康德论远程工作:道德辩护。

IF 1 Q4 MANAGEMENT Philosophy of Management Pub Date : 2022-01-01 Epub Date: 2021-11-20 DOI:10.1007/s40926-021-00189-7
Fausto Corvino
{"title":"康德论远程工作:道德辩护。","authors":"Fausto Corvino","doi":"10.1007/s40926-021-00189-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In this article I maintain that when employers could free workers from the space constraint of the office without incurring unbearable economic losses, it is morally wrong not to grant workers the possibility to work remotely, as this violates the humanity formulation of Kant's categorical imperative. The article therefore aims to contribute to the development of Kantian business ethics, taking into account a series of empirical evidence gathered in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic. I firstly discuss the Kantian concept of meaningful work and explain why, due to a prejudice that existed with respect to remote work before the Covid-19 pandemic, the issue of freedom from the office was not given normative relevance. I then introduce a Kantian argument in defence of remote work and proceed to discuss two objections. The first objection is that remote work may well foster productivity, but it creates problems in terms of innovation and training of new staff. The second objection is that remote work hinders rather than fosters meaningful work because it deprives employees of social relations and inhibits workplace identity. I conclude by explaining why neither objection undermines the normative argument that workers should be allowed to work remotely as long as the \"bearable costs\" clause is met.</p>","PeriodicalId":54136,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8605472/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Kant on Remote Working: a Moral Defence.\",\"authors\":\"Fausto Corvino\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40926-021-00189-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In this article I maintain that when employers could free workers from the space constraint of the office without incurring unbearable economic losses, it is morally wrong not to grant workers the possibility to work remotely, as this violates the humanity formulation of Kant's categorical imperative. The article therefore aims to contribute to the development of Kantian business ethics, taking into account a series of empirical evidence gathered in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic. I firstly discuss the Kantian concept of meaningful work and explain why, due to a prejudice that existed with respect to remote work before the Covid-19 pandemic, the issue of freedom from the office was not given normative relevance. I then introduce a Kantian argument in defence of remote work and proceed to discuss two objections. The first objection is that remote work may well foster productivity, but it creates problems in terms of innovation and training of new staff. The second objection is that remote work hinders rather than fosters meaningful work because it deprives employees of social relations and inhibits workplace identity. I conclude by explaining why neither objection undermines the normative argument that workers should be allowed to work remotely as long as the \\\"bearable costs\\\" clause is met.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54136,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophy of Management\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8605472/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philosophy of Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-021-00189-7\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/11/20 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy of Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-021-00189-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/11/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在这篇文章中,我坚持认为,当雇主可以将员工从办公室的空间限制中解放出来而不会招致不可承受的经济损失时,不给予员工远程工作的可能性在道德上是错误的,因为这违反了康德绝对命令的人性表述。因此,本文旨在考虑到新冠肺炎大流行后收集的一系列经验证据,为康德式商业伦理的发展做出贡献。我首先讨论了康德关于有意义工作的概念,并解释了为什么在Covid-19大流行之前,由于存在对远程工作的偏见,办公室自由问题没有被赋予规范性的相关性。然后,我介绍了一个康德的论点来为远程工作辩护,并继续讨论两个反对意见。第一个反对意见是,远程工作可以很好地提高生产力,但它在创新和培训新员工方面产生了问题。第二个反对意见是,远程工作阻碍了而不是促进了有意义的工作,因为它剥夺了员工的社会关系,抑制了工作场所的认同感。最后,我解释了为什么这两种反对意见都没有破坏规范性论点,即只要符合“可承受的成本”条款,就应该允许工人远程工作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Kant on Remote Working: a Moral Defence.

In this article I maintain that when employers could free workers from the space constraint of the office without incurring unbearable economic losses, it is morally wrong not to grant workers the possibility to work remotely, as this violates the humanity formulation of Kant's categorical imperative. The article therefore aims to contribute to the development of Kantian business ethics, taking into account a series of empirical evidence gathered in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic. I firstly discuss the Kantian concept of meaningful work and explain why, due to a prejudice that existed with respect to remote work before the Covid-19 pandemic, the issue of freedom from the office was not given normative relevance. I then introduce a Kantian argument in defence of remote work and proceed to discuss two objections. The first objection is that remote work may well foster productivity, but it creates problems in terms of innovation and training of new staff. The second objection is that remote work hinders rather than fosters meaningful work because it deprives employees of social relations and inhibits workplace identity. I conclude by explaining why neither objection undermines the normative argument that workers should be allowed to work remotely as long as the "bearable costs" clause is met.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
25.00%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: Philosophy of Management addresses all aspects of the philosophical foundations of management in theory and practice, including business ethics, ontology, epistemology, aesthetics and politics.  The application of philosophical disciplines to issues facing managers are increasingly recognized to include organizational purpose, performance measurement, the status of ethics, employee privacy, and limitations on the right to manage. Philosophy of Management is an independent, refereed forum that focuses on these central philosophical issues of management in theory and practice. The journal is open to contributions from all philosophical schools and traditions.  Since 2001 the journal has published three issues per year, each focused on a particular topic. Published contributors include René ten Bos, Ghislain Deslandes, Juan Fontrodona, Michelle Greenwood, Jeremy Moon, Geoff Moore, Duncan Pritchard, and Duane Windsor. This journal follows a double-blind reviewing procedure.
期刊最新文献
How do you find the Crack? A Report on a ‘Philosophical Methods’ Workshop Freedom in Business: Elizabeth Anderson, Adam Smith, and the Effects of Dominance in Business Organizational Resilience through the Philosophical Lens of Aristotelian and Heraclitean Philosophy Technological Evolution and Cooperative Identity: A Genealogical Analysis using Simondon's Cybernetic Process Philosophy “You Can’t Say That”: A Normative Account of Speech Rights and Limits in Organizations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1