Robert E. Allinson

Lewis Hahn, Editor of Library of Living Philosophers, including Quine, Gadamer, Davidson, Ricoeur, writes: "Professor Allinson’s work [A Metaphysics for the Future] is impressive. I do not remember when in recent years I have read a more exciting systematic study. With a new phenomenology, a distinctive method and unique modes of validation for philosophy, and an extraordinary command of both Eastern and Western philosophy, Professor Allinson develops his own bold, imaginative and challenging system of philosophy". This work is intended to serve not only as an expression of a new idea of a philosophy, but as an apologia for philosophy as a legitimate and independent discipline in its own right. It argues that in the 20th century, truth has not been abandoned, but merely modified. The text proposes a return to truth and suggests that it is only after apprehending the truths of consciousness that the philosopher's mirror may become a kaleidoscope through which reality may be contemplated. First order truth lies in the realm of discovery, and discovery takes place only within the moment of subjective re-enactment. It is through such a phenomenological criterion of validity that this work attempts to firmly ground an epistemology capable of paving the way for further substantive truth discoveries. As part of the philosophic stance advanced herein, however, epistemology and metaphysics are not developed in isolation. After analyzing other metaphysical approaches, the author utilizes the Chinese principle of complementarity to present his own conception of modified Hegelian dialecticism, as an account of systematic coherency and a backdrop to future philosophizing.

Confucius’ ideas on economics are few, but through his ethics one may attain an idea of what kind of economics he would have found acceptable. Confucius’ ethics are based upon the natural goodness of human nature. In his mind, human beings are naturally kind to one another. One does not really need the Christian concept of benevolence for Confucius, because benevolence implies that one is going a step beyond what one would ordinarily do. The meaning of benevolence is to be greater than oneself, greater than the normal. For Confucius, kindness is intrinsic to human nature. His is the idea of natural kindness.

As technology advances, and the life and death consequences of its failure become more and more removed from proximate human action, technology management requires greater degrees of ethical awareness and the management of safety becomes a matter of corporate ethical imperative. The corporate ethical imperative includes ethical mandates to take no action which places the lives of others at risk and to inform persons of dangers to their physical safety of which they may otherwise be unaware when one possesses information relevant to the safety of others such that, with the possession of that knowledge, the others can make decisions relevant to protecting their safety, or if others fail to take such action, to take upon oneself the responsibility of taking such action. The ethical duty of primum non nocere implies the corresponding right of the life risking participant to be informed of the kind and degree of risk to which they are to be exposed and the freedom to refuse to take such risk without prejudice. The corporate ethical imperative is to hold human life precious and to uphold that imperative through selectively non-acting, properly informing and acting. The case of the Challenger disaster is utilised as an illustration of decision making which violated these ethical precepts.

How can a business institution function as an ethical institution within a wider system if the context of the wider system is inherently unethical? If the primary goal of an institution, no matter how ethical it sets out to be, is to function successfully within a market system, how can it reconcile making a profit and keeping its ethical goals intact? While it has been argued that some ethical businesses do exist, e.g., Johnson and Johnson, the argument I would like to put forth is that no matter how ethical a business institution is, or how ethical its goals are, its capacity to act in an ethical manner is restricted by the wider system in which it must operate, the market system. Unless there is a fundamental change in the notion of the market system itself, the capacity for individual businesses to act in an ethical manner will always be restricted. My argument is divided into two parts. The first part is to show the inherent bias towards unethical outcomes that is inherent in the market system. The second part is to suggest how to reorient the general economic framework in order to make ethical institutions more possible. The question then becomes, how to define economic behavior in terms other than competition for profit.

Fallacious anthropomorphic attributions such as 'risky technology' take ethical accountability out of the hands of managers and relegate it to the deterministic or accidental outcomes of complex 'high risk technology'. Equally fallacious mechanistic terms such as 'organisational inertia' are borrowed from physics to apply to human organisations. The responsibility for ethically accountable decision-making is taken out of human hands and either ascribed to the mythological entity "Technology" or to the mythological bureaucratic organisation which functions as if it follows the laws of physics. I argue in contrast that disasters can be prevented by demythologising the belief systems that pervade risk management literature. Risk management must reclaim ethical accountability by replacing notions such as 'risky technology', 'high risk technology', 'risky work' and 'bureaucratic drift' with 'risky assessment', 'risky management', 'risky choice' and 'multiple responsibility'.