• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Business Ethics >Moral and Amoral Conceptions of Trust, with an Application in Organizational Ethics
【24h】

Moral and Amoral Conceptions of Trust, with an Application in Organizational Ethics

机译：道德的道德观念和道德观念及其在组织伦理学中的应用

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Across the management, social science, and business ethics literatures, and in much of the philosophy literature, trust is characterized as a disposition to act given epistemic states-beliefs and/or expectations about others and about the risks involved. This characterization of trust is best thought of as epistemological because epistemic states distinguish trust from other dispositions. The epistemological characterization of trust is the amoral one referred to in the title of this paper, and we argue that this characterization is conceptually inadequate. We outline and defend an alternative conception of trust as a moral phenomenon: when A trusts B to do something, A invites B to acknowledge and accept an obligation; when B accepts the invitation, B takes on an obligation; in that way trust creates an obligation. We conclude with an application, drawing out the difference between the epistemological conception of trust and our own in the context of Ghoshal et al.'s (Sloan Management Review 40:9-20, 1995, Academy of Management Learning & Education 4:75-91, 2005) critique of transaction cost theories of the firm.
机译：在管理，社会科学和商业道德的许多文献中，以及在许多哲学文献中，信任的特征是根据认知状态，对他人的期望和/或对他人以及所涉及的风险的期望采取行动。最好将信任的这种特征视为认识论的，因为认知状态将信任与其他倾向区分开来。信任的认识论表征是本文标题所指的不道德的表征，我们认为这种表征在概念上是不充分的。我们概述并捍卫了一种作为道德现象的信任的替代概念：当A信任B做某事时，A邀请B承认并接受义务；当乙接受邀请时，乙承担义务；这样，信任创造了义务。我们以一个应用结束，得出了在Ghoshal等人的上下文中信任的认识论概念与我们自己的认识论概念之间的区别（《斯隆管理评论》 40：9-20，1995，管理学习与教育学院4：75）。 -91，（2005年）对公司交易成本理论的批评。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号