Business Ethics Notes - GAMMA PHI BETA

[Pages:16]Business Ethics Notes

QUESTION 1: "The nature of the soul [psyche] can be understood with the figure of a pair of winged horses and charioteer" (Plato)

1) Explain the metaphor/analogy b. Black horse: appetite (food power) More morally wrong c. White horse: spirit (love, honor) Honorable horse d. Charioteer: reason (balance, choice) e. Motive force of human behavior comes from horses + driven by driver

2) How might understanding this figure help us understand the nature of morality? a. Not have tunnel-vision b. Knowledge is essential (what guides the two horses c. Need techniques to keep appetite, spirit in control d. The Charioteer: the confabulation (explaining unconscious behavior)

3) Do you think the metaphor/analogy is helpful? Why/Why not? a. It can describe morality b. It describes what we do (our actions) c. See where horses are headed and driver can help steer in the right direction

QUESTION 2: The Toby Groves case shows how "we are all capable of behaving profoundly unethically without realizing it"

1) How is that supposed to work? How do the psychologists and economists interviewed him explain Toby Groves behavior? b. Our minds simply cant process the choices we are confronted with c. Business view: be successful no matter what d. Ethical view: what's the moral (right) thing to do e. Depends on how the decision is framed f. We tend to help people out that we are identified with and friends (human nature) g. We're all behaving profoundly unethically without realizing it ? tunnel vision

2) Do these explanations establish that Toby didn't do anything wrong? If so, how? If not, do they help us understand people like Toby can do better? a. Yes, because he didn't think about the ethical decisions, and his mind didn't fully process the other decisions he was confronted with

3) What do you think about these explanations? Why? a. The business view is not always the ethical way of doing things, and we can be blind to confronting an ethical problem

QUESTION 3: Ancient and medieval philosophers tended to be virtue ethicists; in other words, they thought that morality was largely a matter of self-development.

1) Briefly explain how this approach to ethics is supposed to work b. Developing good/virtues persons, not mercy c. Virtue view and how does that tell you what to do (notes chapter 1)

2) We live in a society that doesn't generally accept the virtue ethics approach. What sort of argument against virtue ethics approach? Why/Why not?

Nature is corrupt ? cant ground ethics ab.. Nature isn't well defined (cant generalize across people, no such thing)

QUESTION 4: 1) What are Sandel's three approaches to justice? b. Welfare-oriented/consequentialist: Justice means maximizing utility or welfare ? the greatest happiness for the greatest number c. Base their outcomes, consequences broader; base their acts, rules, and institutions on the goodness of their consequences. d. Freedom-and-autonomy-oriented/deontological: Justice means respecting freedom of choice ? either the actual choices people make in a free market (libertarian view) or the hypothetical choices people would make in an original position of equality (liberal egalitarian view) e. Choices that are morally required, forbidden, or permitted. In other words, a moral theory that guide and assess our choices of what we ought to do. Our duty! What's the right thing to do f. Rules not from not from consequences/fall out from project itself. See if our own interest makes sense. Rules are rules, doesn't matter if life is better breaking g. Character-oriented/virtue: Justice involves cultivating virtue and reasoning about the common good h. Guide and asses what kind of person we are and should be ? being the best you can be i. To get the most out of live 2) Consider a contemporary debate about justice and show how two of the approaches lead to different answers a. Welfare-oriented VS. Freedom-and-autonomy-oriented b. Have the outcome that you want VS. do what is right (what is our duty as a person) with not necessarily with the best outcome 3) Do you think one of the approaches is better? Why/Why not? a.

QUESTION 5: 1) According to Benthamite utilitarianism, what is morally good? b. Net pleasure (the greatest good for most amount of pleasure) c. Pleasure minus pain d. We all seek pleasure 2) What does morality require of us? a. Busy bodyness ? improve utility for everyone 3) Mill tries to soften the hard edges' of Benthamite utilitarianism. What are the problems Mill addresses? How? How successfully does he address them? a. Fails to respect individual rights (35) b. All values cant be captured by a common currency or value (41) c. (Page 49-52 and 53-54 shows why Mill object those) 4) Do you find either Bentham's or Mill's version of utilitarianism plausible as a moral account? Why or why not? a. Mill is a hedonist (pleasure is the only good) 5) Can you think of any additions or corrections that might make utilitarianism more plausible? How well do they work? a.

