Studia Universitatis Babeș-Bolyai Philosophia

Eco-Frauds: The Ethics and Impact of Corporate Greenwashing

2024-09-05T06:20:04+00:00

The evolving dynamics of the marketplace, coupled with concerns regarding the finite capacity to meet increasing demands, have led to the emergence of new phenomena and practices. These developments, while heralding significant changes in the perception and selection of products and services, also elicit substantial concerns. Greenwashing is defined as the strategic practice by which corporations create a misleading impression of their environmental initiatives. This paper examines the theoretical foundations and multifaceted nature of greenwashing, identifying key deceptive strategies such as hidden trade-offs, lack of verifiable evidence, vagueness, irrelevance, and false labels. It explores the motivations behind greenwashing, which often stem from the pressure to appear environmentally responsible without incurring the costs associated with genuine sustainability. The analysis underscores the broader implications of greenwashing, including its impact on consumer trust, corporate governance, and environmental policy. Additionally, the paper addresses the emerging issue of "machinewashing," wherein companies make exaggerated claims about the ethical aspects of their AI technologies. Furthermore, the concept of environmental vices is explored, illustrating how greenwashing perpetuates unethical behaviors and undermines authentic sustainability efforts. To address these practices, the study advocates for a comprehensive approach that includes stricter regulations, increased transparency, and greater engagement from civil society. By promoting genuine sustainability and holding corporations accountable, it is possible to restore consumer trust and support authentic environmental initiatives, thereby fostering a more sustainable and ethical commerce.

Qu’est-ce qu’avoir droit ? Considerations philosophiques et portee ethique du droit

2024-09-05T06:26:17+00:00

What does it Mean to be Entitled? Philosophical Considerations and Ethical Scope of Law. It seems justified to affirm, on the basis of the spirit of the first article of the universal declaration of human rights of 1789, that man is, by nature, a being of law, that is- that is to say that he naturally enjoys different rights apart from all racial, political, ethnic, religious considerations, and among others. These include, for example, the rights to life, health, security, expression, leisure, property, freedom of choice, debt, etc. They are called subjective rights. Therefore, the notion of “having rights” appears to be clear, clear and understandable without any ambiguity. It is obvious that man, thanks to his nature, has rights, which are inalienable, and capable of being easily mobilized by him. However, in society, the mobilization of all rights by individuals, regardless of their legitimacy, is not automatic or de facto guaranteed. In practice, it happens that the individual is not able to easily mobilize and enjoy all the different rights. For example, of course, the right to smoke is recognized for all adults, but smoking is not permitted in all public spaces, except those designed for this purpose. In fact, smoking in all public spaces is not a de facto recognized right. The individual therefore does not have the possibility of enjoying it without limit. Hence the following legitimate question: what does “being entitled” mean? In other words, what does it mean that man, by living in society, has rights? What then can be the philosophical considerations of the notion “to have a right”? Can the law have an ethical impact on society? If yes, what is its meaning? To answer these different questions, let it be permitted to affirm that “having any rights” presupposes that individuals are able to mobilize, fully enjoy and be able to claim or even claim these rights without hindrance. However, they can, in reality, only enjoy, claim or claim rights that are effectively recognized by society. It amounts to considering, in fact, that they can only mobilize and really enjoy those defined by society, that is to say objective rights. These then, it seems to us, are the different philosophical considerations of the notion of “having the right”. Here, the task will be to further develop the thesis thus presented from a perspective of the contextual approach.

RÉSUMÉ. Il parait fondé d’affirmer, sur la base de l’esprit de l’article premier de la déclaration universelle des droits de l’homme de 1789, que l’homme est, par nature, un être de droit, c’est-à-dire qu’il jouit naturellement de différents droits en dehors de toutes considérations raciale, politique, ethnique, religieuse, et entre autres. Il s’agit par exemple des droits à la vie, à la santé, à la sécurité, à l’expression, aux loisirs, à la propriété, à la liberté de choix, à la créance, etc. Ils sont dits des droits subjectifs. Dès lors, la notion « avoir droits »[1] paraît être claire, nette et compréhensible sans aucune ambiguïté. Il est évident que l’homme, grâce à sa nature, possède des droits, qui sont inaliénables, et susceptibles d’être mobilisés aisément par celui-ci.

