标记档案: ethics

Ethics In Business and Leadership

[这篇文章是给教授演讲. 苏里亚塞西在世界论坛伦理经营 – 国际领袖周一研讨会, 四月 2, 2012 新加坡. 经授权转载。]

我被要求支付的气候变化背景下的全球能源危机中恢复的可持续性的信任有关业务问题的广谱. 重要的, 我已经要求这样做的 10 反映分钟城邦我们是在效率.

首先,让我的道德和伦理价值之间的区别. 根据我今天早上听说, 似乎有道德和伦理之间的一些混乱. 前者定义了个性和基于对错或好坏的个人信仰. 后者本质上是标准和行为准则, 预期在特定的上下文, 从所述组的各所属的. 道德典型包括社会, 企业, 国民, 专业或其他类似的契约. 逐个, 我们考虑杀在道德上是错误的,但一支军队杀害了成千上万的被认为是合乎道德的,往往是装饰为勇敢的共同利益的行为.

商业企业, today, 由正直个人集体杀害我们用凶猛分享这个星球很大程度上载人, 力度和速度匹配的战争; 并获得奖励创造了前所未有的估值和竞争力至上. 消费消费的缘故, 增长增长的缘故, 利润的盈利和政策决策者的支持是为了维护所有上述的指导都是这些企业的伦理价值.

对地球生态环境的破坏人为过去 60 年超过了人类在其整个历史做了的损害 1950. 身体之间的微妙平衡, 化学和生物过程是维持地球作为一个相互依存的系统已经受到干扰. 地球已经表现出了比前半自然变化的范围之外以及移动中的最起码一万年. 在地球的动态具有非线性反馈突然生态变化, 导致灾难性的后果, 今天是一个现实的可能性. 道德应该是价格确定,而不是价格由市场决定. 在定价自然资本,而忽视随之而来的风险是助长了消费热潮.

重要的, 成长, 消费和带来的好处已经集中在少数特权. 顶端 20% 全球消耗的 80% 其而底部输出的 80% 住在平衡 20%. 底端 20% 生活在极端贫困在消费不足 $1.25 PPP /天或约50美分/天的名义美分的国家,如印度这是家庭对这些全球不幸的三分之一. 由收入贫困只是去, 生活低于这个门槛可怕的人数减少了一些回落 500 亿 - 几乎全部在中国减少因. 然而, 这包括诸如卫生更广泛的多维贫困指数, education, 性别平等, 访问, 权力等. 推动这些贫困人口的比例约 25% 全球人口的. 重要的, 人的全球贫困线以下的人数 $2 每天的消费购买力平价约为固执地保持 2.5 十亿或约 36 % 人性化.

现代能源消耗是人类发展指数完全相关 (HDI) 但依然未能底部 2.5 十亿谁留的能源饥渴. 而 1.5 十亿其中, 包括超过 500 亿来自印度, 有没有用上电, 2.2 billion, 包括一些 850 亿来自印度使用某种形式的生物质作为能源烹调食物的主要或唯一来源 –人类最基本的必需品. 一个更大的数字将被拒绝访问被我们以能源价格, 地球上速度最快的消耗自然资源之一, 在它的真正价值. 造成这种情况的主要原因是经精心待办事项的持续消耗不成比例.

经合组织国家, 与总人口不到印度享受世界上最高的生活水平. 然而,, 经合组织的增量商品能源消费期间 1997-2007 (在金融危机前); 是 3.2 倍印度. 在这段时期, 印度的全球商业能源消费的份额从上升 2.9% 至 3.6% 而OECD的市场份额从下跌 58% 以刚刚超过 50%. 这种下降是单独由于中国的市场份额增长,因为它成为了世界上最大的能源消费国.

能源消耗不成比例远差于数字显示. 在一个全球化的世界, 大企业已经被移动OECD的生产基地显著部分搜索更便宜的自然资本包括环境公地, 这虽然无价, 仍然可以在中国自由和发展中世界.

如果看一下温室气体排放上的消费基础,而不是生产其境内, 然后我 15 排放量同比增 47% 而美国的排放量有所上升 43% 因为 1990. 在欧盟15国进口的嵌入式排放约 33% 其境内的排放. 这转化为大约 3 吨进口嵌入式排放量人均. 嵌入式排放进口对美国是 20% 或约 4 吨/人 - 在 2000, 嵌入式排放的进口在美国和欧盟15国均水平分别只有 3% . 在进口美国和欧盟15国单独嵌入式排放是两次, 1.6 次分别为印度的人均温室气体排放总量.

我们正在通过他们的支持大企业和政策制定者告诉最大的谎言就是资源效率的答案是可持续性. 尽管在资源利用效率的巨大收益, 在当今世界消耗更多的自然资本比以往任何时候,我们都在汽车试点到至少 3.5 摄氏度升温. 如果警监会是正确的, 这将释放灾难性事件和世界的血光之灾在可预见的未来穷.

