** DRAFT ** do not cite or quote without permission from author

A preliminary Investigation into Emergence as Ethics

Steven E. Wallis, Ph.D.

Independent Consultant

Swallis@sbcglobal.net

ABSTRACT

A long-standing difficulty in the study of ethics is the fact that there is no single ethical
imperative that may be understood as an “ultimate ethic” – something that is understood
and accepted by all. In this paper, the complexity theory concept of emergence is used to
suggest a candidate for the position of ultimate ethic. In developing such an ethic, we
may draw many conclusions that fit our long-held beliefs. There are also conclusions that
challenge those same beliefs.

1
INTRODUCTION

There are many forms of ethics, and the study of ethics has been around for a long time.
However, ethical issues are emerging faster than our ability to develop new frameworks
to understand or address them. We are tackling 21st century problems with 0th century
tools. Such a situation calls for new thinking. This paper is an exploration into a new way
of looking at ethics – a way of combining and re-integrating the disparate forms of ethics
into a universal ethic informed by recent insights in complexity theory.

The study of ethics has been a topic of concern since before the inception of the social
sciences. A few examples include Weber’s (1958: 36) discussion of the appropriateness
of the Protestant church’s control over the lives of its members, Durkheim’s (1966: 38)
explanation of how, “the individual is dominated by a moral reality greater than himself:
namely a collective reality.” Or, more generally, how social control may be achieved
through laws, rules, and the conscience of the individual (Landis, 1989: 405).

Briefly, the study of ethics was seen by Aristotle as the idea of individual virtues
(described in his Nichonemean Ethics). More recently, is J. S. Mill’s idea that ethics
might be understood as the greatest good for the people within a society, and Kant’s idea
of ethics might be summed up as a duty that is imposed on the individual by society.

From the perspective of human development, (Kholberg, 1984) identified six stages of
moral development. Stage six represents a “universal ethical orientation.” The individual
at this stage takes everyone into account when making a decision. This paper, however, is
not so much about how we develop, as it is about that we develop.

Within the study of ethics is the division between moral relativism and moral absolutism.
Lee & Sirgy define relativism as:

“Moral relativism is the belief that all moral standards are relative to the society
and culture in which they occur (Schlenker and Forsyth, 1977). That is, moral
relativism suggests that moral rules cannot be derived from universal principles,
but exist as a function of time, place, and culture (Tretise et al., 1994). Thus, no
single set of rules or laws can be formulated to determine what is right and what is
wrong for all people (Tretise et al., 1994).” (Lee & Sirgy, 1999: 76)

And, absolutism (which he framed as idealism) as:

“Moral idealism refers to the degree to which a person focuses on the inherent
rightness or wrongness of an action regardless of the consequences. In making
moral judgments, moral idealists use idealistic rather than practical criteria.”
(Ibid.)

2
While this investigation into an ultimate ethic tends toward moral idealism, in this paper,
I will link the two.

Certainly, the issue of ethics is alive and well today. Just to touch on a few examples of
the ongoing conversation, Garfield (1995) links ethics with corporate social
responsibility, corporate citizenship, and the bottom line. Between corporations and
academia, the world is such a complex place that Foundations seem unable to clearly
articulate the values that shape their work and decision-making processes (Rosenfield,
Sprague, & McKay, 2004). Investigating ethics in the realm of academia, Rezaee,
Elmore, & Szendi (Rezaee, Elmore, & Szendi, 2001: 179) discuss the importance of
codes of conduct in academic departments and note that such codes can help, “relieve
ethical dilemmas. Playing the rear-guard action, the university of California system
required all 230,000 employees to attend a short course on ethics because of a scandal
(Schevitz, 2007).

From academia to the classroom – and back again to the corporate world, Ghoshal’s
(2005: 76) concern that bad management theories have resulted in corporate scandal. He
suggests, “that by propagating ideologically inspired amoral theories, business schools
have actively freed their students from any sense of moral responsibility.” Such theories
have led to an “us versus them” mindset where managers are controlling their employees
and competing against regulators, competitors, suppliers and even their own customers.

In response to these concerns, a few examples may be noted. For example, the formation
of a new chair of business ethics at the university of Calgary (Harris, 2005). Kashyap,
Mir, Iyer (2006: 367) in their discussion of a responsible pedagogy might be boiled down
to the idea that professors need to tell students that social responsibility is important.

