You are on page 1of 122

Notes on Business Ethics

© 2011-2013 James W. Gray

1

About this ebook
This ebook contains my notes for Business ethics. I introduce mora !hi oso!hy" meta-ethics" mora theories" and a!! y !hi oso!hica thou#ht to many mora issues concernin# business ethics. That inc udes the system in $hich $e i%e &ca!ita ism and cor!orations' as $e as the hard choices indi%idua s ha%e to make. (ost of these notes are based on Business )thics &Third )dition" 1***' by Wi iam +ha$" but many of the statistics and studies ha%e been u!dated since a ot has chan#ed in the ast decade. I kno$ that many %ersions of his book are near y identica in many $ays and I sus!ect he most y u!dates the book to inc ude ne$ statistics and studies. +ha$ has another business ethics book that $as recent y u!dated as $e , (ora Issues in Business &) e%enth )dition" 200*'. This ebook $as created on -.22.2011 and the contents ori#ina y a!!eared on my $ebsite" )thica /ea ism. 0!date &*.1.2011' , I made se%era corrections and c arifications. 0!date &12.12.2012' , I made a minor c arification to an ob3ection to 4ant5s cate#orica im!erati%e. 0!date &-.12.2013' , I fi6ed the cha!ter on )thics and /ationa i7ation" and I remo%ed a cou! e of cha!ters.

2

Table of Contents
8bout this ebook........................................................................................................................................2 9art I: Introduction.....................................................................................................................................;ha!ter 1: <o$ to Become (ora ........................................................................................................1. /ationa ity.....................................................................................................................................2. Inte ectua %irtues........................................................................................................................3. (ora theories...............................................................................................................................2 1. (ora kno$ ed#e..........................................................................................................................2 =. 8!!ro!riate thou#hts....................................................................................................................2 -. ; ose re ationshi!s........................................................................................................................> 2. )6!erience....................................................................................................................................* >. +!iritua e6ercises.........................................................................................................................* ;ha!ter 2: What is ?(ora ity@A...........................................................................................................11 What does ?mora ityA mean@..........................................................................................................11 (ora and nonmora standards.......................................................................................................13 ;ha!ter 3: The Bebate C%er (ora /ea ism.......................................................................................1= What is (ora rea ism@...................................................................................................................1= Is mora rea ism true@.....................................................................................................................12 ;ha!ter 1: (eta-)thica Theories.......................................................................................................1* (ora natura ism.............................................................................................................................1* (ora Intuitionism..........................................................................................................................20 )moti%ism.......................................................................................................................................20 (ora /e ati%ism............................................................................................................................21 )rror theory.....................................................................................................................................21 ;ha!ter =: (ora /eason.....................................................................................................................23 0ncontro%ersia mora truths..........................................................................................................23 8na o#ies........................................................................................................................................21 Thou#ht e6!eriments......................................................................................................................2= Theoretica %irtues..........................................................................................................................2;ha!ter -: )thics and /ationa i7ation.................................................................................................2> The im!ortance of mora rationa i7ation........................................................................................2> /ationa i7ation techniDues in the $ork! ace..................................................................................2* ;onc usion......................................................................................................................................33 ;ha!ter 2: Eormati%e Theories...........................................................................................................31 0ti itarianism..................................................................................................................................31 ;ate#orica Im!erati%e....................................................................................................................38ristote ian Firtue )thics...............................................................................................................3* +toic Firtue )thics..........................................................................................................................11 /oss5s Intuitionism..........................................................................................................................13 ;onc usion......................................................................................................................................1= ;ha!ter >: Three Theories of Justice...................................................................................................12 (i 5s uti itarian theory of 3ustice....................................................................................................12 /a$ s5s theory of 3ustice.................................................................................................................=1 ;onc usion......................................................................................................................................=2 9art II: 8merican Business and Its Basis.................................................................................................=> 3

....................................................................................ha!ter 1=: ....................................................................................................................ha!ter 11: Job Biscrimination..................................................................................................................................................................-2 .................................................................................................onc usion..............................ha!ter 11: The Work! ace &1': Basic Issues...................................................=> What is ca!ita ism@.......................................................................................................................................................................................................>2 Job +atisfaction G /edesi#nin# Work.....................................................................................=* ...........................>= ......................................................................22 ..................................................................................................................................................-3 ...............................................................................................or!orations.......................=> (ora 3ustifications for ca!ita ism.......................................ha!ter 10: ...................................................................................................................om!arab e $orth............103 9roduct safety.................................................** +e6ua harassment.......................................................................................................................................................................................................*3 .............................................................................................................................................................onc usion...........................ha en#es to ca!ita ism....................................................................................101 Cther areas of business res!onsibi ity.............................................a!ita ism...........................................................22 The nature of mora ri#hts and res!onsibi ities in the $ork! ace......10* .......................................*2 8ffirmati%e action: the mora issues......................................101 9art IF: Business and +ociety.....................................................................................103 The res!onsibi ities of business to consumers.....................................................ha!ter *: The Eature of ....................................................................................................................................................113 ......................................................................................................111 Business and eco o#y..........................................>* Cb i#ations to third !arties..........................onsumers.............................111 1 ..........-1 Introduction............................................onditions...onc usion...........................................................................................................................................................ha!ter 1-: The )n%ironment............................................2* 9ri%acy.............................................................................-0 Ee$ !rob ems ca!ita ism is facin#..........ha!ter 12: The Work! ace &2': Today5s ......................................2> .....................................................103 .............onc usion...................................................................................................................................................................................................22 9ersonne !o icies and !rocedures....................................................................................*1 8ffirmati%e action: a e#a conte6t...................onc usion............................................................................................................................................................................2..................................................................>> Gifts and entertainment...........20 9art III The Cr#ani7ation and the 9eo! e in It................................................................................................................ha!ter 13: (ora ..............*1 The meanin# of 3ob discrimination.....................................................................................................onc usion..............................*2 ............20 ...........................................................>Cb i#ations to the firm.......................................................................................................................-> Institutiona i7in# ethics $ithin cor!orations..........................................................................................................ha en#es.....>2 Bribes and kickbacks...............................................................................................................................-What5s the e6tent of cor!orate res!onsibi ity@...............................................................................................23 0nions.......................................................................10Bece!tion and unfairness in ad%ertisin#..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................*> ...................................>8buse of officia !osition...................................>1 ..................................................................100 ..............2* Workin# ....onc usion.....................................................................hoices Hacin# )m! oyees.................................................-1 8re cor!orations mora y res!onsib e@..............................................................................................*0 The Duestion of se f-interest.............................................................................................................

.....................................................112 Be %in# dee!er into en%ironmenta ethics....................................11* ..............................................................................................................................................11...ost a ocation..................................................................................................................onc usion....................................................122 = .................................Business5s traditiona attitudes to$ards the en%ironment........11= The ethics of en%ironmenta !rotection.....................................................

I discuss reasonin#" forma o#ic" and errors in reasonin# in my free ebook" <o$ to Become a 9hi oso!her.ostenob e. It is irrationa to be ie%e that ?1I1J3A and it5s rationa y reDuired to be ie%e that ?1I1J2. Rationality 8 #ood abi ity to reason he !s us determine $hat be iefs are most 3ustified or ?rationa . 8n e6treme ack of inte ectua %irtues can ead to fanaticism. The abi ity to reason reDuires us to understand o#ic either conscious y or unconscious y. =. 8 !erson $ith inte ectua %irtues $i re3ect irrationa be iefs and refuse to re3ect rationa y reDuired be iefs. >. 8 cu ture that does not foster these aids is a cu ture that ne# ects mora ity and shou d e6!ect immora beha%ior. The abi ity to a!! y o#ic to our reasonin# is aided by an e6! icit understandin# of o#ic and e6!erience $ith reasonin#. 9resentin# ar#uments and en#a#in# in debates can he ! us !ractice our abi ity to reason. 8 free detai ed introduction to forma o#ic is !resented at the <ofstra 0ni%ersity $ebsite by +tefan Waner and +te%en /. Additional reading . /ationa ity Inte ectua %irtues (ora theories (ora kno$ ed#e 8!!ro!riate thou#hts . -. &0nfortunate y a cu tures seem to ne# ect these aids to %arious de#rees. Becomin# mora is a cha en#in# task and reDuires us to find moti%ation to be mora . I su##est that the fo o$in# are aids in our Duest to find mora moti%ation and im!ro%e ourse %es: 1.A 8 be ief must be sufficient y rationa and 3ustified or $e shou dn5t ha%e it. 2. 1.Part I: Introduction Chapter 1: How to Become Moral This book main y concentrates on mora reasonin# and kno$ ed#e" but e%en $hen $e kno$ ri#ht from $ron# $e sti mi#ht decide to do $ron#. ose re ationshi!s )6!erience +!iritua e6ercises These ei#ht aids can #o a on# $ay in moti%atin# mora beha%ior and ackin# these aids can be dan#erous.A Inte ectua %irtues inc ude a!!ro!riate o!en mindedness and a!!ro!riate ske!ticism. - .' 1. 2. 8 free discussion of fa acies &errors in reasonin#' is discussed at the Ha acy Hi es. Intellectual virtues To ha%e inte ectua %irtues is to be $i in# and ab e to be reasonab e. 2. 3. .