QUESTION 6: According to Immanual Kant, the only thing that is good itself is a good will.

1) Why does he think this? b. Benevolence (an act showing good will) is not always good if clever ? can get away with bad c. Wants to do good because the good is motivated by their desire to do good (do what is good because it's good) d. People acts for reasons and desires, good will wants nothing in particular (good will only pursue itself; unmotivated principle of action)

2) Is this a plausible argument? Why/Why not? a.

Actions are driven by maxims (principles)

Utility (pleasure/desire) are not always good All good things are horrible in the wrong circumstance Only good will is unconditionally good

QUESTION 7: 1) What does Kant's Categorical Imperative require? Explain b. Act in accordance with The Categorical Imperative, irrespective of what you want or desire. c. Act from duty alone (out of respect or the moral law alone) d. Universal Law, Humanity, and Autonomy e. (Page 120, 132) 2) How does the Categorical Imperative show that lying is immortal? Does it succeed? Why/Why not? a. "Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law" b. Lying is the wrong thing to do

THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE 1.The only thing that is unconditionally good is the good will 2.The good will is a will that acts from duty alone 3.Acting from duty alone consists not in acting from inclination and desire, but out of respect for the moral law alone (in other words, doing the act for no other reason than it is the morally right thing to do) 4.Every practical policy except The Categorical Imperative requires that a person have a certain desire or inclination, viz., imperatives of skill and prudence 5.The only unconditionally good thing is acting in accordance with The Categorical Imperative

Hypothetical Imperatives: these are commands to do some action on the basis of having a desired end (If you want y, then do x) Categorical Imperatives: these are commands to do some action irrespective of any desired end (Do c, irrespective of what you want) THREE FORMULAS 1.Universal Law "Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law" 2.Humanity "Act in such way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end" 3.Autonomy "All maxims as proceeding from our own making of law ought to harmonize with a possible kingdom of ends"

AUTONOMY & DUTY Kant earns his rep ... -Need maxim without a given end: in circumstance X, do Y -Categorical Imperative VS. Hypothetical Imperative -What can a Categorical Imperative command?

Maxims must conform to moral law; it can't require anything but following itself Law: equality; maxims must allow -Maxims must be rational as universal laws

CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE(S?) "Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become universal law" E.g. lying Treat humanity always as an end and never as a means only. E.g. suicide Justify latter: only great good sufficient to ground moral law; right implies good

Business Ethics Notes

QUESTION 1 (chapter 8) What, according to the Aristotelian approach to ethics, is the connection between human nature and morality?

? Virtue approach o Goal: "realize our nature as human beings" (195) o Will & reason + desires + character traits o "Best flute player) o Center on character

Does this approach allow us to reflect on and criticize our own current inclinations? How? Com? pare and contrast this approach with the Millian and Kantian approaches. To which approach are you most attracted? Why?

?

Aristotle's theory of justice: 1.Justise is teleological ? requires us to figure out the telos (purpose, end or essential nature) of the social practice in question 2.Justise is honorific ? to reason about the telos of a practice ? or to argue about it ? is, at least in part, is to reason or argue about what virtues it should honor and reward

Aristotelian- internal criticism ? virtue approach; goal in life is to flourish in life; figuring out what structure or conducive to human flourishing; allows you to look at the structure and figure out their role; connection between human nature and reality it is hard to judge our intentions because it doesn't give a whole picture of our human nature. Kant ? external criticism - step outside your self and examine your interests; anything you want probably doesn't have moral value Live your interests and do what gives you pleasure

QUESTION 2 (chapter 4) What are the two main justifications for Free Markets that we examined? Briefly explain each approach.