Recent explorations into the realm of ethics include intriguing ideas. For example, (Stahl,
2004) links rights and obligations to morals. Further, he claims that individuals lack the
capacity to deal successfully with some ethical challenges, and so suggests the need to
understand collective responsibility.

In a more complex approach, McDevitt, Giapponi, Tromley(McDevitt, Giapponi, &

Tromley, 2007: 224) propose a model for ethical decision making. Unfortunately, the
model assumes that each person knows in advance what is ethical. So, it is not much help
in reconciling individuals or communities that possess differing ethics.

In the field of organization development, many techniques exist for conflict resolution,
developing shared consensus and such (French & Cecil H. Bell, 1995). Usefully, these
methods seek a middle ground (compromise) or mutual goals (collaboration). In a sense,
these methods strive to create a community in the identification of shared goals. They do
not necessarily recognize the existence of an overarching ethic – except, perhaps, the
willingness to engage in dialog for mutual benefit (an ethic that is evident in all
societies).

3
In contrast to the techniques of organization development, a commonly understood
ultimate ethic would provide a benchmark against which any ethical decision might be
evaluated. Importantly, an ultimate ethic would provide a framework for dialog, a
common reference point that various parties might call into the conversation to test their
own assumptions, or the assumptions and claims of others.

Each society (indeed, each individual) has its own set of ethics. There seems to be no
ultimate ethic. Even such concepts as “thou shall not kill” break down with astonishing
ease and are (in practice) reframed as, “thou shall not kill except those targets designated
by thy community or your own personal desire.” In short, the dominant discourse in
ethics is to obey the law (Cameron, 2006: 318). Or, from another perspective, it becomes
a question of power – who has the ability to enforce what ethics. Rather than avoid the
delicate question of force, this article will seek to integrate those views.

Questions of ethics are questions of good and evil and moral duty (de Jager, 2002). They
also lead us to impose judgment on others. Such a situation creates a paradox. If, for
example, we assert that none should impose their will on another, the ethical practice of
following such a law requires that members of the community impose their will upon
those who are not in compliance.

Although there are many individuals and communities seeking insights and solutions to
issues of ethics, we might think of these efforts as atomistic coping mechanisms – we are
addressing the issue piecemeal. There does not seem to be a clear framework within
which the question of ethics might be addressed.

Ethical issues abound, and we are faced with increasingly difficult situations and the
apparent need to decide what is “right.” It may be said that the world of science has
seceded the field of ethics to religion, the public discourse, and the fear of force. Thus, as
our society debates complex decisions of the 21st century, we are forced to rely on the
writers of the 0th century. We are trying to repair the Space Shuttle of our society by using
tools made of chipped stone. Samuelson, (2006: 357) notes calls for new thinking in the
field of ethics. This paper is a response to that call. I believe that developments in the
field of complexity theory suggest an alternative.

Confirming what we noted above, De Jager (2002: 82) states that, “The community to
which we belong, then decides the ultimate ethics.” In this, his statement points the way
toward one possible ultimate ethic. All we need to do is determine the community to
which we all belong, and look for the ethic that is in place. From an Aristotelian
perspective, (Cameron, 2006: 321) suggests that we need a “fixed point” of virtuousness
– a universal aspiration. Locke (2006: 327-328) claims that the search for an ultimate
standard in ethics has stumped moral philosophers through the centuries. In seeking a
“way out of the morass” he draws heavily on Rand to suggest that what supports life is
good, and that which works against life should be considered evil. Like other moral
codes, however, his is laden with exceptions and conditional counter claims. What might
have been a concise ultimate ethic turns into another collection of claims and conditional
exceptions.

4
Where the injunction against killing can be (and is frequently) bypassed, the law of
gravity has not (to date) found any exceptions. Even those lucky few in space who are
said to experience “weightlessness” are, in fact, still subject to the same laws. Those laws
are simply (and according to the law) ameliorated by the square of the distance from their
source. Typically, we don’t feel the need to explain such laws in the context of human
and organizational systems. The effect of gravity is so constant that we feel that we can
shift our attention to more pressing matters – the social issues of the day. Yet, it should
be noted, that the law of gravity is one that we cannot break. Unlike laws made and
enforced by humans. The question becomes, is there a law of the universe that is both
unbreakable (as in the law of gravity), and useful for guiding a complex social system. I
found a useful answer in the study of complexity theory.

