Thesis (S.T.M.)--Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, 1995. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 121-126).

Thesis (doctoral)--University of Queensland, 2002.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Bob Jones University, 2005. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 262-274).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Bob Jones University, 2005. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 262-274).

No description available.

This dissertation represents the first attempt to take account of the entire Swedish œuvre of Marcus Ehrenpreis and view it as a single, coherent statement, recognizing the very fundamental confrontation taking place between tradi­tional and modern ways of viewing reality and its possible resolution. A reading of his work reveals that the one constant in his life in letters was the struggle to reconcile the apparent logical antithesis of universalism and particu­larism, which this dissertation sees as one with resonance for all ethnic minorities. In the Chapter One, a general orientation in the modern Jewish world is provided, including the traditional worlds of Orthodoxy and Hasidism into which he was born; the trend toward the political emancipation of the Jews in Western and Central Europe and the subsequent waves of assimilation among young Jews; the exacerbation of antisemitic tendencies in both Eastern and Western Europe; the emergence of Jewish nationalism, commonly known as Zionism; and the renaissance of Jewish culture which crystallized around these events. Chapter Two offers a social and intellectual biography of Ehrenpreis, providing the reader with the relevant information about his youth, organizational efforts, education, and career as rabbi and author, while Chapter Three posits a perspective from which to approach his work, by describing the generational unit to which he belonged and how the concerns of his youth and early adulthood, shared by other Jewish intellectuals born around the same time as he, shaped the problems with which he grappled throughout his life. The generational perspective also allows the fundamental differences between his own generation and the generations before and after his to emerge in bold relief. It is hoped that in employing this perspective, it becomes clear that the accumulated work of Ehrenpreis can be seen as an integrated whole, which came to full expression during his thirty-five years in Sweden. In Chapter Four, Ehrenpreis' definitions of Jewish religion and Jewish culture and the difference between them are explicated, before proceeding to investigate the way in which he thought the essence of these ideas best be mediated - primarily from the pulpit in his sermons and the intellectual periodical in his writings. The latter in par­ticular he found to be an essential tool for disseminating Jewish culture in Sweden, both to Swedish Jewry and the general Swedish public. Chapters Five and Six deal with what Ehrenpreis considered the two major expressions of Jewish culture, lit­erature and historical knowledge, and the roles they played in the formation of a substantive understanding of Jew­ish culture in the modern world. For him, literature was the bearer of ethics and values and the forum within which these could be transvaluated and made germane to modern man. In his historical writings, he wished to counteract tendencies from within and without the Jewish world which either consigned the Jewish people to the past tense, or overemphasized the role of traumas and catastrophes in its history at the expense of an ongoing, positive and cre­ative Jewish cultural evolution. Chapter Seven concludes the close reading of Ehrenpreis ' Swedish authorship by concentrating on his war­time writings. In referring to the legacy of the Hebrew prophets, the essential cultural values of Jewish tradition as he perceived them emerge: The ideas of social justice, minority rights, and the goal of perpetual peace between nations. He emphasizes their significance for the development of the democratic tradition in Europe as well as their function as the pillars on which the identity of Jews in the modern world could rest. The dissertation closes with a summary of its conclusions. / digitalisering@umu

[pt] Quando da aplicação de uma regra legal chega-se a um resultado injusto, será que os juízes estão dispostos a superá-la para aplicar aquilo que entendem como justo? É na compreensão desse problema que se centra esse estudo. A característica de generalidade das regras faz com que abarquem mais casos do que deveriam ou menos, gerando, respectivamente, a sobreinclusão e a subinclusão (Schauer, 1991). Em tais situações, põe-se a questão do que, em geral, prevalece: a aplicação da regra ou sua superação de modo a garantir a justiça do resultado, com a consecução da finalidade subjacente à norma. O desenvolvimento da pesquisa considerou a literatura que demonstra o seguinte fato: há experimentos realizados com cidadãos e advogados que indicam que, para produzir um resultado justo, a desobediência à regra legal é aceita e considerada recomendável (Schweitzer e outros, 2009). Esses experimentos concluíram, ainda, que as respostas tendem a ser substancialmente distintas se a pergunta é realizada em abstrato ou se feita em concreto, no que se convencionou chamar paradoxo abstrato/concreto (Mandelbaum e outros, 2012). Com o intuito de apreender se o mesmo ocorre com os magistrados, adotou-se a metodologia de escolha de um caso referência, aplicando-se questionário aos juízes da primeira instância do Tribunal Regional do Trabalho da Primeira Região (Rio de Janeiro). Os resultados foram semelhantes aos dos experimentos realizados com os jurisdicionados. O estudo demonstrou que prevalece a justiça do resultado em situações de sobreinclusão e subinclusão, havendo, ainda, uma diferença significativa nas respostas quando a pergunta é realizada em abstrato, confirmando o paradoxo abstrato/concreto, visto que os magistrados, nesse caso, foram consideravelmente mais formalistas que em concreto. / [en] There are cases in which the application of a legal rule causes injustices. In such cases, are judges willing to disregard rules and make decisions based on what they think is fair? This is the main problem this work deals with. Rules are often general, and one of the consequences of their generality is that they encompass more cases than they should. When they encompass more cases, there is the phenomenon of over-inclusiveness, and when they encompass less, there is under-inclusiveness (Schauer 1991). Such phenomena illustrates some circumstances in which judges will face the dilemma of disregarding legal rules or not in favor of the persecution of fairer outcomes. Experiments conducted on citizens and lawyers indicate that the disobedience of a legal rule was accepted and considered commendable in order to achieve a fair outcome (Schweitzer and others, 2009). Besides, it was perceived that the answers tended to be substantially different when formulated in abstract or in concrete; which was called abstract/concrete paradox (Mandelbaum and others, 2012). Aiming to understand whether the same happens with judges, a reference case was chosen and a poll applied to the judges of the first instance of the Regional Labor Court of the First Region (Rio de Janeiro). The results were similar to those of the referred experiments.