en. #. When my $a et is sto en I cou d think" ?This is terrib eL I5 ki $hoe%er did thisLA or I mi#ht think" ?What can I do to #et my $a et back@A The second o!tion is more a!!ro!riate than the first.hi dren $ho hit others often don5t yet understand why it5s $ron# to hit others. 8dditiona y" earnin# mora !hi oso!hy in #enera Kthousands of years of mora debate bet$een !hi oso!hersKcan !ro%ide us $ith thousands of years of kno$ ed#e.A Wiki!edia. The +toics su##est that a!!ro!riate thou#hts are #uided by mora kno$ ed#e" and a!!ro!riate emotions and actions tend to be a resu t of a!!ro!riate thou#htsM but ina!!ro!riate thou#hts can ead to ina!!ro!riate emotions and actions. 8dditiona y" $e are often more moti%ated to do the ri#ht thin# $hen $e kno$ why it5s the ri#ht thin#.. (uch of the time mora kno$ ed#e seems sufficient to moti%ate us to do the ri#ht thin# because $e a ready $ant to do the ri#ht thin#.or#. Moral kno!led"e Idea y mora theories" mora reasonin#" and inte ectua %irtues can ead to mora kno$ ed#e. It5s a ot easier to earn about mora ity from those $ho ha%e s!ent years thinkin# about it than to try to de%e o! our o$n mora be iefs from the #round u!. Nhtt!:. Firtuous !eo! e are usua y moti%ated to do the ri#ht thin#" so $e are a moti%ated to do the ri#ht thin# insofar as $e are %irtuous. If this idea is not reached" then $e sti attain better mora be iefs. Cnce $e kno$ ri#ht from $ron# $e can !otentia y be moti%ated to do the ri#ht thin#.Additional reading . Moral theories The best mora theories are hi#h y de%e o!ed" com!rehensi%e" and coherent accounts of mora ity that can he ! us determine and understand ri#ht from $ron#.Eob eO)i#htfo dO9athP. . Good mora theories are the resu t of years $orth of mora debates and mora reasonin#.or#. (ora kno$ ed#e often entai s ans$ers that are im!ortant for our moti%ation. 30 8u#ust 2010. 9hi oso!hers ha%e no$ been discussin# mora ity and mora theories for thousands of years" so a #reat dea of !ro#ress has been made. A$$ro$riate thou"hts (ora kno$ ed#e can ead to a!!ro!riate thou#hts. /e%en#e is not a mora o!tion to osin# your $a et.$iki!edia. I discuss inte ectua %irtues in detai in Inte ectua Firtues" Bo#matism" Hanatacism" and Terrorism. Additional reading . &?Eob e )i#htfo d 9ath. 3.' 2 .1 We can ima#ine someone osin# their $a et as becomin# enra#ed and seekin# 1 The Buddhist5s ei#htfo d !ath a so su##ests that ina!!ro!riate thou#hts can ead to ina!!ro!riate emotions and actions $hich u timate y cause sufferin#. . I discuss mora theories in more detai in Eormati%e (ora Theories.$iki.

We often dismiss criticisms and ob3ections" and find them offensi%e. The kno$ ed#e that the money in a $a et isn5t as im!ortant as human ife contradicts the im! ied %a ues of a !erson $ho $ants to ki someone for stea in# a $a et" but such an automatic res!onse is !robab y !retty common. =. (ora kno$ ed#e does not a $ays ead to a!!ro!riate thou#hts. Think about the im!ortance of other !eo! e5s i%es" think of yourse f as the kind of !erson $ho has a stron# interest in ethics" and ! an to re$ard yourse f $hen you can accom! ish %arious mora #oa s. This is $hy an#er mana#ement c asses teach !eo! e to count to 10 $hen becomin# enra#ed. We often #i%e u! on bein# mora because $e aren5t sure ho$ to be moti%ated. We often for#et about our as!irations" idea s" and dreams. 3. We shou d commit ourse %es to be ethica as a hi#h !riorityK!erha!s the hi#hest !riority. Cur im!u si%e thou#hts" emotions" and beha%ior can contradict mora kno$ ed#e. /emind yourse f that criticisms and ob3ections are often !art of earnin# our o$n f a$s and im!ro%in# ourse %es. We must remind ourse %es that $e are ike y to ha%e this bias and consider !ossib e ob3ections to our be iefs and actions. If you ack mora moti%ation" try different moti%ationa techniDues. Cur ina!!ro!riate thou#hts can often be Duenched by ?coo in# offA and contro in# our thou#hts.A We shou d $ork at im!ro%in# ourse %es one ste! at a time by identifyin# $ays $e can be im!ro%ed and comin# u! $ith rea istic #oa s that $e cou d reach. -. We often #i%e u! bein# ethica or im!ro%in# ourse %es because it5s ?too difficu t. If $e $ant to accom! ish somethin# in our ife" $e need to make ! ans for the future and fi#ure out ho$ to achie%e #et $hat $e $ant out of ife.re%en#e based on the abo%e ina!!ro!riate thou#hts. If you take offense at criticisms or ob3ections" you mi#ht $ant to $ait some time to coo off and think more about it ater. 1. Close relationshi$s We can abstract y rea i7e the %a ues of human ife" ha!!iness" and sufferin#M but this abstraction can > . %. We can !resent ar#uments and e%idence that contradict our obsessi%e thou#hts to debunk them and correct our thou#hts.A This is $hen mora kno$ ed#e can become Duite usefu . We often ha%e a bias to think $e are more rationa " kno$ ed#eab e" and ethica than $e rea y are. 2. If $e serious y start considerin# ki in# the !erson $ho sto e our $a et" $e can remind ourse %es that the %a ue of money is insi#nificant com!ared to the %a ue of human ife. We can sometimes i e#itimate y con%ince ourse %es that somethin# is more im!ortant than ethics and bein# ethica .ommon ina!!ro!riate thou#hts inc ude the fo o$in#: 1. When ina!!ro!riate thou#hts become obsessi%e it can be necessary to ?ta k ourse %es out of it. We can educate ourse %es about #ood reasonin# and ethics to he ! !re%ent this bias" and sometimes it can be a #ood idea to ta k $ith others about our be iefs and actions to make sure they are $e 3ustified. The ne6t ste! is to correct our ina!!ro!riate thou#hts. .

)%en then many !eo! e don5t seem to connect the dotsKe%eryone5s ife" ha!!iness" and sufferin# ha%e ana o#ous %a ue. Workin# too many hours" s!endin# too much time $atchin# te e%ision" and com!etin# for resources are three $ays that $e can ose our c ose connection to othersM and other !eo! e mi#ht no on#er fee as rea to us. The ne6t ste! is to rea i7e that other !eo! e matter too. /ef ect u!on your !ast and make it c ear to yourse f ho$ thin#s cou d be im!ro%ed. Cur c ose re ationshi!s can be $eakened $hen $e sto! s!endin# time $ith friends and fami y. Hor e6am! e: 1. Becide if there are any mistakes you ha%e made that shou d not be re!eated in the future. ). We $i see cars and bodies" but $e mi#ht no on#er fee the im!ortance of another !erson5s ife" ha!!iness" and sufferin#. Cur fami y and friends aren5t the on y !eo! e in the $or d $ho count. 2. (ost !eo! e earn to o%e and care for their !arents" sib in#s" and friends. Hor e6am! e" dri%in# on the ri#ht side of the road is a!!ro!riate in the 0+8" but not in the 04 due to the a$s and beha%ior found in each of these societies. '($erience The actua resu t our actions $i ha%e in %arious situations is not somethin# a mora theory or abstract reasonin# $i be ab e to #i%e us. Cther !eo! e5s ife" ha!!iness" and sufferin# has %a ue 3ust ike our o$n. *$iritual e(ercises +!iritua e6ercises are !ractices used to become more %irtuous that cou d be described as ?mora thera!y. To fu y a!!reciate human ife" ha!!iness" and sufferin# $e can understand these thin#s from ourse %es. This can he ! $iden our em!athy to stran#ers or e%en nonhuman anima s. This can he ! us attain a!!ro!riate emotions" such as em!athy. Hina y" there are cu tura inf uences on our connections to others. <o$e%er" many s!iritua e6ercises are ess theoretica and take abstract kno$ ed#e for #ranted.ha%e itt e !o$er o%er our moti%ations.A +tudyin# rationa ity and earnin# about mora theories are t$o common s!iritua e6ercises that are not mere y ?theoretica A as some mi#ht ar#ue. 8t that !oint $e either need a !o$erfu abstract $ay to care for others $ithout a stron# emotiona moti%ation or $e need to re#ain our emotiona moti%ation &!erha!s by s!endin# more time $ith fami y and friends'. It doesn5t take on# to rea i7e that their i%es" ha!!iness" and sufferin# a so ha%e %a ue. We need to earn to be sensiti%e to !articu arities found in each situation to kno$ $hat actions $i ha%e the best resu ts. /ef ect u!on the future and decide ho$ you shou d res!ond to %arious situations. &. If you ha%e made a mistake that you don5t $ant to re!eat" then this intention can he ! !re!are us a#ainst * . )%eryone counts. This is !retty natura once $e estab ish c ose re ationshi!s $ith others. Cther !eo! e are 3ust as rea as $e are" and $e aren5t the center of the uni%erse. I su##est that $e can connect the abstract rea i7ation of %a ues to the %a ues in%o %ed $ith rea !eo! e after $e ha%e formed c ose re ationshi!s and s!ent some time thinkin# about mora ity. We need to rea i7e the %a ue of our o$n ife" ha!!iness" and sufferin#.

Hina y" formin# c ose re ationshi!s and !racticin# s!iritua e6ercises can then he ! us form mora moti%ations.makin# the same mistakes a#ain. 10 . We ha%e to be !re!ared for this sort of situation to res!ond a!!ro!riate y. 8dditiona y" many !eo! e find that they are cau#ht off #uard by tem!tations offered in ife and decide to #i%e into those tem!tations $hen the time comes. Qou can think of a ternati%e thou#hts that $ou d be more a!!ro!riate. =. 9hi oso!hy can he ! us become more %irtuous by he !in# us ha%e better mora be iefs and he !in# moti%ate us to act u!on those mora be iefs. Cur mora be iefs are best a!! ied to our ife $ith ife e6!erience that a o$s us to better !redict the outcome of our actions. 1. Hor e6am! e" some $omen ha%e been ra!ed in !ub ic and no one came to her rescue. If $e !re!are ourse %es ahead of time it $i be much easier for us to face those tem!tations. If you ha%e ina!!ro!riate thou#hts and emotions" you can c ear your mind to Duench them and !re%ent them from eadin# to ina!!ro!riate actions. 3. This can often be an insu tin# and emotiona e6!erience that makes it %ery difficu t to achie%e re%e ations" but you can ref ect u!on the con%ersation a#ain once you become ca m. Ta k to others about ho$ you can im!ro%e your beha%ior. If you ha%e ina!!ro!riate obsessi%e thou#hts and emotions" you can !resent to yourse f ar#uments and e%idence a#ainst them. 8n understandin# of rationa ity a on# $ith !racticin# ar#umentation can he ! us form better mora be iefs.