The ancient Greeks described ethics as a custom or habit (Wikipedia, 2007). In a sense,
we might ask what is the “habit” of the universe. The answer would be in those inviolate
physical laws (or, at least, our best understanding of them). The goal of this article is to
assert that the process of emergence is a kind of ethic – a universal ethic in the largest
sense. In a sense, we are looking beyond human interaction and seeking to understand
what our human existence may have in common with other aspects of the universe. The
study of complexity theory offers a new perspective for this investigation.

5
COMPLEXITY

Drawing on West’s The Importance of Being Non-Linear, Lichtenstein (2000: 527)

describes four assumptions underlying non-linear dynamic systems,

1. Change is a constant.
2. Emergent systems are not reducible to their parts (one cannot understand an
organization by analyzing each department in isolation).
3. Mutual dependence / interdependence (each system element depends on the others for
identity and function).
4. Complex systems behave in non-proportional ways; so small inputs might create
large results.

Similarly, Dent and Holt (2001: 93-104) recognize five assumptions of complexity theory
– that systems are:.

1. Nonlinear: Small changes can lead to large results.

2. Holistic: The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
3. Interdependence (Mutual Causal): For example, planning, doing, and learning, are not
separable functions. Leaders should “think in circles.”
4. Perspectival: Each person creates their own version of reality.
5. Self-organizing: Systems will self-organize when they are far from equilibrium.

In these assumptions (explicitly and implicitly) is the idea of emergence. Although each
of the above aspects may have implications for the study of ethics, this paper will focus
on the idea of emergence – where emergence is understood to have occurred whenever
something “comes from nothing” or as a “surprise.”

Axelrod & Cohen (2000: 15) describe emergent properties as those, that the “…separate
parts do not have.” For example, individual neurons do not have a consciousness, but the
human brain does. That consciousness is an emergent property of the interaction of the
neurons. Similarly, Daneke (1999: 224) defines emergence as, “The process by which
‘behaviors’ and ‘properties’ arise within a given system. These entities are novel products
of the interaction of the parts, and thus cannot be inductively derived from the parts
alone.” If we understand emergence to be a process, or a representation of behaviors,
properties, products, or combinations of parts, then we might understand emergence to be
literally everywhere.

Durkheim (1933: 397) asserted that a division of labor (where each year find the creation
of more job descriptions) creates morality. On a functional level, he explains this as
occurring because the fragmentation represented by the division of labor creates a mutual
dependency. An individual with an understanding of complexity will likely appreciate
this process as a process of “Emergence.”

6
Similarly, ideas (even silly ones) emerge unexpectedly from a brainstorming process (e.g.
Kaner, 1996: 99-101) and social systems emerge from interactions of individuals. On
another scale, as Prigogine famously pointed out, clumps of chemicals emerge from
mixtures.

Although the events noted above are occurring at differing levels of scale, we may use a
fractal perspective to understand that something similar is occurring – whether it is the
formation of a clump of chemicals or an organization of humans. Drawing parallels
between those observations may provide us with useful insights. As we have identified
the process of emergence occurring at a human scale (where organizations emerge from
the interaction of individuals), that same observation may be applied to the physical
universe. For example, we may understand that the interaction of energy has resulted in
the emergence of matter. That matter has engendered the emergence of simple plants.
Those simple plants, in time, evolved into complex plants, animals, and humans. If we
are able to identify the time-scale of those evolutionary processes, we may gain a new
perspective into the life span of the universe, based on our backtracking of the process of
emergence.

7
EVOLUTION & ETHICS

The idea of ethics applied to evolution was investigated by Corning (2002). He noted that
Spencer in his “Principles of Sociology” suggested that new “elements” (including
people, ideas, and tools) were forms of change that, in turn, caused the creation of more
change. This is an important observation – and I know of no credible claim to the
contrary. While the appearance of a new element might be seen as an example of
emergence, it is important to note that each occurrence of emergence leads to the
opportunity for still greater emergence. For example, if a new invention might be seen as
an occurrence of emergence, the invention of the word processor has enabled inventors to
more easily submit their inventions to the patent office – and so increased the rate of
emergence of new patents. In short, the universe appears to be a huge emergence-
machine, where all emergence leads to still more emergence. For a broad example, the
unexpected emergence of humanity has led to more unexpected change and emergence
within the animal kingdom from which man emerged.

