Das "anstößige” Wort Heideggers gibt den Anstoß, dem Verhältnis von Wissenschaft und Denken nachzufragen, dabei aber besonders die Frage, was eigentlich Denken heißt, zu stellen, Diese Wird unter 3 Rücksichten behandelt: 1. Denken erschöpft sich nicht im Berechnen, auch nicht im begreifenden Subsumieren von "Fällen” unter Gesetze, sondern ist wesentlich auch verstehendauslegendes "Andenken” an das "Ereignis". 2. Zum entfalteten Denken gehört nicht nur Gegenstandsintention, sondern auch Reflexion auf deren Bedingungen Und Voraussetzungen. 3. Denken ist letztlich Seinsdenken, nicht nur Vorstellen von (...) Seiendem. (shrink)

Abstract:This article addresses the issue of whether and to what extent moral values can be attributed to collective actors. The paper starts from the premise that business ethics as the ethics of an organization is to be distinguished from the virtues of its members. This point is elaborated in both economic- and organization-theoretic terms within the framework of the New Economics of Organization. The result is the development of a concept of governance ethics. The ethics of governance is about the (...) incorporation of moral conditions and requirements in the management, governance, and control structures of a firm. This is the contextual precondition for the long-lasting and beneficial effects of the virtues of individuals within the organizations. (shrink)

In most developmental studies the only error children could make on counterfactual tasks was to answer with the current state of affairs. It was concluded that children who did not show this error are able to reason counterfactually. However, children might have avoided this error by using basic conditional reasoning (Rafetseder, Cristi-Vargas, & Perner, 2010). Basic conditional reasoning takes background assumptions represented as conditionals about how the world works. If an antecedent of one of these conditionals is provided by the (...) task, then a likely conclusion can be inferred based only on background assumptions. A critical feature of counterfactual reasoning is that the selection of these additional assumptions is constrained by actual events to which the counterfactual is taken to be counterfactual. In contrast, in basic conditional reasoning one enriches the given antecedent with any plausible assumptions, unconstrained by actual events. In our tasks basic conditional reasoning leads to different answers from counterfactual reasoning. For instance, a doctor, sitting in the park with the intention of reading a paper, is called to an emergency at the swimming pool. The question, “If there had been no emergency, where would the doctor be?” should counterfactually be answered “in the park”. But by ignoring the doctor's intentions, and just reasoning from premises about the default location of a hospital doctor who has not been called out to an emergency, one might answer: “in the hospital”. Only by 6 years of age did children mostly give correct answers. (shrink)