(ora ity is taken to be im!ortantM mora actions are often taken to merit !raise and re$ards" and immora actions are often taken to merit b ame and !unishment. +ome !hi oso!hers ca actions that are abo%e the ca of duty ?su!erero#atoryA rather than ?ob i#atory. +omethin# has ?instrumenta mora %a ueA if it is re e%ant to achie%in# moral goals.A Right and wrong – +omethin# is mora y ri#ht if it5s mora y !ermissib e" and mora y $ron# if it5s mora y im!ermissib e. It5s !ossib e to do somethin# mora y !referab e that5s not $ron#. We take some of our #oa s to be worthy as ?mora #oa sA for their own sake rather than bein# 11 . -ean/ (ora ity in%o %es $hat $e ou#ht to do" ri#ht and $ron#" #ood and bad" %a ues" 3ustice" and %irtues. I $i discuss the meanin# of ?mora ityA $ithin ordinary an#ua#e and i ustrate the difference bet$een mora ity and e%erythin# e se by com!arin# mora and nonmora standards. Hood is instrumenta y #ood because it he !s us achie%e our #oa to sur%i%eM and star%ation is instrumenta y bad $hen $e ha%e a #oa to a%oid sufferin#" and star%ation makes it more difficu t for us to achie%e this #oa . Hor e6am! e" star%ation is bad because it cou d ead to sufferin#M and sufferin# cou d ha%e ne#ati%e %a ue that $arrants its a%oidance. It mi#ht not be a mora duty to #i%e to any charities" but it seems ike y that $e often ha%e a duty not to hurt !eo! e. +ometimes $hat $e ou#ht to do isn5t seen as ?o!tiona . Good and bad – ?GoodA and ?badA refer to !ositi%e and ne#ati%e %a ue. Hor e6am! e" $e can act ?abo%e the ca of duty. Hor e6am! e" food is #ood because it is necessary to attain somethin# of !ositi%e %a ue because it he !s us sur%i%eM and our sur%i%a cou d ha%e !ositi%e %a ue that merits bein# a #oa . +hat does . Hor e6am! e" it5s mora y ri#ht to he ! !eo! e and #i%e to certain charities" but mora y $ron# to ki !eo! e indiscriminate y.Chapter 2: What is “Morality?” 9eo! e discuss mora ity Duite often and many of our actions are based on assum!tions about mora ity.A Instead" $e often think $e ha%e mora duties &ob i#ations'.-orality.A +ome actions are heroic" such as $hen $e risk our ife to run into a burnin# bui din# to sa%e a chi d. +omethin# is mora y #ood if it he !s !eo! e attain somethin# of !ositi%e %a ue" a%oid somethin# of ne#ati%e %a e" or has a !ositi%e %a ue that merits bein# a #oa . Eonethe ess" $hat $e ou#ht to do doesn5t 3ust co%er our ob i#ations. +omethin# is mora y bad if it makes it difficu t to attain somethin# of !ositi%e %a ue" cou d ead to somethin# of ne#ati%e %a ue" or has a ne#ati%e %a ue that merits a%oidance. What we ought to do – What $e mora y ou#ht to do is $hat5s mora y !referab e. It5s mora y !referab e to #i%e to certain charities and to refrain from hurtin# !eo! e $ho make us an#ryM so $e mora y ou#ht to do these thin#s.

Hina ends seem re e%ant to ri#ht and $ron#. If not" then $e $i $onder if you are $astin# your time $ith a 3ob. +ome fina ends are a so meant to he ! us a%oid somethin# of ne#ati%e %a ue" such as our #oa s to a%oid !ain and death. Justice – Justice refers to our interest in certain ethica issues such as eDua ity" fairness" and merit. +ome !eo! e mi#ht ha%e ?fina endsA but actua y be $ron# about $hat #oa s are $orthy of bein# fina ends.A It is !ossib e that fina ends are mere y thin#s $e desire ?for their o$n sakeA but some fina ends cou d be better and of #reater im!ortance than others. Intrinsic values . Hor e6am! e" home$ork and earnin# is often !ainfu " but the kno$ ed#e attained can he ! us i%e better i%es and cou d e%en be intrinsica y #ood for its o$n sake. It seems mora y ri#ht to try to achie%e our fina ends because they are $orthy. It5s im!ortant that $e kno$ the difference 12 . It is un3ust to ha%e s a%ery or to ha%e different a$s for different racia #rou!s because !eo! e shou d be equal before the a$" it5s unfair" and racia #rou!s don5t merit uneDua treatment before the a$.A Ima#ine that someone asks you $hy you ha%e a 3ob and you say it5s to make money. 8 of our #oa s must be 3ustified at some !oint by somethin# taken to be worthy as a #oa for its o$n sake" or its not c ear that any of our #oa s are rea y 3ustified. 8dditiona y" it5s un3ust to !unish the innocent and to find the innocent #ui ty in a court of a$. Hina ends are #oa s that $e think are $orthy. We can then ask $hy you $ant to make money and you can re! y that it5s to buy food. We can then ask $hy you $ant to buy food" and you can re! y that it5s to sur%i%e. Intrinsic %a ues are thin#s of !ositi%e or ne#ati%e %a ue that ha%e that %a ue just for existing" and some !hi oso!hers think 8ristot e5s truly worthy fina ends ha%e intrinsic %a ue. Intrinsic %a ue ! ays the same ro e as fina endsK$e think it5s often morally right to try to achie%e #oa s that he ! !eo! e attain intrinsic #oods and $e morally ought to do so. The #oa s of attainin# these #oods are ?fina ends. These #oa s cou d be taken to be $orthy for ha%in# !ositi%e %a ue &or he ! us a%oid somethin# of ne#ati%e %a ue'K$hat 8ristot e ca s ?fina endsA or $hat other !hi oso!hers ca ?intrinsic %a ues. Virtues – +ome !eo! e are better at bein# mora than others. 8 thin#s eDua " it seems mora y ri#ht to try to attain ha!!iness and sur%i%e.instrumenta for the sake of something else. The main difference here is that fina ends cou d mere y be !sycho o#ica K$hat $e take to be $orthy #oa s" but a #oa has intrinsic %a ue on y if it rea y is $orthy. 9 easure" sur%i%a " and kno$ ed#e are !ossib e e6am! es of #oods that shou d be taken to be !romoted as fina ends. If !ain is intrinsica y bad" that doesn5t mean $e shou d ne%er a o$ ourse %es or others to e6!erience !ain because there mi#ht be intrinsic #oods that can be attained as a resu t of our !ain. Hor e6am! e" if human ife is intrinsica y #ood" then sur%i%a is #ood for e%ery !erson. Final ends . 8t this !oint you mi#ht not ha%e a reason to $ant to sur%i%e other than %a uin# your e6istence for its o$n sake. 8ristot e thou#ht that our ?most fina endA or ?u timate endA is ha!!iness and no other #ood cou d o%erride the im!ortance of ha!!iness. It is 3ust to !unish a !eo! e $ho break the a$ eDua y rather than et certain !eo! eKsuch as the $ea thyK break certain a$s that other !eo! e aren5t a o$ed to break. <o$e%er" intrinsic %a ues can conf ict. We can desire intrinsic %a ues ?for their o$n sake"A many think it5s rational to often try to attain thin#s that are intrinsica y #ood" and $hate%er is intrinsica y #ood is #ood no matter $ho attains it.

We can a so ha%e !ersona #oa s that ha%e &a most' nothin# to do $ith mora ity. Hor e6am! e" it mi#ht be mora y 3ustified to thro$ murderers in !rison e%en thou#h it $ou d be an immora e6am! e of kidna!!in# and im!risonment in many other conte6ts. Cne $ay to c arify $hat ?mora ityA refers to is to com!are and contrast it to nonmora thin#s that are sometimes confused $ith it. +ometimes somethin# is entire y nonmora and irre e%ant to mora ityKsuch as standin# on your head or countin# b ades of #rass.bet$een ri#ht and $ron#" attain the ski s necessary to reach demandin# mora #oa s" and find the moti%ation to do $hat is mora y !referab e. Moral and non-oral standards Eot e%erythin# is mora y ri#ht or $ron#. Reward and punishment – Cne $ay to ho d !eo! e res!onsib e for their actions is to re$ard and !unish them for their beha%ior" and this often seems a!!ro!riate. Hor e6am! e" $e mora y ou#ht to #et a 3ob and buy food to stay a i%e. Nonmoral instrumental value . Hor e6am! e" I mi#ht ha%e a #oa of standin# on my head and takin# #ymnastics c asses cou d be $hat I ou#ht to do to achie%e this #oa . This is because there is both mora and nonmora instrumenta %a ue. What we morally or nonmorally ought to do – We don5t 3ust ta k about ri#ht and $ron#" #ood or bad" or $hat $e ou#ht to do in mora conte6ts.oura#e reDuires us to endan#er our !ersona $e bein# $hen doin# so is mora y !referab e" to ha%e ski s that make it !ossib e to endan#er our !ersona $e bein# in many situations" and to ha%e the moti%ation to be $i in# to endan#er our $e bein# $hen $e ou#ht to do so. Eot a instrumenta %a ue he !s us achie%e mora #oa s. 2. Moral instrumental value . Praise and blame – We often think that mora beha%ior merits !raise and immora beha%ior merits b ame. 8dditiona y" it #enera y seems a!!ro!riate to ho d !eo! e responsible for their actions and et them kno$ that their actions cou d ha%e been different. Hor e6am! e" a com!any that scams !eo! e shou d be he d res!onsib e and !unished by consumers $ho decide to no on#er do business $ith that com!any. . 8dditiona y" some instrumenta %a ues 13 . It often seems a!!ro!riate to te !eo! e $ho ha%e done #ood deeds" such as sa%in# i%es" that $e a!!reciate it and that $hat they are doin# is #oodM and it often seems a!!ro!riate to te !eo! e $ho ha%e done somethin# immora that $e don5t a!!reciate it and that they did somethin# mora y $ron#. +ometimes !unishments cou d be se%ere and cou d seem immora in any other conte6t. 1. We can5t 3ust thro$ anyone in !rison that $e $ant. The ri#ht thin# to do to be ab e to stand on your head is to take #ymnastics c asses" e%en thou#h it has nothin# to do $ith mora ity. Hor e6am! e" coura#e is a %irtue that in%o %es kno$ ed#e of ri#ht and $ron#" ski s" and moti%ation. We ou#ht to do $hat is necessary to attain mora #oa s. It5s mora y ri#ht to #et a 3ob and buy food" and food has mora instrumenta %a ue insofar as it he !s us attain our mora #oa of sur%i%a . We cou d #i%e #ifts or return fa%ors to !eo! e $ho he ! us" and break our friendshi! or i#nore those $ho do somethin# immora .