Corning also suggested a foundation for an evolutionary ethics including the idea that
“zero-sum” ideas of ethics have failed. In short, the universe, as a whole, is not a zero-
sum game. Prigogine’s work showed that entropy is not the dominant force it was once
believed to be. Corning also notes that moral actions usually require costs, but there are
benefits. This idea is in parallel with the idea from the field of economics that every
action has costs and benefits, and that that humans strive to maximize their
benefits(Hyman, 1994: 20).

While, as Corning noted, there is a temptation to view ethics in terms of the greatest
happiness for the greatest number of people, another view would be to forget happiness
and focus on evolutionary ethics – the goals of survival and reproduction. While the idea
of simple survival may seem harsh, that concept can be easily extended. Certainly, the
longer we live the greater opportunity we have for happiness. And, the more reproduction
occurs, the greater number of people there will be to experience that happiness.

Corning also asks about exploring the difference between humans and animals as “moral
philosophers” in that they make ethical decisions based on their capacity and
circumstances. Indeed, if every action by humans or animals engenders emergence, it
again suggests that there is a fundamental ethic to the universe – and that ethic is
emergence. That argument might then be extended to suggest that all interactions on
every scale (from energy to matter, through plants, and animals, memes and more) result
in emergence. Therefore, all actions might be understood (in some sense) as ethical.

Of course, if all actions are ethical, it begs the question what is the use of the term? The
answer lies in a shift of thinking from “atomistic” to “scalar” (Wallis, 2006). Atomistic
thinking might be characterized as “binary” in that it leads to yes/no conclusions. For
example, one might ask “Is the organization profitable?” and anticipate a yes/no answer.
While the answer may be simple and useful, a CEO might prefer a question (and answer)

8
of greater complexity. For example, one might ask, “How profitable is the organization?”
The answer to the second question will provide much more useful information.

Applying scalar thinking to ethics, the question becomes not, “Is the action ethical?
Rather it becomes, “How ethical is the action?” Such a question immediately calls into
question the possibility of alternative actions, and encourages dialog around the potential
outcomes of those actions. With atomistic thinking, the answer is a yes or a no, which
does not engender as much conversation; and, indeed, may lead to polarization and
conflict.

9
CONVERSATIONS, CONCERNS

All the above examples (and there are many more) suggest that there is an ultimate ethic
to the universe. Based on complexity theory, we may understand that ethic as the process
as emergence. An ethic of emergence may be seen as suggesting certain behaviors for
humans and challenging others.

While some may suggest that forms of competition are not ethical, that we should always
cooperate, Corning (2002) notes that “Competition and cooperation are the ‘warp and
woof’ of human societies.” Such an idea may, at first glance, seem more suited to the
jungle than to the ethical challenges of our daily lives. However, from an emergence
perspective, it should be noted that evolution is a form of emergence – and that evolution
certainly requires both competition and collaboration at all levels. After all, humanity
could not have reached its present state without exploiting the animal kingdom. The
animal kingdom could not survive without exploiting the plant kingdom, and plants could
not survive without exploiting soil and sunlight.

The above paragraph again suggests a fractal perspective, drawing parallels between the
actions of humans, animals, plants, and even soil. Although we generally differentiate
between human and non-human actors saying that humans have free will, choice, moral
differentiation, and such. We conclude (with some pride) that we humans make
“responsible” decisions that are impossible for plants and animals. Yet, it should be
noted, that plants and animals (just as humans do) seem to act in ways that maximize
their benefits. It may be that the largest difference between humans and plants is our high
level of complexity that allows us the opportunity to create more emergence in the
universe.

This, again, suggests that human behavior that is more ethical will be that behavior which
engenders more emergence.

10
FROM ANSWERS, TO MORE CHALLENGING QUESTIONS

The perspective of an emergence ethic suggests an activist stance. Certainly, as

individuals or societies, we may accomplish more by doing something than we can
accomplish by doing nothing. Doing is a form of action and also a form of interaction
with other individuals and the world. The creation and use of those linkages by humans
on a voluntary basis is what causes the emergence of new social structures – a clearly
ethical act from an emergence perspective.

