ConceptsNest

  ***Continued from Chapter 01 (Covered previously: What is Situational Ethics, The Meaning & Context of Agape, The Three Views Of Situational Ethics ) Link to Chapter 01: CHAPTER - 01 The Four Working Principles of Situationism Principle 1. Pragmatism The situationalist follows a strategy, which is  pragmatic . “Pragmatism” is a well worked-out philosophical position adopted by the likes of  John Dewey  (1859 – 1952),  Charles Peirce  (1839–1914) and  William James  (1842–1910). Fletcher does not want his theory associated with these views and rejects all the implications of this type of “Pragmatism”. What makes his view pragmatic is very simple. It is just his attraction to moral views, which do not try to work out what to do in the abstract, but rather explores how moral views might play out in each  real life situations . Principle 2: Relativism Even with his rejection of Antinomianism and his acceptance of one supreme principle of morality, Fletcher, surprising

  Situational ethics, or situation ethics, is a teleological and consequential theory of ethics concerned with the outcome of an action as opposed to an action being intrinsically wrong as in deontological theories. The theory was principally developed in the 1960s by the Christian Episcopal priest Joseph Fletcher. He argued that sometimes moral principles could be cast aside in certain situations if love is best being served . He believed that there are no absolute laws other than the law of love, and that all the other laws were secondary. This means that all the other laws may be broken if other courses of action would result in more love. Thus, in the case of situational ethics, the ends can justify the means. Joseph Fletcher (1905–1991), in his time, developed what he called an ethical non-system . His publication was questioned amongst the public because it legitimized the general post-war dissatisfaction with authority . The English term "situation ethics" was taken f

  ***Continued from Chapter 01 (Covered previously: Meaning & Understanding of Cultural Intelligence, Cultural Quotient, Definitions,   Components of Cultural intelligence , Framework for Cultural intelligence ) Link to Chapter 01: https://conceptsnest.blogspot.com/2024/05/cultural-intelligence-demystified.html Cultural Intelligence in Institutions Institutions, too, have cultures, often very distinctive; anyone who joins a new company spends the first few weeks deciphering its cultural code. Within any large institution, there are sparring subcultures as well: The sales force cannot talk to the engineers, and the PR people lose patience with the lawyers. Departments, divisions, professions, geographical regions—each has a constellation of manners, meanings, histories, and values that will confuse the interloper and cause him/ her to stumble. Unless, that is, he or she has a high Cultural Intelligence. Cultural Intelligence Profiles Global leaders who possess a high leve

  IQ, EQ now CQ? As globalization has rendered the business environment more complex, dynamic, and competitive, the ability to function effectively in different cultural contexts, called Cultural Intelligence (CQ), has never been more important for institutions. Originally, the term cultural intelligence and the abbreviation “CQ” (Cultural Quotient) was developed by the research done by Soon Ang and Linn Van Dyne as a researched-based way of measuring and predicting intercultural performance.  The concept is related to that of cross-cultural competence but goes beyond that to look at intercultural capabilities as a form of intelligence that can be measured and developed . Cultural intelligence may be defined as “ a person’s capability to adapt as s/he interacts with others from different cultural regions ”, and has  behavioral, motivational,  and  metacognitive  aspects. Without cultural intelligence, we are susceptible to mirror imaging. The mirror effect can be observed in variou