The authors discuss the way in which communities of practice contribute to innovation and organisational success but at the same time reminds me of why I tend to reject organisational models which are based on market based thinking — though interestingly the authors end up in a similar place on this, pointing out the limitations of defining knowledge purely as a by-product of transactional information processing. They discuss knowledge as a practice rather than as a possession. Its also something of a blast from the past for me as my masters thesis was based on an early community of practice at London Business School which I helped set up over 15 years ago. At the time the idea of social spaces online was a very new one and individuals were unlikely to be part of more than one of these communities — what strikes me as a read this book and reintroduced myself to some of the literature is the potential of more mainstream social behaviours to accelerate these communities within organisations if they are supported in the right way — and the fact that the boundaries of any community with a digital aspect are much more porous now.
For its publication he brought old manuscripts into form and added some new material. Mill planned from the beginning a separate book publication, which came to light in One must not forget that since his first reading of Bentham in the winter ofthe time to which Mill dates his conversion to utilitarianism, forty years had passed.
Taken this way, Utilitarianism was anything but a philosophical accessory, and instead the programmatic text of a thinker who for decades had understood himself as a utilitarian and who was profoundly familiar with popular objections to the principle of utility in moral theory.
Almost ten years earlier Mill had defended utilitarianism against the intuitionistic philosopher William Whewell Whewell on Moral Philosophy. The priority of the text was to popularize the fundamental thoughts of utilitarianism within influential circles.
This goal explains the composition of the work. After some general introductory comments, the text defends utilitarianism from common criticisms "What Utilitarianism Is".
After this Mill turns to the question concerning moral motivation "Of the Ultimate Sanction of the Principle of Utility". What makes utilitarianism peculiar, according to Mill, is its hedonistic theory of the good CW 10, Utilitarians are, by definition, hedonists.
For this reason, Mill sees no need to differentiate between the utilitarian and the hedonistic aspect of his moral theory.
Today we routinely differentiate between hedonism as a theory of the good and utilitarianism as a consequentialist theory of the right. Utilitarians are, for him, consequentialists who believe that pleasure is the only intrinsic value. Mill counts as one of the great classics of utilitarian thought; but this moral theory deviates from what many contemporary philosophers consider core features of utilitarianism.
This explains why the question whether Mill is a utilitarian is more serious than it may appear on first inspection see Coope One may respond that this problem results from an anachronistic understanding of utilitarianism, and that it disappears if one abstains from imputing modern philosophical concepts on a philosopher of the nineteenth century.
However, this response would oversimplify matters. As mentioned before, Mill maintains that hedonism is the differentia specifica of utilitarianism; if he were not a hedonist, he would be no utilitarian by his own definition. His view of theory of life was monistic: There is one thing, and one thing only, that is intrinsically desirable, namely pleasure.
In contrast to a form of hedonism that conceives pleasure as a homogeneous matter, Mill was convinced that some types of pleasure are more valuable than others in virtue of their inherent qualities.
Many philosophers hold that qualitative hedonism is no consistent position. Hedonism asserts that pleasure is the only intrinsic value. Under this assumption, the critics argue, there can be no evaluative basis for the distinction between higher and lower pleasures. Probably the first ones to raise this common objection were the British idealists F.
Which inherent qualities make one kind of pleasure better than another, according to Mill? These enjoyments make use of highly developed capacities, like judgment and empathy. This seems to be a surprising thing to say for a hedonist. However, Mill thought that we have a solid empirical basis for this view.
According to him, the best obtainable evidence for value claims consists in what all or almost all people judge as valuable across a vast variety of cases and cultures. This partly explains why he put such great emphasis on education. Until the s, the significance of the chapter had been largely overlooked.
It then became one of the bridgeheads of a revisionist interpretation of Mill, which is associated with the work of David Lyons, John Skorupski and others. Mill worked very hard to hammer the fifth chapter into shape and his success has great meaning for him.
In contrast to Kant who grounds his ethical theory on self-imposed rules, so-called maxims, Mill thinks that morality builds on social rules. But what makes social rules moral rules? He maintains that we name a type of action morally wrong if we think that it should be sanctioned either through formal punishment, public disapproval external sanctions or through a bad conscience internal sanctions.
Wrong or inexpedient actions are those that we cannot recommend to a person, like harming oneself.
But in contrast to immoral actions, inexpedient actions are not worthy of being sanctioned. Mill differentiates various spheres of action. The principle of utility governs not only morality, but also prudence and taste CW 8, It is not a moral principle but a meta-principle of practical reason SkorupskiInternational Organizations.
International Organizations (IOs) have become a central part of international relations. As Hurd () writes: “As interdependence increases, the importance of international organizations increases with it.
Structure, socialization and autonomy. The debate over the primacy of structure or of agency relates to an issue at the heart of both classical and contemporary sociological theory: the question of social ontology: "What is the social world made of?""What is a cause of the social world, and what is an effect?" "Do social structures determine an individual's behaviour or does human agency?".
Peer group socialization begins in the earliest years, such as when kids on a playground teach younger children the norms about taking turns, the rules of a game, or how to shoot a basket.
As children grow into teenagers, this process continues. CHAPTER II: THE RELATION OF THE SOCIAL CONTROL OF INTERACTIVE INSTITUTIONS TO THE SOCIAL CONTROL OF TERTIARY AGENTS Most behavior is controlled by the participation of the actors in various interactive institutions which revolve around their work, their home life, and their neighborhoods.
The social control which is provided by the police, a tertiary control agent, is . In short, an agent of socialization assists in the development process by influencing the individual. A person learns socialization through agents, which include: the family, the school, the peer group, and the mass media.
Course Sequence Guide for B.A. Degree in Geography and Environmental Sustainability. This course sequence guide is designed to assist students in completing their UTSA undergraduate Geography and Environmental Sustainability degree requirements.