As the creation of emergence is enhanced by connections (Axelrod et al., 2000: 62), we

might consider some of the connections we might create to engender complexity and
emergence. For example, improving one’s education is certainly a way to connect with
more knowledge. Combining that knowledge into theory may also be seen as a form of
increasing connections, as might the application of that theory to real-world situations.
Then too, there are connections to be made within one’s won mind. For example, the
process of reflection and introspection. And, as noted above, processes of conversation,
dialog, and collaboration are all methods that will increase connections and engender
emergence.

As contrary examples, we might see activity such as domination, theft, slavery, war, and
so on as decreasing the level of emergence engendered.

A gray area arises when we ask, how ethical is it to increase the complexity of someone
who does not want it? Or, “for their own good?” In short, I would suggest that imposition
of any kind by one person or group creates a reduction of free will for the other. This is a
challenging question that applies to children in classrooms and colonial empires. It
should be noted that the “best of intentions” is an argument that is not necessarily valid in
a conversation on the ethics of emergence. For example, as Plato noted, “…knowledge
which is acquired under compulsion obtains no hold upon the mind” (Bartlett, 1992: 75).

For another example, there are traffic laws. Each law clearly reduces the number of
options we have on the roads. However, the restriction in one venue is more than
compensated by increased freedoms in other venues. If there were no traffic laws, some
would certainly emerge. After all, when traffic flows in some level of order, it is possible
to reach our destination with predictable success.

Another challenging idea may be seen by those who are working to keep out non-native
plants. Such an activity might be understood as an ethical no-no from this perspective.
After all, non-native plants add to the diversity of the local ecosystem. However, there
are situations where the non-native plant is so successful that it overwhelms the
complexity of the native ecosystem, thus resulting in a more stable and less diverse
system. From such a position it may appear that the most ethical action is for humans to
remove the non-native species and restore the biodiversity. Another option, however, is
for the humans to look for additional species that will act in harmony and/or conflict with

11
the non-native plant and the local environment. For example, finding a Kudzu-eating
animal, a Kudzu-competing plant, or a Kudzu-parasitic fungus. Certainly, over time,
nature’s own action would balance the growth of the Kudzu by the evolution of one or
more of these. Thus, it is may be seen that accelerating the effects of nature appears to be
an ethical act from an emergence perspective.

12
CONCLUSION

An ancient topic in the conversation around ethics is the existence of an ultimate ethic.
While such an ethic might be found in the natural laws of the universe, it is not common
to suggest (for example) that gravity might be considered an ethic. First, because there
does not seem to be any way to violate the law. Second, because it does not seem to have
any impact on human decision-making.

In this paper I have suggested that emergence might be seen as a natural law, and that
human decisions might be altered based on our understanding that law as a ethical touch-
stone. Additionally, understanding ethics as a scalar rather than a binary, suggests that we
ask not if an action is ethical; rather, that we should ask how ethical is that action – in
terms of how much emergence will it engender.

There are challenges for the view of ethics as emergence that I have begun to develop in
this paper. First, from a Popperian perspective, if emergence is a natural force, it should
be measurable and falsifiable. Many authors have provided examples of emergence –
everything from matter to memes. The vast scope of those possibilities however might
make measurement difficult. For if everything may be understood as emergence, the only
way to measure it might be found in a series of thought-experiments asking “what if we
did ‘X’ instead of ‘Y’?”

As preliminary investigation, this paper has been necessarily brief in scope. For example,
I have portrayed emergence as a one-dimensional construct – a scalar representation from
lesser to greater levels of emergence. The cause of emergence might be understood to
occur at the “edge of chaos” where the system under investigation is neither stuck in
stability, nor lost in ambiguity. In essence, we might see more emergence occurring as
the system moves closer to the edge of chaos. However, it should be evident that no
system can stay for any length of time at the edge. Indeed, systems may be more
accurately represented as oscillating between relative stability and relative chaos, and
passing through the zone of bounded complexity as they do. This then, might be seen as a
more dynamic and multi-dimensional representation of the source of emergence.
However, for reasons of space, that opportunity for investigation (and others) must wait
for future papers.

This paper is very much a work in progress. I hope you will use the ideas presented here
as fuel for your own studies – and provide me with feedback on mine.

