On September 11 2001, thousands of people died in the attacks on the Unitedtates. How could this act of terror be justified? A young man kills hisister to protect his family's honour. How could this be "right"?;These areust two of the questions tackled by Neil Levy in this guide to thehilosophy of moral relativism - the idea that concepts of "rightness" and "rongness" vary from culture to culture and that there is no such thing as anbsolute moral code. Opening with a comprehensive definition to thisontroversial theory, the book examines all the arguments for and againstoral relativism, from its implications for ethics to the role of humaniology and the difficulty of separating cultural values from innateehaviour. The author draws on case studies from sources as diverse as theztecs and the Australian aboriginals to illustrate debates such as: can wever have a shared morality?; can concepts of "rightness" and "wrongness"ver be absolute?; does moral relativism pose a threat to human rights?;oncluding with a proposal for a more modest form of relativism, and

A number of disparate but interconnected forces such as deregulation and globalization, rapid advances in communications technology and the rise in the power of the consumer and civil society have now combined to bring corporate responsibility to prominence in many corporate boardrooms. In this information age, the ramifications of not addressing best practice in environment, workplace, marketplace and community could range from bad press coverage to complete market exclusion. These are perilous times for the social construct of modern capitalism.In today's society successful companies will increasingly be those that recognize that they have responsibilities to a range of stakeholders that go beyond compliance with the law. If in the past the focus was on enhancing shareholder value, now it is on engaging stakeholders for long-term value creation. This does not mean that shareholders are not important, or that profitability is not vital to business success, but that in order to survive and be profitable a company must engage with a range of stakeholders whose views may vary greatly. If in the past corporate social responsibility was simply seen as profitability plus compliance plus philanthropy, now responsible corporate citizenship means companies being more aware of and understanding the societies in which they operate. This means senior executives and managers being able to deal with a wide range of issues including greater accountability, human rights abuses, sustainability strategies, corporate governance codes, workplace ethics, stakeholder consultation and management.The aim and scope of Perspectives on Corporate Citizenship is to help capture and distil these and other emerging trends in terms of content, context and processes, in one concise volume. With contributions from the *crème de la crème* of leading thinkers from around the world, Perspectives on Corporate Citizenship is essential reading for students, scholars and all serious thinkers on one of the most critical issues of our time.

Are there absolute truths that can be gradually approached over time through rational processes? Or are all modes and systems of thought equally valid if viewed from within their own internally consistent frames of reference? Are there universal forms of reasoning and understanding that enable us to distinguish between rational beliefs and those that are demonstrably false, or is everything relative? These central questions are addressed and debated by the distinguished contributors to this lively book. Some of them—Hollis, Lukes, Robin Horton, and Ernest Gellner—discuss new directions in their thinking since their earlier articles appeared in 1970 in the seminal volume Rationality (edited by Bryan Wilson). They are now joined in the debate by Ian Hacking, W. Newton-Smith, Charles Taylor, Jon Elster, Dan Sperber, and, in the jointly authored lead article, by Barry Barnes and David Bloor. Emerging from the debate are a variety of supportable interpretations and conclusions rather than a single, distinct "truth." The contributors represent the complete spectrum of positions between a relativism that challenges the very concept of a single world and the idea that there are ascertainable, objective universals.

Moral relativism is a philosophy that denies moral absolutes. In fact, the issue of moral relativism is very important, for no society of human history has ever existed without rejecting this philosophy. History knows not one example of a successful society that repudiated moral absolutes. Yet most attacks on relativism have been either pragmatic (looking at its social consequences) or exhorting (preaching rather than proving), and philosophers' arguments against it have been specialized, technical, and scholarly. In his typical unique writing style, the author lets an attractive, honest, and funny relativist interview a "Muslim fundamentalist" absolutist so as not to stack the dice personally for absolutism. In an engaging series of personal interviews, every conceivable argument the "sassy Black feminist" reporter Libby gives against absolutism is simply and clearly refuted, and none of the many arguments for moral absolutism is refuted.