cou d e%en be immora . Hor e6am! e" I mi#ht ha%e a #oa to murder someone and I cou d say I ought to use a #un if that5s the best $ay to murder someone. That5s not to say that I mora y ou#ht to murder anyone. ti!uette – )tiDuette te s us ho$ to be !o ite and sho$ res!ect $ithin a cu ture. )tiDuette te s us not to che$ our food $ith our mouths o!en" to o!en doors for !eo! e" and not to interru!t !eo! e $ho are ta kin#. +ometimes bein# rude and im!o ite can be mora y $ron#" but the fact that etiDuette and mora ity sometimes o%er a! doesn5t mean they are identica or that etiDuette is a $ays re e%ant to mora ity. Hirst" etiDuette tends not to be serious enou#h to be mora y re e%ant. Bur!in# in the 0+ is considered rude" but it $ou d be stran#e to say it5s e%er mora y $ron#. +econd" it5s often mora y ri#ht to be rude. (any !eo! e think that Duestionin# someone5s mora Dua ifications and mora o!inions is rude" but it5s often the mora y !referab e thin# to do because it5s essentia that $e ha%e the best mora o!inions !ossib e and sometimes it5s a #ood idea to he ! !eo! e im!ro%e their mora o!inions. The im!ortance of he !in# !eo! e be mora can o%erride the im!ortance of sho$in# the su!erficia si#ns of res!ect assi#ned $ithin a cu ture. +uch si#ns of res!ect are often arbitrary and can conf ict $ith more im!ortant $ays of sho$in# res!ectKsuch as the res!ect $e sho$ !eo! e $hen $e assume that !eo! e ha%e a concern to mora y im!ro%e themse %es. "aw – The a$ te s us $hat $e are or are not a o$ed to do" and breakin# the a$ often eads to !unishment. What5s e#a is often based on $hat5s mora " but not a $ays. Hor e6am! e" it5s i e#a and immora to murder !eo! e. <o$e%er" the fact that e#a ity and mora ity can o%er a! doesn5t mean they are identica . It $as once i e#a to free s a%es" but that doesn5t mean it $as mora y $ron#M and it can be e#a for a com!any to !o ute or dum! to6ic $aste" but that doesn5t mean it5s mora y ri#ht to do so. It5s hard to !in!oint $hat mora ity is about" but $e often discuss mora ity $ith ease any$ay. There are many re ated ideas concernin# mora ity" such as $hat $e ou#ht to do" ri#ht and $ron#" and 3usticeM but these ideas often ha%e a nonmora counter!art. This seems c ear $hen $e com!are mora and nonmora instrumenta %a ue. (oreo%er" etiDuette and a$ are often confused $ith mora ity" but they are not identica to mora ity. What5s !o ite or e#a is often mora " but not a $ays. What5s bad etiDuette or i e#a can be mora as $e .

11

Chapter 3: The Debate O er Moral !ealism
The Duestion o%er what morality refers to has ed to t$o #rou!s of !hi oso!hers. Cne #rou! describes itse f as bein# ?mora rea istsA and other other as ?mora anti-rea ists.A (ora rea ists think that there5s more to mora ity than anti-rea ists. In !articu ar" the mora rea ists be ie%e that there5s at east one mora fact. I $i describe these t$o #rou!s then brief y describe $hy someone mi#ht acce!t or re3ect mora rea ism.

+hat is Moral realis-/
There is no !recise definition of mora rea ism that a !hi oso!hers a#ree to" but mora rea ists a#ree that anti-rea ists are #i%in# incom! ete meta-ethica theories because mora rea ists be ie%e in at east one ?mora fact.A Cther than that" mora rea ists tend to be o!timistic about attainin# mora kno$ ed#e" identifyin# true mora statements" and often be ie%e in intrinsic %a ues. #oral $acts – The difference bet$een ?truthA and ?factsA is that statements are true" but facts are the &!arts of' rea ity that at east sometimes make statements true &by corres!ondin# to them'. Hor e6am! e" $hen I say that I ha%e a foot" $hat I say is true because there5s a rea foot in the $or d that5s !art of my body. <o$e%er" not a facts are ob3ects ike feet. )6am! es of mora facts could be the fo o$in#: 1. 2. 3. 1. =. -. 9ain is intrinsica y bad. We ou#ht not cause !ain $ithout an o%erridin# reason to do so. It5s rationa to try to a%oid causin# unnecessary !ain to !eo! e. It5s $ron# to torture !eo! e $ithout an o%erridin# reason to do so. +ocrates $as a #ood !erson. +ocrates had coura#e.

Hacts can be any !art of rea ity" such as ob3ects" !ro!erties" re ations bet$een thin#s" states of affairs" and e%ents. 1. Parts of reality , We assume that thin#s e6ist in s!ace and time" but not e%erythin# is an ob3ect. Hor e6am! e" !arts of rea ity can be thou#hts or fee in#s" but thou#hts and fee in#s aren5t necessari y ob3ects. 2. Objects , Cb3ects are unities that are taken to e6ist a!art from other unities. 8 foot can be taken to be an ob3ect unified and some$hat distinct from our other body !arts e%en thou#h it5s technica y unified $ith the rest of our body. It5s not entire y c ear if any ob3ect is tru y unified in any meanin#fu sense because the uni%erse is made u! of fie ds and !artic es" but it5s con%enient to ta k about ob3ects and $e often understand $hat !eo! e say $ho discuss them. 3. Properties , 9ro!erties are e ements of thin#s" such as en#th" co or" stren#th" and coura#e. It5s not c ear that a !ro!erties are rea y the same kinds of thin#s. Ren#th is a com!arison bet$een thin#s" co or is ho$ i#ht ref ects off of ob3ectsM stren#th is $hat a body can doM and coura#e is a re ationshi! bet$een mora ity" body" and mind that in%o %es bodies doin# $hat is mora y !raise$orthy because the mind is moti%ated to do so. 1. Relations between things , Cb3ects and thin#s are often interre ated and those re ationshi!s can 1=

be im!ortant to us. The fact that one ob3ect in con3unction $ith the a$s of nature can cause somethin# to ha!!en is often %ery im!ortant. Hor e6am! e" $e eat food to sur%i%e and this in%o %es a com! e6 interre ationshi! bet$een our bodies" food" and the a$s of nature. =. tates of affairs , +tates of affairs are a the factsKthe tota rea ityKthat5s re e%ant to us $hen $e make a truth c aim. Cne reason $e think $e shou d eat food is because the states of affairs inc udin# our bodies and the food $i under#o a causa !rocess and ead to #reater hea th and on#e%ity. -. !vents , +tates of affairs e6ist in time and the rea ity that e6ists chan#es from one moment to the ne6t. We often con%enient y discuss ?e%entsA to !in!oint the !arts of rea ity that chan#e and interests us. Hor e6am! e" $e can s!eak of the e%ent of a #un bein# fired or the e%ents that ead to hi#h oi !rices. Are moral $acts irreducible% – (ora facts of the mora rea ist %ariety can5t be e iminated throu#h reduction. We often find out that one thin# is actua y somethin# e se. We often eliminate the e6istence of somethin# throu#h a reduction. Hor e6am! e" $e mi#ht say that human bein#s are nothing but !artic es and ener#y. We cou d then sto! ta kin# about human bein#s and 3ust ta k about certain confi#urations of !artic es and ener#y. +ome !eo! e a so su##est that the mind is nothing but the brain. +ome !eo! e ha%e su##ested that mora ity is nothing but cu tura customs" !references" or a socia contract. This is a !aradi#matic sort of mora anti-rea ism. (ora rea ists reDuire that mora facts are more than 3ust cu tura customs" !references" or a socia contract. <o$e%er" some sorts of reduction are not e iminati%e. Hor e6am! e" some !hi oso!hers think that !ain is identical to badness" but they don5t think $e can e iminate !ain. They think that !ain and badness are t$o different $ays to see the same thin#. This is much ike ho$ !eo! e c aim that <2C is identica to $ater" but they don5t c aim that ?$ater doesn5t rea y e6ist.A Intrinsic value – Cne #ood candidate for bein# a ?mora factA that seems to e6! ain other mora facts is ?intrinsic %a ueAKthe idea that somethin# cou d be #ood or bad 3ust for e6istin#. Hor e6am! e" it can be a fact that &some' !ain is intrinsica y bad. 8s a resu t $e mi#ht a so decide that the fo o$in# are mora facts: 1. 2. 3. 1. =. It5s $ron# to cause !eo! e !ain indiscriminate y. It5s a!!ro!riate for !eo! e to dis ike !ain and to desire to a%oid !ain. It5s a!!ro!riate to be an#ry at !eo! e $ho cause others !ain indiscriminate y. It5s a!!ro!riate to fee #ui t" re#ret" or shame $hen $e wrongly cause other !eo! e !ain. We ou#ht to consider the !ain our actions can cause !eo! e before decidin# on a course of action. -. It5s coura#eous to be $i in# to under#o !ain &e.#. 3um! in a burnin# bui din#' to he ! many other !eo! e a%oid !ain &e.#. he ! them out of a burnin# bui din#'. The re ationshi! bet$een these ideas and intrinsic %a ue in%o %es instrumental facts. It5s a fact that a !erson ou#ht to take a #ymnastics c ass to earn to do cart$hee s e%en thou#h there is no ob3ect ca ed ?ri#htnessA in the $or d. What makes it ri#ht is mere y that it5s a #ood means to an end"it5s a #ood $ay for us to accom! ish our #oa s. +imi ar y" there are better $ays than others to !romote intrinsic %a ue &or to a%oid intrinsica y bad conseDuences'.