简单地说, 消费和生产的当前模式, 女士们先生们, 是不可持续的. CSR活动,如开办学校和医院或绿色洗涤板配有高效的灯是根本不够. 也有不足的是,第一个影响再仅仅满足目前的规定,只有在基于一个简单的成本效益分析货币的形式看到价值的商业思维

我们需要一个政策框架,首先限制我们使用化石燃料和其他形式的自然资本,然后逐步减少它在一个从摇篮到摇篮范式以创新推动. 我们的增长模式必须是一个包容一个由几个不可持续的减少和过度的重新分配至底部 50% 这个世界. 别, 我不求通过使贫富使贫民富翁 - 我只是寻求底部的右侧 50% 世界上有被消耗给予生命的尊严 50% 经合组织内的贫困水平. 目前的不公平,从而成为世界第三大经济体,按购买力平价计算 (印度) 在HDI方面处于第134位,拥有世界上最大的注意力不集中, 营养不良的成人和体重不足的孩子是不可持续的.

在保证代际资源公平方面开明的企业领导者不能只定义可持续性还能看到不删除当前的代内不公平,从而提供最小的适应能力底部的不可持续性 2.5 人类同胞在即将发生的突变气候事件的脸十亿.

在闭幕, 我引用圣雄甘地说谁: “世界上有足够的满足大家的需求,但不足以满足即使一个人的贪婪!

我感谢您的时间和精力.

Dualism

After being called one of the 顶 50 philosophy bloggers, I feel almost obliged to write another post on philosophy. This might vex Jat who, while appreciating the post on my first car, was somewhat less than enthusiastic about my deeper thoughts. Also looking askance at my philosophical endeavors would be a badminton buddy of mine who complained that my posts on death scared the bejesus out of him. 但, 我能说什么, I have been listening to a lot of philosophy. I listened to the lectures by Shelly Kagan on just that dreaded topic of death, and by John Searle (再) on the philosophy of mind.

Listening to these lectures filled me with another kind of dread. I realized once again how ignorant I am, and how much there is to know, think and figure out, and how little time is left to do all that. Perhaps this recognition of my ignorance is a sign of growing wisdom, if we can believe Socrates. At least I hope it is.

One thing I had some misconceptions about (or an incomplete understanding of) was this concept of dualism. Growing up in India, I heard a lot about our monistic philosophy called 不二. The word means not-two, and I understood it as the rejection of the Brahman and Maya distinction. 为了用一个例子来说明吧, say you sense something — like you see these words in front of you on your computer screen. Are these words and the computer screen out there really? If I were to somehow generate the neuronal firing patterns that create this sensation in you, you would see these words even if they were not there. This is easy to understand; 毕竟, this is the main thesis of the movie Matrix. So what you see is merely a construct in your brain; it is Maya or part of the Matrix. What is causing the sensory inputs is presumably Brahman. 所以, to me, Advaita meant trusting only the realness of Brahman while rejecting Maya. 现在, after reading a bit more, I’m not sure that was an accurate description at all. Perhaps that is why Ranga criticized me long time ago.

In Western philosophy, there is a different and more obvious kind of dualism. It is the age-old mind-matter distinction. What is mind made of? Most of us think of mind (those who think of it, 就是说) as a computer program running on our brain. 换句话说, mind is software, brain is hardware. They are two different kinds of things. 毕竟, we pay separately for hardware (Dell) and software (Microsoft). Since we think of them as two, ours is an inherently dualistic view. Before the time of computers, Descartes thought of this problem and said there was a mental substance and a physical substance. So this view is called Cartesian Dualism. (顺便说说, Cartesian coordinates in analytic geometry came from Descartes as well — a fact that might enhance our respect for him.) It is a view that has vast ramifications in all branches of philosophy, from metaphysics to theology. It leads to the concepts of spirit and souls, 神, afterlife, reincarnation etc., with their inescapable implications on morality.

There are philosophers who reject this notion of Cartesian dualism. John Searle is one of them. They embrace a view that mind is an emergent property of the brain. An emergent property (more fancily called an epiphenomenon) is something that happens incidentally along with the main phenomenon, but is neither the cause nor the effect of it. An emergent property in physics that we are familiar with is temperature, which is a measure of the average velocity of a bunch of molecules. You cannot define temperature unless you have a statistically significant collection of molecules. Searle uses the wetness of water as his example to illustrate emergence of properties. You cannot have a wet water molecule or a dry one, but when you put a lot of water molecules together you get wetness. 同样, mind emerges from the physical substance of the brain through physical processes. So all the properties that we ascribe to mind are to be explained away as physical interactions. There is only one kind of substance, which is physical. So this monistic philosophy is called physicalism. Physicalism is part of materialism (not to be confused with its current meaning — what we mean by a material girl, 例如).