Background: Taking into consideration that multinational corporations (MNCs) need to not only act on a global level, but also with local adaptation, there is a need of filling out the existing gap in the theory of management control in the subject of divisionalisation.  Purpose: The research investigates the gap in the theory of management control with the lens of glocalization in order to answer and understand why MNCs do divizionalize. Methodology: Qualitative case-study based on semi-structured interviews with seven respondents with the role of global and local managers in a MNC.  Findings: The findings interpret that a MNC do divisionalize based on the seven reasons; Replication, Uniqueness, Monetary, Entrepreneurship, Agility, Sense-making and Support. Which are interpreted in the perspective of common sense and necessary tension within the organization. A contribution that is applying the glocalization perspective to the management control theory.

[pt] O papel dos juízes é tipicamente relacionado à função de respeitar e aplicar o direito. Acredita-se que há uma obrigação de fidelidade entre juízes e seus respectivos sistemas jurídicos, vinculando-os a obedecer aos ditames do direito positivo. Alguns argumentos, como o juramento, a autoridade prática do direito, a obrigação política judicial, e a contensão dos erros de julgamento, são invocados para justificar esse vínculo de fidelidade. Mas e nos casos cuja aplicação dos padrões jurídicos institucionalizados parece insatisfatória? Quando se ater ao direito implica um resultado evidentemente injusto que pode ser corrigido pelo juiz? Esses casos desafiam a obrigação de fidelidade entre juízes frente suas ordens jurídicas. Parece que o juiz nessa posição tem razões morais para ignorar as regras e atingir a solução mais justa. Mas seguir e aplicar essas razões morais é parte do papel do juiz? Ele deve fazê-lo? Outro conjunto de concepções do papel judicial pretende responder afirmativamente a essas duas questões. De acordo com elas, o papel judicial é composto por outras funções além do dever de seguir apenas padrões legais. Minha hipótese é que uma dessas concepções está correta. / [en] The role of the judges is typically related to the function to respect and apply the law. It is believed that there is an obligation of fidelity between judges and their respective legal systems, binding them to obey the dictates of positive law. Some arguments, like the oath, the practical authority of law, the judicial political obligation, and the containment of errors of judgment, are invoked to justify this loyalty bond. But what about the cases whose application of the institucionalized legal standards seems unsatisfactory? When adhering to the law implies an obviously unfair result which can be corrected by the judge? These cases challenge the obligation of fidelity between judges towards their legal systems. It seems that the judge in this position have moral reasons to ignore the rules and achieve the fairest solution. But following and applying these moral reasons is part of the role of the judge? He should do it? Another set of conceptions of the judicial role intends to answer affirmatively these two questions. According to them, the judicial role consists of other functions besides the duty to follow only legal standards. My hypothesis is that one of these views is correct.

Proponents of moral particularism have often sought support for their negative claim about moral principles in a doctrine called holism in the theory of reasons. According to holism, a feature that is a reason in one case may be no reason at all, or even the opposite reason, in another. The aim of this thesis is to investigate and elucidate the supposed connection between holism and particularism. This is done by considering the particularistic position embraced by Jonathan Dancy in his book Ethics without Principles and the arguments against the argument from holism recently put forth by Sean McKeever and Michael Ridge in their book Principled Ethics: generalism as a regulative ideal. In conclusion it is argued that holism does provide at least some support for the form of particularism which Dancy defends.