1-

(any !eo! e a#ree that ?2I2J1A cou d be kno$n throu#h se f-e%idence" and !erha!s the be ief that ?torturin# !eo! e indiscriminately is $ron#A can a so be kno$n once a !erson understands $hat ?torturin# !eo! e indiscriminate yA and ?$ron#A consist of. The idea of ?3ustificationA is that some be iefs are more rationa than others. (any !eo! e think certain facts are se f-e%ident and sufficient y mature !eo! e can kno$ they are true throu#h contem! ation. In other $ords kno$ ed#e mi#ht not Duite reDuire true be iefs insofar as the $ord ?trueA is often taken to refer to !erfect !recision" but such !recision mi#ht rare y be !ossib e.true/ I $i brief y discuss some reasons to acce!t or re3ect mora rea ism.' Is -oral realis. This is much ike the scientific method that offers hy!otheses and successfu hy!otheses are taken to be true unti !ro%en other$ise. $e can assume certain beliefs to be true and use those beliefs to create arguments% . Justified be iefs are sufficient y rationa " and un3ustified be iefs are irrationa . 12 . Hina y" many !hi oso!hers $ho be ie%e in ?mora kno$ ed#eA don5t necessari y think $e can !erfect y mode or describe mora facts" ha%e !erfect y accurate mora be iefs" or attain certainty. +cientists try %ery hard to mode rea ity and ha%e incredib y in-de!th kno$ ed#e of rea ity as a resu t" but e%en scientists fai to perfectly mode rea ity and their theories #ain #reater !recision Duite often. 8 theory is often taken by scientists to be fa se $hen a ne$ one $ith #reater !recision is successfu y tested. &It mi#ht be !ossib e in o#ic and mathematics. (any !eo! e think that $e can obser%e mora facts 3ust ike scientific facts. 2. <o$e%er" $e must ha%e a $ay to ha%e counter-e%idence a#ainst our mora assum!tions or it $i be im!ossib e to kno$ $hich mora assum!tions are better 3ustified than others. &hrough self'evidence% . <o$ cou d $e ha%e 3ustified be iefs concernin# mora ity@ There are at east three $ays: 1. 3. It seems ike y that $e can obser%e %arious menta facts" such as our thou#hts and fee in#s" and many !eo! e a so think $e can obser%e that our ! easure is &often' intrinsica y #ood &#ood 3ust for e6istin#' and !ain is &often' intrinsica y bad &bad 3ust for e6istin#'. We cou d assume that certain mora be iefs are true unti they are !ro%en fa se or !rob ematic counter-e%idence is attained. (ora kno$ ed#e reDuires us to ha%e rationa mora be iefs" so mora rea ists a#ree that mora ity contains an e ement of rationa ity. Cur an#ua#e doesn5t necessari y corre ate $ith rea ity !erfect y and $e #enera y use $ords that are con%enient and easy to communicate rather than try to mode rea ity !erfect y. We mi#ht not need an ar#ument for a our be iefs to be 3ustified.#oral &nowledge – 4no$ ed#e im! ies &at the %ery east' 3ustified true be ief. (ost mora rea ist !hi oso!hers think $e can know at east one mora fact" and that5s not sur!risin# considerin# ho$ stran#e it $ou d be to insist that there#s at least one moral fact despite the fact that we can#t know what it is. (ora kno$ ed#e of the most contro%ersia kind for a mora rea ist $i inc ude the abi ity to ha%e 3ustified true be iefs concernin# mora facts. It5s a most im!ossib e to be abso ute y certain $hen $e ha%e kno$ ed#e" but the reDuirement of ha%in# a ?3ustified be iefA isn5t as difficu t. &hrough observation% .

Hor e6am! e" a mora rea ist can ar#ue that it5s rationa to nurture our em!athy to care more for others and that mi#ht make sense if other !eo! e &or their e6!eriences' ha%e intrinsic %a ue" but it5s not c ear ho$ it can make sense for an anti-rea ist. (ora rea ism can he ! e6! ain how $e can kno$ so much about mora ity" and mora rea ism mi#ht be needed to e6! ain the actua ?mora kno$ ed#eA $e ha%e. Hor e6am! e" some !hi oso!hers think that there is no e%idence of mora facts" and such facts $ou d be too stran#e to hy!othesi7e about. Hor e6am! e" $e mi#ht think $e kno$ that !ain is intrinsica y bad from !ersona e6!erience" but facts about intrinsic %a ue im! y mora rea ism.Why a#ree $ith mora rea ism@ – There are at east t$o main reasons to a#ree $ith mora rea ism: 1. They think that anti-rea ists are missin# somethin#. +econd" they think that mora ity can be adeDuate y e6! ained $ithout referrin# to mora facts. Cne" $e tend to think $e kno$ a ot about mora ity. We $ant to kno$ if mora statements can be true because of mora facts" if $e can kno$ those facts" if those facts e%er refer to intrinsic %a ue" and if any of our mora be iefs are rationa y 3ustified. Hor e6am! e" they cou d ar#ue that !eo! e a#ree that torturin# !eo! e indiscriminate y is $ron# because $e ha%e em!athy for each other and. Without intrinsic %a ue it5s not c ear ho$ any mora be ief cou d be 3ustified" and $e re#u ar y en#a#e in mora debate about $hich mora be iefs are more 3ustified. 8nti-rea ists can admit that $e make certain mora 3ud#ments" but they cou d e6! ain $hy $e make those 3ud#ments $ithout a!!ea in# to mora facts. There are many different mora rea ist and anti-rea ist !hi oso!hers $ho a ha%e some$hat different be iefs concernin# the nature of mora ity.or $e im! icit y a#ree to a socia contract that $i ser%e e%eryone5s interests. Hirst" they think that the mora facts that mora rea ists be ie%e in are far-fetched and !robab y don5t e6ist. Cur intuition and common sense is often dismissed for bein# !re3udiced and un$arranted !o!u ar o!inion" but a most a anti-rea ists a#ree $e do kno$ Duite a bit about mora ity" such as the fact that it often makes sense for us to ar#ue about mora ity. 2. Eonethe ess" the debate o%er mora rea ism hi#h i#hts at east t$o main e ements of the nature of mora ityKmora facts and mora kno$ ed#e. (any make this !oint by sayin# that mora rea ism is intuitive or is su!!orted by common sense. 2. They mi#ht not be con%inced that such mora facts are su!!orted by intuition or common sense or they mi#ht sim! y dismiss our intuitions and common sense. Why re'ect moral realism% – (ora anti-rea ists often re3ect mora rea ism for at east t$o reasons: 1. T$o" mora rea ists are con%inced that anti-rea ismKthe re3ection of mora factsKcou dn5t !ossib y co%er a that there is to mora ity. 1> .

(any mora natura ists $ho a#ree that mora facts can be a subc ass of natura facts think $e can obser%e that !ain is intrinsica y bad 3ust ike $e can obser%e our be iefs and desires. (any natura ists think that $e can obser%e mora facts because they are identical to other natura facts.Chapter ": Meta#$thical Theories (eta-ethica theories are meant to e6! ain mora !sycho o#y" mora rea ity" and mora reason. (any mora natura ists eDuate ?natura A $ith ?nonmora "A but it5s a so !ossib e that mora facts are a subc ass of natura facts" 3ust ike most !hi oso!hers no$ think that !sycho o#ica facts are natura facts rather than ?o%er and abo%eA natura facts. (any !hi oso!hers think that mora ity su!er%enes on the natura $or d in the sense that mora facts de!end on natura facts" so our obser%ations about the natura $or d are re e%ant to mora ity. I $i brief y discuss fi%e meta-ethica theories" t$o of $hich are forms of mora rea ism and three that are forms of mora antirea ism: (ora natura ism and mora intuitionism are both forms of mora rea ismM nonco#niti%ism" re ati%ism" and error theory are forms of mora anti-rea ism. )he open !uestion argument* . (ora rea ity refers to the nature behind true mora statementsK$hat makes our statements true. (b'ections 1. (ora !sycho o#y considers the actua mora 3ud#ments" mora interests" and mora moti%ation !eo! e e6!erience. T$o identica !hysica states of affairs $i ha%e identica mora im! ications. (ora reason describes our mora kno$ ed#e and ho$ $e can decide $hich mora be iefs are best or ?most ike y true. 9hi oso!hers ar#ue that scientists disco%ered that $ater and <2C are identica and $e can disco%er that !ain and intrinsic badness are the same thin# in a simi ar $ay. Hor e6am! e" !ain and intrinsic badness cou d be identica Kt$o $ays to see the same thin#. <o$ do $e kno$ $hen t$o facts are identica @ It5s not ob%ious that !ain and ?intrinsic badnessA are identica because they seem so different. The o!en Duestion ar#ument makes it c ear that no matter $hat identity re ation is offered" $e can ask" ?But are they identica @A Hor e6am! e" $e can say intrinsic badness and !ain are identica " and I can fee !ain and ask" ?But is this !ain intrinsica y bad@A If no #ood ans$er is offered" then such Duestions im! y that mora identity re ations are hy!otheses at best and ha%e not been 1* . 9ain is not necessari y identica to intrinsic badness because !ain cou d ha%e a property of bein# intrinsica y bad instead. T$o different situations of chi dren torturin# cats for fun $i both be e6am! es of somethin# mora y $ron# because the natura facts are sufficient y ana o#ous.A (ora rea ists be ie%e that there are mora facts &mora e ements of rea ity' and they are often o!timistic about ho$ $e $e can understand such facts" but mora anti-rea ists re3ect mora rea ism and don5t think $e need mora facts to understand mora ity. There are many forms of each of these theories" but I $i concentrate on one %ersion of each theory. Moral naturalis(ora natura ism states that mora facts are ordinary facts of the same !hysica rea ity described by scientists &bio o#y" !sycho o#y" and !hysics'" and $e kno$ about these facts throu#h obser%ation.