13
 Bibliography

Axelrod, R., & Cohen, M. D. 2000. Harnessing Complexity: Organizational

Implications of a Scientific Frontier. New York: Basic Books.
Bartlett, J. 1992. Familiar Quotations: A Collection of Passages, Phrases, and Proverbs
Traced to their Sources in Ancient and Modern Literature (16 ed.). Toronto:
Little, Brown.
Cameron, K. S. 2006. Good or not bad: Standards and ethics in managing change.
Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(3): 317-323.
Corning, P. A. 2002. The emergence of "emergence": Now WHAT? Emergence, 4(3):
54-71.
Daneke, G., A. 1999. Systemic Choices: Nonlinear Dynamics and Practical
Management. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
de Jager, P. 2002. Ethics: Good, evil, and moral duty.
Dent, E. B., & Holt, C. G. 2001. CAS in war, bureaucratic machine in peace: The U.S.
Air Force example. Emergence, 3(3): 90-107.
Durkheim, E. 1933. The Division of Labor in Society (G. Simpson, Trans.): Free Press.
Durkheim, E. 1966. Suicide: A Study in Sociology (J. A. Spaulding, & G. Simpson,
Trans.): Free Press.
French, W. L., & Cecil H. Bell, J. 1995. Organization Development: Behavioral Science
Interventions for Organizational Improvement (5 ed.): Prentice Hall.
Garfield, C. 1995. Ethics and corporate social responsibility. Executive Excellence,
12(8): 5.
Ghoshal, S. 2005. Bad management theories are destroying good management practices.
Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1): 75-91.
Harris, G. 2005. U of C announces first appointee to Chair in Business Ethics, Vol. 2007:
press release. Calgary: Canadian University Press Releases.
Hyman, D. N. 1994. Microeconomics (3 ed.): Irwin.
Kaner, S. 1996. Facilitator's Guide to Participatory Decision-Making: New Society
Publishers.
Kashyap, R., Mir, R., & Iyer, E. 2006. Toward a responsive pedagogy: Linking social
responsibility to firm performance issues in the classroom. Academy of
Management Learning & Education, 5(3): 366-376.
Kholberg, L. 1984. The Psychology of Moral Development: The Nature and Validity of
Moral Stages. New York: Harpercollins.
Landis, J. R. 1989. Sociology: Concepts and Characteristics (7 ed.). Belmont,
California: Wadsworth.
Lee, D.-J., & Sirgy, M. J. 1999. The effect of moral philosophy and ethnocentrism on
quality-of-life orientation in international marketing: A cross-cultural comparison.
Journal of Business Ethics, 18(1): 73-90.
Lichtenstein, B. M. B. 2000. Emergence as a process of self-organizing: New
assumptions and insights from the study of non-linear dynamic systems. Journal
of Organizational Change Management, 13(6): 526-544.

14
Locke, E. A. 2006. Business ethics: A way out of the morass. Academy of Management
Learning & Education, 5(3).
McDevitt, R., Giapponi, C., & Tromley, C. 2007. A model of ethical decision making:
The integration of process and content. Journal of Business Ethics, 73(2): 219-
229.
Rezaee, Z., Elmore, R. C., & Szendi, J. Z. 2001. Ethical behavior in higher educational
institutions: The role of the code of conduct. Journal of Business Ethics, 30(2):
171-181.
Rosenfield, P. L., Sprague, C. C., & McKay, H. S. 2004. Ethical dimensions of
international grantmaking: Drawing the line in a borderless world. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11(1): 48-67.
Samuelson, J. 2006. The new rigor: Beyond the right answer. Academy of Management
Learning & Education, 5(3): 356-365.
Schevitz, T. 2007. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
All 230,000 UC employees required to take ethics course, San Francisco Chronicle. San
Francisco.
Stahl, B. C. 2004. Responsibility for information assurance and privacy: A problem of
individual ethics? Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 16(3):
59-78.
Wallis, S. E. 2006. A sideways look at systems: Identifying sub-systemic dimensions as
a technique for avoiding an hierarchical perspective. Paper presented at the
International Society for the Systems Sciences, Rohnert Park, California.
Weber, M. 1958. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (T. Parsons, Trans.):
Charles Scribner & Sons.
Wikipedia. 2007. Ethics. Wikipedia.

15