian perspective that tells us justice is whatever action ends up being the greatest good for the greatest number of people; 2) the connection many have between a connection with justice and freedom and implies that only through freedom can a just act occur, and; 3) justice as being inexorably tied to virtue and the pursuit of happiness.

Instead, justice is connected to more complex sets of precepts -- which Sandel finds in Shakespeare, the Simpsons, Jack Benny, Winnie the Pooh, and even former President Bill Clinton's impeachment hearings (Sandel, 2009). We find relevance in all these issues on a regular basis, whether we deal with issues in the corporate world, our daily lives, or the expectations we have of our political and social leaders.

Another view, albeit earlier in the 20th century, comes from Charles Stevenson, professor at the University of Michigan from 1946 to 1977 and suggested in an early essay that emotivism tells us that any ethical theory should explain three things; 1) intelligent disagreement may occur over moral issues; 2) moral terms like 'good' or 'evil' actually encourage that action, and; 3) that the scientific method is not sufficient for verifying any moral issue. Ethical statements express the speaker's feelings, and are actually more than statements of action, but instead statements of proper behavior.

For instance, if someone asks us to close the door, there is an implication that there is something wrong; but the reason behind closing the door may have a myriad of other issues (temperature, privacy, power, etc.) (Stevenson, 1972). Certainly, in a world in which moral ambiguity is commonplace, a framework or reference for moral analysis is relevant and necessary -- particularly as we begin to include concepts from other societies. Clearly, Sandel is more readable for the modern audience.

Despite dealing with some very serious topics, he does so in a manner that is approachable for the lay reader. His greatest gift, though, is making the complex issues of philosophy (e.g. metaphysics, communitarianism, existentialism, etc.) relevant to issues that are current and impact our lives. For example, humans have debated the concept of right motives since before Aristotle. Aristotle's concept of justice and relationship to teleology, though, can be quite complex.

Sandel uses the children's classic Winnie the Pooh to illustrate that it was justice to get the honey. Pooh had no realization that the bees might need or want the honey, or that other creatures might have a claim on it as food, just as he did. Instead, Pooh believes that the honey is there "And the only reason [he] knows of it is so he can eat it." Now clearly, Pooh is not evil, but Sandel helps us understand that it is the perception that also governs the outcome.

The modern world is awash in issues surrounding utilitarianism (the greatest good for the greatest number of an action and its results) and/or deontology (it is the action that sets the moral tone, not the result). This makes Sandel quite relevant to the.