Cependant, en société, la mobilisation de tous les droits par les individus, légitimes qu’ils soient, n’est pas automatique ou de facto garantie. En pratique, il arrive que l’individu ne soit pas en mesure de mobiliser et de jouir aisément de tous les différents droits. Par exemple[2], certes, le droit de fumer est reconnu à tout individu majeur, mais il n’est pas permis de fumer dans tous les espaces publics, sauf ceux aménagés à cet effet. En fait, fumer dans tous les espaces publics n’est pas de facto un droit reconnu. L’individu n’a donc pas la possibilité de jouir sans limite de celui-ci. D’où l’interrogation légitime suivante : qu’est-ce qu’« avoir droit » ? En d’autres termes, que signifie que l’homme, en vivant en société, ait des droits ? Quelle peuvent-être alors les considérations philosophiques de la notion « avoir droit » ? Le droit peut-il avoir une portée éthique sur la société ? Si oui, quel est son sens ? Pour répondre à ces différentes questions, qu’il soit permis d’affirmer qu’« avoir droits » quelconques suppose que les individus soient en mesure de mobiliser, de jouir pleinement et de pouvoir réclamer voire revendiquer ces droits sans entrave. Or, ceux-ci ne peuvent, en réalité, jouir, réclamer ou revendiquer que des droits reconnus, de manière effective, par la société. Il revient à considérer, en fait, qu’ils ne peuvent mobiliser et jouir réellement que ceux définis par la société, c’est-à-dire les droits objectifs. Telles sont alors, nous semble-t-il, les différentes considérations philosophiques de la notion « avoir droit ». Ici, la tâche consistera à développer davantage la thèse ainsi présentée dans une perspective de l’approche contextuelle.

Mots clés : Droit, avoir droit, considérations philosophiques, portée éthique.

[1] Le choix arbitraire de mettre la notion « avoir droit » en guillemets se justifie par le fait que celle-ci constitue la base fondamentale sur laquelle sera bâtie la présente réflexion. Ainsi, sera-t-elle employée lorsque nous aurons recours à elle dans toutes les lignes qui vont suivre.

[2] Cet exemple peut présenter, à notre avis, deux intérêts : l’un est qu’il permet de savoir que la validité et la légitimité d’un droit dépendent de la vision de la société, et l’autre, la reconnaissance d’un droit par la société n’implique pas automatiquement la reconnaissance d’un autre droit ou d’autres droits. Le droit de fumer n’est pas, en fait, celui de fumer dans tous les espaces publics.

Dreams and Time. A Phenomenological Analysis

2024-09-05T06:33:31+00:00

Dreams are a complex phenomenon which the philosophical field knows very little about. However, scientists like Freud or Jung, were able to prove that dream interpretation brings different advantages to our lives. For that reason, the purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that dreams, when understood, can offer us a new life perspective, especially in difficult times. Therefore, with the help of an innovative phenomenological approach introduced by Maria Zambrano, which focuses on the form of the dream and its relation with time perception, rather than the dream content, we are going to observe that people have many types of consciousness, as well as different forms of access to time which relate to multiple perception modes and emotional states. Applying this theory, Maria J. Neves, is able to demonstrate that a phenomenological dream analysis can produce significant changes in peoples’ lives.

Aristotelian Roots of Contemporary Tense Logic

2024-09-05T06:37:46+00:00

Tense logic is a branch of contemporary logic which includes formal devices that allow us to deal with the temporal relations between propositions. The aim of our paper is threefold: 1) to reveal how Aristotelian philosophical ideas about time, truth, possibility and necessity were reinterpreted by the founder of contemporay tense logic Arthur Prior; 2) to discuss what novel solutions to the classical problem of future contingents are available using Priorean invention; 3) to describe how the tools of tense logic have transcended their original theoretical purposes.

The Problem of Being in the Middle Ages: An Essay on Medieval History of Being

2024-09-05T06:43:30+00:00

The main question of this paper is whether, and if yes – how, is it possible to speak about the history of being in the Midde Ages? Heidegger’s writings suggest that indeed it is possible, and said history can be outlined with the help of the concept of production. However, one cannot escape the rightful feeling that there is more to this epoch of being than it is suggested. There is a doubt whether Heidegger himself went far enough in deconstructing the Medieval epoch of being. Thus, the second part of the paper presents an endeavor of describing the problem of being in the Middle Ages, using Jan A. Aertsen’s distinctions and insights.