This is much ike our kno$ ed#e of mathematics and o#ic. It mi#ht mere y be our mora assum!tions that are needed to e6! ain such an obser%ation. They tend to disa#ree that mora facts are identica to natura facts. Moral Intuitionis(ora intuitionists &a so kno$n as ?mora non-natura istsA' think that obser%ation is insufficient to e6! ain a of our mora kno$ ed#e and at east some of our mora kno$ ed#e is based on intuition or contem! ation that enab es us to kno$ se f-e%ident facts.A It5s not ob%ious that $e can reso %e this disa#reement or that intuition is anythin# other than !re3udice. '-otivis)moti%ism is a form of ?non-co#niti%ismA because it c aims that mora 3ud#ments aren5t u timate y meant to be true or fa se. +ayin# ?4i in# indiscriminate y is $ron#A is actua y e6!ressin# somethin# ike" ?4i in# indiscriminate y" booLA )moti%ists don5t be ie%e in mora facts or true mora statements" but some emoti%ists do be ie%e that $e can ha%e a con%ersation in%o %in# ?fictiona A mora ideas that $e treat as true for !ractica !ur!oses.natural $acts are $ar $etched* . Cnce $e fu y understand a mora statement" that can be enou#h to kno$ if it5s true. (any !eo! e Duestion our abi ity to obser%e mora facts.!ro%en true. We can kno$ that ?2I2J1A 3ust by understandin# $hat the statement is sayin#. +ayin# $hat5s ri#ht or $ron# mi#ht he ! us a#ree u!on $hat a$s to !ass and $hat socia contract $ou d best satisfy our interests.A 20 . 2. +ome !eo! e ca this ?fictiona ism. (b'ections 1. Hirst" many such obser%ations seem !resum!tuous" such as the obser%ation that torturin# a cat is $ron# from seein# it occur. Hor e6am! e" it mi#ht be se f-e%ident that a !ain is intrinsica y bad to anyone $ho fu y understands $hat ?!ainA and ?intrinsica y badA refer to. They are actua y 3ust emotiona dis! ays. Eot e%erythin# $e say is true or fa se" such as ?Wo$LA or ?Bo your 3obLA )moti%ists admit that mora 3ud#ments often sound ike they are assertions" but that is dece!ti%e. +on. 2. #oral observation is unreliable* . 8dditiona y" it5s not ob%ious that there are ?non-natura mora factsA in the first ! ace. 9hi oso!hers $ou d !refer for a facts to be !art of the natura $or d and it seems mysterious to say that some facts aren5t. (ora intuitionists don5t necessari y think mora facts are natura because they don5t think $e can kno$ a mora facts throu#h obser%ation of the natura $or d. 8dditiona y" mora obser%ations are subjective because not e%eryone has the same mora obser%ations. Instead" mora 3ud#ments are e6!ressions of our emotions and mora ar#uments are meant to chan#e someone5s emotiona attitudes to$ards certain mora 3ud#ments. Intuition is unreliable* . (any !eo! e ha%e different intuitions and dec are different mora be iefs to be ?se f-e%ident.

It seems hi#h y counterintuiti%e to te me that $hen I en#a#e in ar#uments concernin# mora ity that I $as doin# somethin# tota y different than I thou#ht. If mora rea ism is true" then $e can e6!erience mora !ro#ress by disco%erin# ne$ mora facts and findin# out that our !re%ious mora be iefs $ere fa se.perience moral progress* . Hor e6am! e" $e a ha%e an interest to ha%e our ife and !ro!erty !rotected" so e%ery cu ture a#rees that stea in# and ki in# $i y ni y is $ron#. 2. Cne cu ture cou d say that yin# is a $ays $ron# and another cou d say it5s on y $ron# some times. If mora ar#uments $ere mere y meant to chan#e our emotions" then $hy do so many mora ar#uments seem rationa @ It5s not ob%ious that an emoti%ist can fu y e6! ain $hy rationa mora ar#uments are so im!ortant to so many !eo! e. Moral Relativis(ora re ati%ism is the %ie$ that mora statements can be true or fa se" but the truth of a mora statement de!ends on the mora tradition of the !erson utterin# it. motivism is counterintuitive* . If you $ant to kno$ $hat5s ri#ht or $ron#" 3ust study the cu ture you i%e in. (ora re ati%ists do not need to !ro%e that a cu tures disa#ree about mora ity because $e cou d a find it most con%enient to a#ree about certain thin#s. Both ?murder is $ron#A and ?murder is 21 . 8 mora statements are made $ithin a tradition and the statements are true if they corres!ond to the tradition. Hor e6am! e" s a%ery $as once considered to be !erfect y mora in the 0+" but no$ $e kno$ it $as $ron#. We often ar#ue about $hat5s true about mora ity" but it5s not c ear that such ar#uments cou d amount to more than an a!!ea to !o!u ar o!inion for a re ati%ist. (ora re ati%ists reduce mora ity to em!irica y %erifiab e customs and traditions that can be studied by anthro!o o#ists. It5s not ob%ious that mora re ati%ists can e6! ain ho$ a cu ture can im!ro%e and correct their fa se mora be iefs because it5s im!ossib e for a cu ture to ha%e fa se mora be iefs in the first ! ace. motivism ignores rational moral arguments* . 2. Relativism $ails to account $or rational moral arguments* . There5s ne$ mora issues that cro! u! e%ery day and the situations $e find ourse %es in are often %ery uniDue. 'rror theory )rror theory states that a ordinary mora 3ud#ments are fa se. -ome cultures e. (b'ections 1. <o$e%er" !o!u ar o!inion can fai to account for mora truths because !eo! e are often $ron# &such as $hen they thou#ht s a%ery $asn5t $ron#' and because a cu ture cou dn5t ha%e an o!inion concernin# e%ery !ossib e mora issue. Why@ Because mora ity is based on a cu ture" socia contract" or constructed tradition.(b'ections 1. )moti%ism is %ery dismissi%e of our mora e6!eriences and conscious intentions.

(b'ections 1. )%ery meta-ethica theory I5%e discussed is sensiti%e to the fact that $e can successfu y make mora 3ud#ments $ithout doin# somethin# $ron# e6ce!t the error theorist. There is no such thin# as ri#ht or $ron#" #ood or bad" %irtue" or intrinsic %a ue.A This is a so true $hen $e s!eak of unicorns. <o$e%er" the error-theorist ar#ues that $e on y ha%e a reason to be mora and acce!t mora ity $hen it5s in our se f-interest. 22 . It is uncontro%ersia that $e can appropriately make mora 3ud#ments" such as the 3ud#ment that killing people indiscriminately is wrong. The error theorist reDuires us to admit that our understandin# of mora ity is a most entire y $ron#" but $e think $e do kno$ Duite a bit about mora ity. )rror theorists a#ree that $e cou d !ersona y find it beneficia to a#ree to a socia contract and it can be con%enient for us to s!eak as if mora ity is rea . rror theory re!uires us to re'ect uncontroversial moral truths . We can ar#ue that $e are more confident that certain mora 3ud#ments are a!!ro!riate than that error theory is true. What5s #ood for me isn5t a $ays ri#ht. Hor e6am! e" a cautious and successfu thief can stea to he ! herse f $hi e hurtin# others" and doin# so is $ron#. We tend to think that our mora 3ud#ments can be a!!ro!riate" but error theory seems to im! y other$ise. What5s in our se f-interest and $hat5s mora are often at odds. Hor e6am! e" an error theorist cou d say it5s true that ?5murder is $ron#5 is fa se. <o$e%er" error theorists don5t necessari y $ant to do a$ay $ith mora ity or mora ar#uments. &There mi#ht be statements about mora ity that are true" but $e $ou d ha%e to be carefu . Eonethe ess" e%en if our mora 3ud#ments can be true or a!!ro!riate" it5s not ob%ious to e%eryone $hy. )ach of these meta-ethica theories ha%e a different ans$er concernin# the rea ity that corres!onds to mora ity" and they a face %arious ob3ections that must be a!!ro!riate y dea t $ith before $e can commit to one of them. 2. Gi%en the choice bet$een sayin# that ?ki in# !eo! e indiscriminate y is $ron#A is an appropriate moral judgment and sayin# error theory is true" most !eo! e $i side $ith our uncontro%ersia mora 3ud#ments. We tend to think such 3ud#ments can be true or fa se" but emoti%ism states other$ise. ?(ora $ron#nessA is non-e6istent 3ust ike unicorns and a statements about thin#s bein# mora y $ron# are fa se for the same reason they are fa se about unicornsKto say" ?0nicorns ha%e four e#sA and ?unicorns ha%e a tai A are both fa se because there are no unicorns. 8dditiona y" I5%e !re%ious y #i%en t$o ar#uments for and a#ainst mora rea ism that shou d a so be dea t $ith.interest aren/t identical . This is basica y the same !osition I mentioned ear ier ca ed ?fictiona ism. #orality and sel$. This is contrary to the s!irit of mora ity. There5s a sense that it5s true that unicorns ha%e four e#s and a tai $hen $e are s!eakin# $ithin the fictiona frame$ork $here unicorns e6ist. We tend to think that such 3ud#ments are at east sometimes true" but both emoti%ism and error theory state other$ise.not $ron#A are fa se because nothin# is mora y $ron#. We make mora 3ud#ments in e%eryday ife Duite often.A' )rror theorists a#ree that $hen $e s!eak about mora ity $e often intend to say somethin# true or fa se and refer to mora facts" but they think a mora conce!ts fai to refer to anythin# because there are no mora facts.