? Consequentialism (Heyne) o "I'll do this for you if and only if you do this for me" o Markets are good because they give people what they want o Means-end reasoning: how do I get what I want/what is good? o Will & reason + desires

What markets gives you ? Deoontology (Libertarian)

o Markets are good because they give people liberty o Will & reason o Doing what reason requires (acts/right action itself) o Process rather than outcome (what we do is more important then what outcome

we get o Not looking at results, but following the rules Are these approaches compatible, i.e., if one is correct, can the other be correct as well? Could they both be incorrect? ? One stands for the outcome, while the other one stands for the acts you do and not the outcome itself. If deontology is correct, consequentialism is not and vice versa. Of the two arguments, which one do you think is the most persuasive? Why? ? I think deontology is better, because I think rights and liberty is important, even more important than people's outcome.

Consequentialist ? markets are good because they give people what they want Libertarian ? markets are good because they give people liberty If rights are important, then the consequential don't really matter; you kind of have to choose one or the other (they can both be true, but they cant be super morally important

QUESTION 3 (Heyne) According to Heyne, each of us should strive to satisfy our own preferences. Why does he say this?

? "I'll do this for you if and only if you do this for me" ? It leads to productivity and innovations of the market ? Things has to lead to productivity and innovation, if not it does not matter ? Somebody wants "stupid" things ? The world will "go under" if we do things for people instead of profit Is this the standard Pareto argument (preference satisfaction is just good)? Why or why not? ? No What is Heyne's criticism of `St Francis' values? ? The Golden Rule could not effectively organize a commercial society even if every

single individual in the society were like St- Francis, ? A commercial society would never have developed ? They don't lead to innovations Do you agree with Heyne's position? Why/Why not? ?

What markets get you is worth having

Sometimes people want bad things (bad preferences) What people want may not always be what is best, but it causes innovation; anonymous trading cause innovations; better than the "lovey-doing" St. Francis style of life (interpersonal relationships) (give to others without anything in return) "I'll do this for you if and only if you do this for me" (2)

QUESTION 4 (Hausman & McPherson) Hausman & McPherson reject the claim that markets are good because preference satisfaction is a good thing. Explain why.

? People sometimes want bad things ? sometimes it is not so great to get what you want ? Don't trust peoples decision (cash vs. in-kind benefits) ? Preference satisfaction is not welfare What does their argument have to do with paternalism? ? Isn't rejecting preference satisfaction paternalistic?

o You should let me be free to make my own mistakes o We sometimes need help to do the right thing o They see what we don't see ? They say it is not paternalism to say that people do stupid things, just when you physically stop them from doing it (for their own good). Do you agree with their argument? Why/Why not? ? People learn from their mistakes ? People make bad decisions ? Stress and anxiety

H & M criticize Pareto argument (that markets give people what they want) Rejects consequentialists Cash vs. in-kind benefits Sometimes people want bad things "There is nothing paternalistic about believing that a friend who smokes or who does not wear seat belts is making a mistake" (2) "Paternalism arises only when people are coerced their own good" Rather good sense, not paternalism Paternalism (rules made to provide benefits)

QUESTION 5 (chapter 3)

Libertarians think that each of us have the right to do whatever we want with the things we

own, provided we respect other people's right to do the same. Further, they think that such

rights are so important and inviolable that respecting them is more important than achieving

any substantive end. Is this a plausible claim?

? Yes, sort of ? It has many shades, it's not a matter of black and white E.g., is a person's right to exclude others from her property more important than a human life? Why/Why not? ?

LIBERTARIANISM Each of us has a fundamental right to liberty ? the right to do whatever we want with the things that we own Minimal state ? protects private property from theft, and keeps the peace ? is compatible with the libertarian theory of rights Because the fundamental individual right is the right to liberty, just because we are separate individual human beings.

Process rather than outcome Not looking at results, but following the rules Matters more who makes the decision rather than what the decision is

The libertarian view of government 1) No Paternalist Legislation b. Protect people from themselves (seatbelt laws) c. People should follow them, but it is up to every person 2) No Morals Legislation a. Try to promote virtue 3) No Redistribution of Income from Rich to Poor a. Taxes is theft

You can't just look at the end state or the result

Nozick: What makes income distribution just?

1) Justice in Acqusition (initial holdings)

b. Did they make the money in a just way (gathered the wealth fairly)

c. Got what they used fairly

2) Justice in Transfer (free market)

a. People buying and trading in the market

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download