Journals / Sakarya Üniversitesi İşletme Enstitüsü Dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 2

Energy ethics: a decision making perspective

Enerji etiği: karar alma perspektifi

Pages
209–213
Publication Date
2021-12-31
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The fairness of decisions is ascertained through a careful focus on how they are publicly communicated.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Energy is one of the critical issues of contemporary industrial, economic, political, and cultural affairs.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The use of energy resources and their transfers is strictly shaped by developing the growth strategies of both the public and private sectors.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The fairness of decisions is ascertained through a careful focus on how they are publicly communicated.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Enerji · Etik · Karar-Alma

Abstract

Energy is one of the critical issues of contemporary industrial, economic, political, and cultural affairs. The use of energy resources and their transfers is strictly shaped by developing the growth strategies of both the public and private sectors. However, the ethical background, which shapes our intimate relations with this universe and its things, is not adequately considered. Most literature on energy research addresses neither how the moral grounds of energy decisions work nor the energy decision-making processes giving rise to ethical problems. For this reason, this research aims to analyze and understand the relationship between deontological and utilitarian theories of ethics and their applications in the decision-making processes of the energy field in a methodological way in which a developed method of ethical decision-making process correspondences to the debatable issues of the energy field. Our focus is beyond ecological sustainability, concentrating on human beings’ social/political existence and the effects of decisions with respect to deontological and utilitarian ethics in energy debates. The fairness of decisions is ascertained through a careful focus on how they are publicly communicated.

Özet

Enerji; günümüz endüstriyel, ekonomik, politik ve kültürel ilişkilerinin en önemli konularından biridir. Enerji kaynaklarının kullanımı ve bunların transferleri, hem kamu hem de özel sektörün büyüme stratejilerinin gelişmesiyle sıkı sıkıya bağlıdır. Ancak, yaşadığımız evrenle ve içindekilerle yakın ilişkilerimizi şekillendiren etik arka plan, sektör pratiklerinde yeterince göz önünde bulundurulmamaktadır. Mevcut literatür, enerji meselelerinin etik arka planlarının nasıl değerlendirilmesi gerektiğine ve dahası, enerji kararlarının etik sorunlar ortaya çıkardığı karar alma süreçlerini yeterince ele almamaktadır. Bu sebeple, bu araştırma; etik karar alma süreçlerinin, metodolojik bir izlek takip edilerek, deontolojik ve faydacı etik kuramlar ile bunların enerji alanındaki uygulamalarını analiz etmeye ve anlamaya çalışmaktadır. Çalışma kapsamında, ekolojik bir sürdürülebilirlik tartışmasının ötesinde, insanın sosyal/politik varlığına ve enerji alanındaki karar alma süreçlerinin deontolojik ve faydacı etik kapsamında ne şekilde ele alınabileceğine odaklanılmıştır. Kararların adaleti, kamuya nasıl iletildiğine odaklanılarak belirlenir.

🔖

Cite This Article

AŞÇIGİL, S., ATASEVER, M. B., SOYTAŞ, U. (2021). Energy ethics: a decision making perspective. Sakarya Üniversitesi İşletme Enstitüsü Dergisi, Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 2, 209–213. https://ajindex.com/articles/798991

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Aşcıgil, S. (2001). Ethical Decision-making: Moral Reasoning of Managers. in Current Topics in Management. Eds.: Rahim, A., Golembiewski, R.T. & Mackenzie, K.D. Elsevier Science Ltd., 197-217.
  2. Bowring, J. (Ed.) (1789). Introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. in The Works of Jeremy Bentham. Edinburg: Willliam Tait, 1838-1843.
  3. Brennan, A. & Yeuk-Sze, L. (Winter 2016 Edition). Environmental ethics. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Ed.: Zalta, Edward N. Retrieved from, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/ethics-environmental/
  4. Karaveli, A.B., Soytas, U., & Akinoglu B.G. (2015). Comparison of large-scale solar PV (photovoltaic) and nuclear power plant investments in an emerging market. Energy, 84, 656-665.
  5. Callicott, J. B. (1984). Non-anthropocentric value theory and environmental ethics. American Philosophical Quarterly, 21(4), 299-309.
  6. Costanza, R., Kubiszewski, I., Giovannini, E., Lovins, H., McGlade, J., Pickett, K. E., Ragnarsdóttir, K. V., Roberts, D., De Vogli, R. & Wilkinson, R. (2014). Time to leave GDP behind. Nature, 505, 283-285.
  7. Ediger, V. S., Kirkil, G., Celebi, E., Ucal, M. & Kentmen-Cin, C. (2018).Turkish public preferences for energy. Energy Policy, 120, 492-502.
  8. Fieser, J. (n.d.). Ethics. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Retrieved from, https://www.iep.utm.edu/ethics/
  9. Hare, R. (1981). The philosophical basis of psychiatric ethics. Psychiatric Ethics, 31-45. Editors: Bloch, S & Chodoff, P. Imster, E. (2015, May 6). Atmospheric carbon dioxide hits record high. EarthSky. Retrieved from, http://earthsky.org/earth/global-carbon-dioxide-reaches-new-monthly-level
  10. Jackson, T. (2009). Prosperity without growth: economics for a finite planet. London: Earthscan. Jenkins, K., McCauley, D., Heffron R. J. & Stephan, H. (2016). Energy justice: a conceptual review. Energy Research and Social Science, 11, 74-87. Kânoğlu, D. & Soytas U. (2018). The Impact of Information Provision on the Social Acceptance of Shale Gas Development: A Review-Based Inclusive Model. Frontiers in Energy Research, 6, 1-13.
  11. Kat, B., Paltsev, S. & Yuan, M. (2018). Turkish energy sector development and the Paris Agreement goals: A CGE model assessment. Energy Policy, 122, 84-96.
  12. Kitchener, K. S. (1984). Intuition, critical evaluation, and ethical principles: The foundation for ethical decisions in counselling psychology. Counseling Psychologist, 12, 43–55.
  13. Kitchener, K. S. (2000). Foundations of ethical practice, research, and teaching in psyc