If it is $ron# for someone to do somethin# in a situation" then it is $ron# for anyone to do it in an identica situation. 3. The abo%e ar#ument uses a mora truth &it is a $ays or a most a $ays $ron# to torture chi dren' and combines that $ith t$o other uncontro%ersia facts to ead us to a mora conc usion &$hi!!in# the nei#hbor5s chi d is $ron#'. Therefore" $hi!!in# the nei#hbor5s chi d is !robab y $ron#.om!are this to mathematica kno$ ed#e. It is a $ays or a most a $ays $ron# to torture chi dren. We shou d !refer mora be iefs that are reasonab e to those that are unreasonab e and those that are !robab y true rather than !robab y fa se. Whi!!in# the nei#hbor5s chi d $ou d be a case of torturin# a chi d. +ufferin# is bad. 2. It is often $ron# to stea from !eo! e. (ora reasonin# doesn5t reDuire that $e !ro%e abso ute y e%erythin#. I $i e6! ain ho$ $e can come u! $ith mora ar#uments in order to ha%e the most reasonab e mora be iefs !ossib e. 8 thou#h some !eo! e mi#ht think it5s im!ossib e to ar#ue about mora ity or ha%e reasonab e mora be iefs" !hi oso!hers a most a $ays think $e can. We can use uncontro%ersia truths to ead us to mora conc usions. 0ncontro%ersia mora truths 8na o#ies Theoretica %irtues Thou#ht e6!eriments 0ncontroversial -oral truths There are many hi#h y ! ausib e mora truths that !eo! e tend to a#ree $ith" such as the fo o$in#: 1. In !articu ar" I $i discuss the fo o$in# e ements of mora reason: 1. It $ou d be absurd to think that e%eryone has to kno$ $hy torturin# chi dren is a $ays or a most a $ays $ron#. I kno$ that 2I2J1 e%en thou#h I don5t kno$ $hy it5s true. 2. 1. +uch truths are sometimes ca ed ?mora truisms. Hor e6am! e: 23 .A These truths are often taken for #ranted durin# mora reasonin#. It is a $ays or a most a $ays $ron# to torture chi dren. 1. =. <a!!iness is #ood.' <o$e%er" it mi#ht be !ossib e to earn about ?$hy torturin# chi dren is a $ays or a most a $ays $ron#A throu#h other uncontro%ersia truths. 3. It5s 3ust ob%ious. &. 3.Chapter %: Moral !easo& Eot a mora be iefs are eDua . 2. I ha%e no reason to think that $hi!!in# the nei#hbor5s chi d $ou d be the ri#ht thin# to do. 1. +uch reasonin# can be e6! icit y and c ear y stated in the form of mora ar#uments" such as the fo o$in#: 1.

We kno$ that kickin# !eo! e is usua y $ron# and $e can fi#ure out that !unchin# !eo! e is usua y $ron# for the same reason. The dis%a ue of sufferin# is ana o#ous y simi ar for each !erson. It is mora y acce!tab e for me to harm others $hen necessary for se f-!reser%ation" and it is acce!tab e for others to harm me $hen necessary for se f-!reser%ation as $e . If $e ha%e no reason to doubt an uncontro%ersia truth" then it makes #ood sense to be ie%e it. 3. We can use ana o#ies to 3ustify ne$ #enera mora truths by usin# other uncontro%ersia mora truths. But it5s a so usua y $ron# for me to cause others harm for the same reason it5s usua y $ron# for others to hurt me"because harmin# others is usua y $ron#. 8na o#ies et us com!are t$o thin#s to find re e%ant simi arities bet$een the t$o. +e f-!reser%ation seems to o%erride the need to refrain from harmin# others in either case. 8dditiona y" there can be e6ce!tions to #enera mora ru es" $hich a!! y ana o#ous y for each !erson. =. Therefore" a thin#s eDua " torture is $ron#. We can consider that kickin# !eo! e is #enera y $ron# for others because it5s bad $hen ( #et hurt. Therefore" a thin#s eDua " it5s $ron# to cause sufferin#. 21 . Whene%er it5s $ron# to hurt !eo! e" it $i be $ron# to kick or !unch them in order to hurt them. I don5t $ant to su##est that there is ne%er any reason to Duestion uncontro%ersia truths" but bein# uncontro%ersia tends to be sufficient for 3ustification. They are both often $ron# for the same reason. In the meantime it seems Duite rationa to a#ree $ith the abo%e ar#ument. Analo"ies 8na o#ies he ! us dra$ #enera truths from ess #enera cases. The first t$o !remises are ones I be ie%e to be uncontro%ersia mora truths. It5s not then a bi# ste! to rea i7e that other !eo! e are re e%ant y simi ar to me. 2. We kno$ that sufferin# is bad because $e ha%e e6!erienced it. Cne $ay to 3ustify an uncontro%ersia truth is by defendin# it from ob3ections. Cur mora 3ud#ments for any s!ecific !erson is ana o#ous to our mora 3ud#ments for e%eryone e se. Torture causes sufferin#.1. We cou d s!ecu ate that the %a ue of one !erson5s ife is #reater than the %a ue of another to a%oid harm. We can then use this com!arison to disco%er a ne$ #enera mora truthK hurtin# !eo! e is usua y $ron#. 1. 8 thin#s eDua " $e kno$ it is wrong to cause bad thin#s to ha!!en. If they are fa se" then it $i be u! to someone e se to !ro%e it. It5s bad $hen I #et hurt" and it5s bad $hen other !eo! e #et hurt for the same reason. We can then use this #enera ru e to rea i7e that torture and other forms of %io ence are a so usua y $ron#. Hor e6am! e" kickin# and !unchin# !eo! e tend to be ana o#ous actions insofar as they are used to hurt !eo! e.

(ora thou#ht e6!eriments are meant to #i%e us insi#ht into mora ity. Why@ <e su##ests that it#s wrong to refuse to help people when doing so is at little cost to oneself. We can make use of uncontro%ersia truths" ana o#ies" and com!are theoretica %irtues. It seems ike the best thin# to do in this situation is to #i%e your $a et. 8 itt e bit of inte ectua ! easure seems to be su!erior to a #reat amount of anima itic ! easures &eatin#" s ee!in#" and ha%in# se6'. <e asks us to ima#ine that $e can sa%e a dro$nin# chi d from a sma !oo of $ater at itt e cost to ourse %es. <e !roduces a thou#ht e6!eriment and then uses it to !roduce an ana o#y. &The cost to ourse %es $ou d be to i%e $ith ess u6ery. We e%en obser%e some %a ues" such as the %a ue of ! easure and !ain.2 Cne thou#ht e6!eriment done more recent y $as by 9eter +in#er in his essay The Bro$nin# 9ond and the )6!andin# .irc e.Thou"ht e($eri-ents Thou#ht e6!eriments are stories or scenarios that cou d ead to insi#ht about the uni%erse. It $ou d be absurd to critici7e someone for #i%in# u! their $a et in this scenario. It $ou d be $ron# not to. +ome !eo! e ha%e su##ested that mora theories ha%e fai ed us" so mora ity is !robab y a human in%ention. )%en if our theories 2 I sus!ect that $e $ou d !refer to i%e a dissatisfied ife as a !erson than as a satisfied !i# because $e think human e6istence itse f is $orth more than the ! easures that cou d be offered to a !i#. 8nother thou#ht e6!eriment $as su##ested by John +te$art (i in 0ti itarianism. I $rote more about intuition in my discussion" ?8r#uments for Intuition. Wou d $e ha%e an ob i#ation to sa%e the chi d or $ou d it be mora y acce!tab e to $a k on by@ The ans$er seems to be c earK$e ha%e an ob i#ation to sa%e the chi d. +in#er then ar#ues that this is an ana o#ous situation to #i%in# charity. This cou d #i%e us reason to sus!ect that ! easure is not the on y thin# $e %a ue. We can sa%e i%es throu#h charity at %ery itt e cost to ourse %es. +ome intuiti%e su!!ort is considered to be from se f-e%idence" but some intuiti%e su!!ort cou d a so be based on !ersona e6!erience and obser%ation. (ora reasonin# is not on y com!atib e $ith mora theori7in#" but it is necessary to reason about mora ity to theori7e in the first ! ace. Intuiti%e su!!ort tends to be difficu t to e6! icit y state in the form of ar#uments. Bein# a !erson #i%es us inte ectua ! easures that are Dua itati%e y better than anima istic ! easures that !i#s en3oy.' Therefore" $e ha%e an ob i#ation to #i%e to charity. <e thou#ht $e $ou d rea i7e that bein# a !erson is more en3oyab e than bein# a !i#. We a so need to kno$ somethin# about mora ity before $e can decide if a mora theory is ! ausib e. <e ar#ued that it5s better to be !erson dissatisfied than a !i# satisfied. I don5t a#ree that our mora theories ha%e fai ed us" but that5s irre e%ant. 2= . Hor e6am! e" ima#ine that a $oman !uts a oaded #un u! to your head and asks you to #i%e your $a et to her. The mora reasonin# discussed abo%e cou d be used to de%e o! a mora theory. We can then com!are ho$ %a uab e each e6!erience $as. What e6act y are thou#ht e6!eriments doin#@ We often say that they #i%e us ?intuiti%e su!!ortA for a be ief. Hor e6am! e" $e can com!are inte ectua ! easures to the ! easures en3oyed by !i#s because $e ha%e actua y e6!erienced them.A (ora reasonin# is much ike other forms of reasonin#. (ere y e6istin# as a human bein# cou d ha%e a #reat dea of %a ue.

