Search

The role of bioethicists amidst crises like the COVID-19 pandemic is not well defined. As professionals in the field, they should respond, but how? The observation of the early days of pandemic confinement in Finland showed that moral philosophers with limited experience in bioethics tended to apply their favorite theories to public decisions, with varying results. Medical ethicists were more likely to lend support to the public authorities by soothing or descriptive accounts of the solutions assumed. These are approaches that Tuija Takala has called the firefighting and window dressing models of bioethics. Human rights lawyers drew attention to the flaws of the government's regulative thinking. Critical bioethicists offered analyses of the arguments presented and the moral and political theories that could be used as the basis of good and acceptable decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Governmental reactions to crises like the COVID-19 pandemic can be seen as ethics communication. Governments can contain the disease and thereby mitigate the detrimental public health impact; allow the virus to spread to reach herd immunity; test, track, isolate, and treat; and suppress the disease regionally. An observation of Sweden and Finland showed a difference in feasible ways to communicate the chosen policy to the citizenry. Sweden assumed the herd immunity strategy and backed it up with health utilitarian arguments. This was easy to communicate to the Swedish people, who appreciated the voluntary restrictions approach and trusted their decision makers. Finland chose the contain and mitigate strategy and was towards the end of the observation period apparently hesitating between suppression and the test, track, isolate, and treat approach. Both are difficult to communicate to the general public accurately, truthfully, and acceptably. Apart from health utilitarian argumentation, something like the republican political philosophy or selective truth telling are needed. The application of republicanism to the issue, however, is problematic, and hiding the truth seems to go against the basic tenets of liberal democracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The main purpose of this paper is to put forth the concept of ethics, present ethical theories and, finally, consider some business ethics issues in the context of retailing practices. In the first part of this paper we seek to motivate the research task. The importance of conducting ethical analysis is stressed. In the second part of the paper several ethical theories: utilitarianism, deontology and virtue ethics are presented. This part serves as a basis for research interviews, e.g. it is possible to examine retailers' opinions about their professional virtues, and try to position these opinions in relation with utilitarianism and deontology. In the third part the empirical findings about the retailing business ethics are set forth. This part suggests that there prevails among retailers some kind of confusion about what are ethical issues and what is not ethical in their daily professional practices. To avoid this confusion four main principles were put forth by the Finnish retailers. The principles were: 1. Freedom versus rules; 2. Principles versus moralizing; 3. Boundaries versus transition; 4. Economy and moral versus subjective judgment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]