immanuel kant identified several general guiding principles for moral behavior.
immanuel kant identified several general guiding principles for moral behavior.
who identified several general guiding principles for moral behavior?
immanuel kant
moral reasoning has been the focus of most study of morality dating all the way back to plato and aristotle. the emotive side of morality has been looked upon with disdain, as subservient to the higher, rational, moral reasoning, with scholars like piaget and kohlberg touting moral reasoning as the key forefront of morality. however, in the last 30–40 years, there has been a rise in a new front of research: moral emotions as the basis for moral behavior. this development began with a focus on empathy and guilt, but has since moved on to encompass new emotional scholarship on emotions such as anger, shame, disgust, awe, and elevation. with the new research, theorists have begun to question whether moral emotions might hold a larger in determining morality, one that might even surpass that of moral reasoning.
moral emotions
an issue raised with the third pillar of the guiding principles is the challenge of providing effective remedies for victims, particularly with judicial remedy to victims of transnational corporations that operate in more than one state. ruggie notes that the guiding principles are more effective at identifying inadequate access to judicial remedy than fixing it. he conveys that where the guiding principles fall short is that they set out to identify obstacles and encourage states to overcome them, but fail to ensure it occurs in practice. the guiding principles failed to recognise the power imbalance in terms of resources and information between victims of corporate abuse and the businesses themselves. another issue relates to the commentary to guiding principle 2 which provides that home states "are permitted" to take measures ensuring access to remedies. this language has been heavily criticised for being timid and unambiguous where victims of abuse by multinational corporations routinely face insurmountable obstacles to remedy in the host state and have no other place to turn for help. here the guiding principles have failed to specifically provide clear guidance on how to navigate the procedural and substantive barriers to home state remedies and failed to elaborate on 'governance gaps' to assist home states to implement mechanisms ensuring their corporations do not violate human rights abroad. additionally, commentators have also raised concerns regarding the over-emphasis on non-judicial mechanisms and voluntary mechanisms which don not guarantee victims sufficient protection against business-related human rights abuses. what is suggested is that the guiding principles should have established comprehensive remedies that legally binding and consistent with human rights obligations of states and businesses both in the host state and home state. effective local capacity is the preferred option to guarantee general access to civil judicial remedies in the long run.
united nations guiding principles on business and human rights