Tae Kim

Gamification promises to make work more engaging by translating ordinary tasks into systems of points, badges, and leaderboards. This paper offers a conditional normative analysis of its moral significance. Gamified designs reorient attention and motivation through continuous feedback and quantified rewards. I argue that if such designs durably redirect agents from acting on justifying reasons to acting on instrumental incentives, then they diminish the moral worth of work even when performance outcomes improve. This constitutes a distinct form of moral loss: actions remain right in outcome but become defective in moral quality. Extending the analysis, I suggest that the systematic replacement of justification by metrics threatens a second-order harm: the fragmentation of moral understanding within organized labor. Situated within the ethics of incentives, the paper concludes that gamification’s promise should be assessed not only by its capacity to enhance engagement and efficiency, but also by its effects on the conditions of moral agency itself.

This paper asks a simple question: when we use digital platforms, are we more like horses that leave manure behind or like workers whose efforts help create value? Building on the idea of “data as labor,” we suggest that everyday activities, such as scrolling, clicking, and solving reCAPTCHAs, can function as a thin form of labor for data-driven firms. We argue that the key issue is not who owns the data, but whether the terms on which platforms use it are fair. To make this case, we connect debates on household production, unconscionable contracts, and surveillance capitalism to current data practices. We then explore how tools such as portability and erasure rights, data unions, and data strikes might give users modest forms of bargaining power. Our aim is not to offer a final theory, but to invite a more careful discussion of recognition and fairness in the data economy.

The chief purposes of this chapter are to explore the problem of moral uncertainty as it pertains to autonomous vehicles and to outline possible solutions. The problem is the following: How should autonomous vehicles be programmed to act when the person who has the authority to choose the ethics of the autonomous vehicle is under moral uncertainty? Roughly, an agent is morally uncertain when she has access to all (or most) of the relevant non-moral facts, including but not limited to empirical and legal facts, but still remains uncertain about what morality requires of her. We argue that the problem of moral uncertainty in the context of autonomous vehicles is an important problem and then critically engage with two solutions to the problem. We conclude by discussing a solution that we think is more promising—that of the philosopher Andrew Sepielli—and offer some support in its defense.

Gamification promises to make work more engaging by translating ordinary tasks into systems of points, badges, and leaderboards. This paper offers a conditional normative analysis of its moral significance. Gamified designs reorient attention and motivation through continuous feedback and quantified rewards. I argue that if such designs durably redirect agents from acting on justifying reasons to acting on instrumental incentives, then they diminish the moral worth of work even when performance outcomes improve. This constitutes a distinct form of moral loss: actions remain right in outcome but become defective in moral quality. Extending the analysis, I suggest that the systematic replacement of justification by metrics threatens a second-order harm: the fragmentation of moral understanding within organized labor. Situated within the ethics of incentives, the paper concludes that gamification’s promise should be assessed not only by its capacity to enhance engagement and efficiency, but also by its effects on the conditions of moral agency itself.

Increasing demand for electric vehicles (EVs) is changing the ecosystem of the mobility industry as well as its business model. As EVs bring diverse industries to the mobility ecosystem, companies have new opportunities to expand or transform their businesses to meet their carbon reduction goals. In this ecosystem, charging infrastructure has the most important role in expanding EVs on the street, and EV charging is required to be public, fast, and convenient. Jeju island, Korea, sets a goal of being a Carbon-Free Island(CFI) by 2030 and puts efforts on expanding EV charging infrastructure over the island with the private sector. In this study, we explore how a company initiates and collaborates with the government and local entrepreneurs to transform its business while minimizing the risk of investment using the case of GS Caltex, a leading petroleum company in Korea. To understand how the collaboration is structured and functions effectively, we employ case study approach, conducting interviews with key stakeholders and reviewing relevant literature. Examining the early stage of the energy transition of the conglomerate in terms of collaboration and networking with other players, such as the government and SMB (Small and Medium Business), is yet underexplored. We discuss how our findings contribute to organically creating the new mobility ecosystem and increase the sustainability of our community. The challenges in the transformation towards net-zero provide insights that can guide future tools for designing and building new ecosystems.

ABSTRACT:In this article we investigate a philosophical problem for normative business ethics theory suggested by a phenomenon that contemporary psychologists call “bounded ethicality,” which can be identified with the putative fact that well-intentioned people, constrained by psychological limitations, make ethical choices inconsistent with their own ethical beliefs and commitments. When one combines the idea that bounded ethicality is pervasive with the idea that a person morally ought to do something only if she can, it raises a doubt about the practical relevance of the moral principles that business ethics theory prescribes. We call this doubt the Radical Behavioral Challenge. It consists in the idea that people cannot generally conform to the normative ethical principles that business ethics theorists prescribe, and that these principles are therefore practically irrelevant. We answer the Radical Behavioral Challenge and explore normative implications of our answer.

ABSTRACT:We discuss workers’ dignity in hierarchical organizations. First, we explain why a conflict exists between high-ranking individuals’ authority and low-ranking individuals’ dignity. Then, we ask whether there is any justification that reconciles hierarchical authority with the dignity of workers. We advance a communitarian justification for hierarchical authority, drawing upon Confucianism, which provides that workers can justifiably accept hierarchical authority when it enables a certain type of social functioning critical for the good life of workers and other involved parties. The Confucian communitarian perspective shows that promoting workers’ good life or well-being is an important condition for protecting their dignity.

Split liver transplantation (SLT) provides an opportunity to divide a donor liver, offering transplants to two small patients (one or both could be a child) rather than keeping it whole and providing a transplant to a single larger adult patient. In this article, we attempt to address the following question that is identified by the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network and United Network for Organ Sharing: ‘Should a large liver always be split if medically safe?’ This article aims to defend an answer—‘not always’—and clarify under what circumstances SLT is ethically desirable. Our answer will show why a more dynamic approach is needed to the ethics of SLT. First, we discuss a case that does not need a dynamic approach. Then, we explain what is meant by a dynamic approach and why it is needed.

We argue that Confucianism makes a fundamental contribution to understanding why civility is necessary for a morally decent workplace. We begin by reviewing some limits that traditional moral theories face in analyzing issues of civility. We then seek to establish a Confucian alternative. We develop the Confucian idea that even in business, humans may be sacred when they observe rituals culturally determined to express particular ceremonial significance. We conclude that managers and workers should understand that there is a broad range of morally important rituals in organizational life and that managers should preserve and develop the intelligibility and integrity of many of these rituals.

Most management researchers pause at the threshold of objective right and wrong. Their hesitation is understandable. Values imply a “subjective,” personal dimension, one that can invite religious and moral interference in research. The dominant epistemological camps of positivism and subjectivism in management stumble over the notion of moral objectivity. Empirical research can study values in human behavior, but hard-headed scientists should not assume that one value can be objectively better than another. In this article, we invite management researchers to rethink this presumption. We show how accepting at least a limited form of moral objectivity, namely, an epistemic orientation that seeks objective moral reasons, can benefit management research by 1. guiding research practice; 2. using patterns of moral objectivity as clues for formulating empirical hypotheses for psychological explanations; and 3. adding prescriptive power to empirical theories.