I'd like to learn more about the history of business ethics. It didn't spring Athena like, from the head of some business tycoon somewhere at sometime. It has evolved over the centuries. Ethics always sounded to me like cheap or limited morality but morality as defined by some of the world's religions doesn't seem quite apt and sufficient either. Religious ideas weren't enough to establish modern business ethics. The ancient religious texts I have read don't describe a modern world and have nothing to say about modern ideas about good governance. They have nothing to say about the morality of monarchies or monopolies or even voter participation in the direction of states and national economies, except to assume they were right and ethical most of the time. But I don't believe that anymore and tend to see the old time attitudes as what is wrong with most ancient religious texts when applied to government today. And there is a lot of modern history that screams I'm not alone in that attitude. If I was strict Bible reader, I probably wouldn't vote in local or national elections. I can't recall anything about man's place in nature or his/her responsibility toward nature. When the books were written very little was really known about the natural world or its intricacy. There is an enormous difference between the way religion thinks about life - it tends to believe and expects life to agree with those beliefs_ and the way a scientific way of thinking about reality tries to determine the truth or facts. The scientific approach - hundreds of years old already -tries to find the truth without imposing beliefs on the situation. Some religious beliefs and practices can even be unethical depending on one's religious or social values. What has the higher priority? For example: the attitude toward sexual morality can differ widely depending on one's religious and/or cultural affiliation and background. The attitude toward the role of women in society or of sexual activity and attraction in general can be widely different. The punishments imposed or implied for infractions can differ as well. I speak as a gay person who can still understand right and wrong and ethical behavior but has some deep seated questions about all of the assumptions I was raised with. Now I'm over 70 and still have no iron clad answers and don't really want them, frankly. And iron clad answer may just cause one to sink like a Knight in heavy armor trying to cross a river. . In the modern world, where it is so much easier to understand people from other backgrounds and religious beliefs, it is impossible to ignore the questions that arise from religious philosophies that come into such intimate contact now. And there are also those who have no religious background at all but still have a valuable and significant role in the world. Those internalized senses we have regarding what is right and wrong have no easy answers today. And I'm not really looking for them anymore, either.
One criticism I have is that at 7:52, you use the phrase, “ seriously benefit.” It’s not grammatically wrong. It’s just that the adjective implies bad things here. “Greatly benefit” or “dramatically benefit” are two better choices.
Mam, the explanation is monotonous and boring, the slides are good but could be presented better, the speaker is not explaining the slides, rather just reading them and even the tone is slow which is what makes the video boring
Your presentation sounds like you are practicing your English speaking skills and I can't stand it. There are many other resources out there anyway. Thumbs down! Bye Felicia!