You know, 该 trouble with philosophy is that there are so many isms that you lose track of what is going on in this wild jungle of jargonism. If I coined the word unrealism to go with my blog and promoted it as a branch of philosophy, or better yet, a Singaporean school of thought, I’m sure I can make it stick. Or perhaps it is already an accepted domain?

All kidding aside, the view that everything on the mental side of life, such as consciousness, thoughts, ideals etc., is a manifestation of physical interactions (I’m restating the definition of physicalism here, as you can see) enjoys certain currency among contemporary philosophers. Both Kagan and Searle readily accept this view, 例如. But this view is in conflict with what the ancient Greek philosophers like Socrates, Plato and Aristotle thought. They all believed in some form of continued existence of a mental substance, be it the soul, spirit or whatever. All major religions have some variant of this dualism embedded in their beliefs. (I think Plato’s dualism is of a different kind — a real, imperfect world where we live on the one hand, and an ideal perfect world of forms on the other where the souls and Gods live. More on that later.) 毕竟, God has to be made up of a spiritual “substance” other than a pure physical substance. Or how could he not be subject to the physical laws that we, mere mortals, can comprehend?

Nothing in philosophy is totally disconnected from one another. A fundamental stance such as dualism or monism that you take in dealing with the questions on consciousness, cognition and mind has ramifications in what kind of life you lead (Ethics), how you define reality (Metaphysics), 如何 you know these things (Epistemology). Through its influence on religions, it may even impact our political power struggles of our troubled times. If you think about it long enough, you can connect the dualist/monist distinction even to aesthetics. 毕竟, Richard Pirsig did just that in his 禅与摩托车维修艺术.

As they say, if the only tool you have is a hammer, all problems begin to look like nails. My tool right now is philosophy, so I see little philosophical nails everywhere.

如何度过你的一生

I think the whole philosophical school of ethics serves but one purpose — to tell use how to live our lives. Most religions do it too, at some level, and define what morality is. These prescriptions and teachings always bothered me a little. Why should I let anybody else decide for me what is good and what is not? 和, by the same token, how can I tell you these things?

Despite such reservations, I decided to write this post on how to live your life — 毕竟, this is my blog, and I can post anything I want. So today, I will talk about how to lead a good life. The first thing to do is to define what “良好” 是. What do we mean when we call something good? We clearly refer to different attributes by the same word when we apply it to different persons or objects, which is why a good girl is very different from a good lay. 一 “良好” refers to morality while the other, to performance in some sense. When applied to something already nebulous such as life, “良好” can mean practically anything. 在这个意义上, defining the word good in the context of life is the same as defining how to lead a good life. Let’s try a few potential definitions of a good life.

Let’s first think of life as a race — a race to amass material wealth because this view enjoys a certain currency in these troubled times that we live in. This view, it must be said, is only a passing fad, no matter how entrenched it looks right now. It was only about fifty years ago that a whole hippie generation rebelled against another entrenched drive for material comforts of the previous generation. In the hazy years that followed, the materialistic view bounced back with a vengeance and took us all hostage. After its culmination in the obscenities of the Madoffs and the Stanfords, and the countless, less harmful parasites of their kind, we are perhaps at the beginning stages of another pendulum swing. This post is perhaps a reflection of this swing.

The trouble with a race-like, competitive or combative view of life is that the victory always seems empty to the victors and bitter to the vanquished. It really is not about winning at all, which is why the Olympian sprinter who busted up his knee halfway through the race hobbled on with his dad’s help (and why it moved those who watched the race). The same reason why we read and quote the Charge of the Light Brigade. It was never about winning. And there is a deep reason behind why a fitting paradigm of life cannot be that a race, which is that life is ultimately an unwinnable race. If the purpose of life is to live a little longer (as evolutionary biology teaches us), we will all fail when we die. With the trials and tribulations of life volleying and thundering all around us, we still ride on, without reasoning why, on to our certain end. Faced with such a complete and inevitable defeat, our life just cannot be about winning.

We might then think that it is some kind of glory that we are or should be after. If a life leads to glory during or after death, it perhaps is (or was) a good life. Glory doesn’t have to be a public, popular glory as that of a politician or a celebrity; it could be a small personal glory, as in the good memories we leave behind in those dear to us.

What will make a life worthy of being remembered? Where does the glory come from? For wherever it is, that is what would make a life a good life. I think the answer lies in the quality with which we do the little things in life. The perfection in big things will then follow. How do you paint a perfect picture? 易, just be perfect first and then paint anything. And how do you live a perfect life? Easy again. Just be perfect in everything, especially the little things, 你做. For life is nothing but the series of little things that you do now, now and now.

Image By Richard Caton Woodville, Jr. – Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons by Melesse using CommonsHelper., Public Domain