+ometimes obser%ations a so contradict our uncontro%ersia be iefs" but $e shou dn5t a $ays re3ect our uncontro%ersia be iefs $ithout a better a ternati%e . If I hy!othesi7e that a !ain is bad" then my !redictions succeed unti I obser%e that some !ain isn5t bad. Hor e6am! e" consider that ?torturin# chi dren is a $ays or a most a $ays $ron#. Hor e6am! e" Ee$tan5s theory of !hysics $as contradicted by some obser%ations" but scientists sti be ie%ed it $as true unti )instein !ro%ided scientists $ith a ne$ scientific theory that $as a c ear im!ro%ement. $hi!!in# chi dren is usua y #ood'" then $e ha%e reason to re3ect the contro%ersia be ief.evident. Theoretical virtues I ha%e discussed si6 theoretica %irtues in the !ast" $hich he ! us determine $hen a hy!othesis or be ief is 3ustified. &The %irtues are: +e f-e%idence" o#ica consistency" obser%ation" !redictabi ity" com!rehensi%eness" and sim! icity. Cf course" 2- . The so ution here is to rea i7e that these mora ru es seem to ha%e e6ce!tions. +econd" $e don5t $ant our mora be iefs to contradict one another &$e $ant them to be logically consistent'.#. Third" observation is re e%ant to our mora be iefs. a ne$ set of ! ausib e be iefs to re! ace them. <o$e%er" it mi#ht at times be inad%isab e to be be o#ica y consistent. If $e ha%e a choice of re3ectin# an uncontro%ersia mora truth that $e are certain is true &e.#.' The better a be ief is su!!orted by the si6 %irtues" the more ! ausib e the be ief is. We kno$ a ot about mora ity !rior to ha%in# mora theories. We e6!erience that !ain is bad &in some sense'" and that e6!erience is an obser%ation that seems to su!!ort the hy!othesis that a !ain is bad. 8nd e%en no$ there are obser%ations that seem to conf ict )instein5s theory of !hysics" but scientists don5t re3ect )instein5s theory. We shou dn5t re3ect an uncontro%ersia mora truth ?3ust becauseA it mi#ht contradict another mora truth. We cou d conc ude that it5s se f-e%ident that torturin# chi dren is $ron# or a most a $ays $ron# based on the fact that understandin# such a statement seems sufficient to kno$in# that it5s $ron# or a most a $ays $ron#. Hirst" some mora statements mi#ht be sel$.A 4no$in# that torture causes intense sufferin#M that intense sufferin# is badM that there is usua y no #ood reason to cause intense sufferin# to a chi dM and that causin# harm $ith no #ood reason is $ron# seems sufficient to rea i7e that ?torturin# chi dren is a $ays or a most a $ays $ron#A is true. Cur mora kno$ ed#e ne%er de!ended on mora theories. (ere y understandin# the statement cou d be sufficient to 3ustify the be ief in it. Hourth" a hy!othesis is successfu at makin# risky predictions is more ike y to be true. When $e ho d incoherent be iefs $e ha%e a reason to fee ess certain about our be iefs" but that doesn5t mean our be iefs shou d a be re3ected. We mi#ht ha%e a serious !rob em $hen t$o hi#h y ! ausib e be iefs contradict one another" such as the be ief that it5s ne%er ri#ht to hurt !eo! e and se f-!reser%ation is a $ays ri#ht. In that case it mi#ht be necessary to hurt someone for se f-!reser%ation. torture is usua y $ron#' and a contro%ersia be ief &e.ha%e fai ed us" that $ou dn5t #i%e us a #ood reason to be ske!tica about mora ity or mora reasonin#.

I don5t think masochism is an e6am! e of e6!eriencin# that !ain itse f as #ood. Both !ain and ! easure can be simu taneous y e6!eriencedKand !hysica and emotiona !ain &or ! easure' are a so t$o different as!ects to our e6!eriences.A The sim! e mora truth can determine that a of these other actions are $ron# and more. 8dditiona y" the sim! e mora truth has fe$er assum!tions. (asochism cou d be an e6!erience of !hysica !ain and emotiona ! easure. It is safer to ha%e fe$er assum!tions rather than more" and sim! e truths ha%e fe$er assum!tions. 22 . +i6th" the fact that a theory is sim! e counts in its fa%or and the fact that it5s com! e6 counts a#ainst it. If a !ain is bad" then $e cou d use that fact to he ! us do a #reat dea of mora reasonin# as o!!osed to mere y rea i7in# that burnin# !ain is bad.inter!retin# these obser%ations can be difficu t. We assume a of those actions are e6am! es of hurtin# !eo! e" but $e mi#ht find out that stea in# isn5t technica y hurtin# !eo! e. Hifth" the be ief that a !ain is bad is much more comprehensive than be ie%in# that the !ain of touchin# fire is bad. +im! e mora truths" such as ?it5s usua y $ron# to hurt !eo! eA #i%e us more more ! ausib e hy!otheses than much more com! e6 mora truths" such as" ?it5s usua y $ron# to torture !eo! e" to !unch !eo! e" to kick !eo! e" to stab !eo! e" to stea from !eo! e" and to shoot !eo! e.

This is often unintentiona because #ood reasonin# reDuires trainin#" carefu thou#ht" and research and fe$ !eo! e ha%e mastered their abi ities of rationa ity. The i-$ortance of -oral rationali1ation Jose!h <eath ar#ues that crimino o#y has found that one of the most common causes of immora and i e#a acts in the $ork! ace are rationa i7ations rather than de%iant !sycho o#y" a ? ack of %irtueA &such as #reediness'" or a ack of !hi oso!hica kno$ ed#e. This discussion is based on ?Business )thics and (ora (oti%ation: 8 . 8s $e ha%e seen" $hite co ar crimina s are ty!ica y conf icted about their o$n actions. This reDuires that $e kno$ the difference bet$een bein# reasonab e and unreasonab e. They kno$ $hat mora ity and the a$ reDuire of them. I $i discuss the im!ortance of mora rationa i7ations" %arious rationa i7ation techniDues" and #i%e i ustrations of rationa i7ations in the business $or d. <eath ar#ues that a business ethics c ass shou d concentrate on rationa i7ations" the harm done by immora acts" and the tendency of ar#e or#ani7ations &bureaucracies' to !romote rationa i7ationsM and he sees itt e reason to teach students the ?ri#htA %a ues or !hi oso!hica theories: If one takes this !ers!ecti%e serious y" then there is no !articu ar reason for business ethics courses to focus on mora di emmas" or to teach fundamenta Smora T !ers!ecti%es &4antian" uti itarian" etc. <e describes these rationa i7ations as ?acts of neutra i7ationAKthou#hts and reasonin# used to do$n! ay the se%erity of the immora acts or e%en e6cuse it despite the fact that people tend to know the difference between right and wrong in other contexts% 8 $oman mi#ht think stea in# is $ron#" and borrowing money without permission is wrong" but $hen she sto e money from the business she $orks for" she $as 3ust borro$in# it and $ou d !ay it back ater. The !rob em is that they ha%e con%inced themse %es that no one is rea y in3ured by their actions" or that they had no choice in the matter" or that itUs !ermissib e because e%eryone e se is 2> .Chapter ': $thics a&( !atio&ali)atio& We $ant to kno$ ho$ to be reasonab e $hen thinkin# about mora ity" and ?mora !hi oso!hyA is the s!ecia i7ation in doin# e6act y that. +ometimes !eo! e think ike so!histsK!retenders of $isdomKrather than !hi oso!hers and make use of !oor reasonin# without a serious attempt to be reasonable. <o$e%er" I $ou d ike to note that <eath seems to e6a##erate the im!ortance of rationa i7ations at the e6!ense of mora !hi oso!hy. They are more ike y to commit crimes because they ha%e ta ked themse %es into be ie%in# some ty!e of e6cuse for their actions" and they ha%e found a socia en%ironment is $hich this sort of e6cuse is acce!ted or encoura#ed.rimino o#ica 9ers!ecti%eA &9BH' by Jose!h <eath. ?+o!histryA or ?rationa i7ationA is !oor reasonin# !eo! e use as if it $ere #ood reasonin# $hen they are bein# ne# i#ent durin# the reasonin# !rocess. We can study moral rationali)ations in an attem!t to i ustrate the difference bet$een #ood reasonin# and rationa i7ation. Thus a more usefu inter%ention" in an ethics course" $ou d be to attack the techniDues of neutra i7ation that students are ike y to encounter" and may be tem!ted to em! oy" $hen they #o on to their future careers.' +tudents do not commit crimes because they ack e6!ertise in the a!! ication of the cate#orica im!erati%e or the fe icific ca cu us Suti itarianismT.

&-11' I a#ree $ith <eath that rationa i7ation &acts of neutra i7ation'" the harm done by immora beha%ior" and the tendency of bureaucracies to dis!erse res!onsibi ity shou d a be tau#ht in a business ethics course. (any sma chi dren don5t yet understand why kickin# is $ron# and $e shou dn5t be sur!rised $hen these chi dren kick !eo! e as a resu t. (any !eo! e at one !oint thou#ht the s a%e trade $as mora " but $e no$ kno$ it $as e#re#ious y immora . The fact that !eo! e kno$ a ot about ri#ht and $ron# certain y does not im! y that they kno$ e%erythin# about ri#ht and $ron#. 4no$in# $hy it5s $ron# he !s us earn not to do it. The difference bet$een rationa i7ation and #ood reasonin# isn5t b ack and $hite" and earnin# ho$ to a%oid rationa i7ation isn5t enou#h to be a reasonab e !erson. 9eo! e in the future cou d find out that ho$ $e treat anima s no$ is often a so e#re#ious y immora .doin# it" etc.A )%eryday thinkin# is ! a#ued by rationa i7ationKse f-dece!tion" the confirmation bias" anecdota e%idence" the tendency to e6a##erate harms to onese f and mar#ina i7e harms done to others" and fa acious reasonin#. <o$e%er" I disa#ree that teachin# the ri#ht %a ues or !hi oso!hica theories are therefore unim!ortant for at east t$o reasons: Hirst" there is no ma3or difference bet$een rationa i7ation and ?ordinary thou#ht. Hor e6am! e" it5s $ron# to kick !eo! e because it tends to hurt them" and $e understand that it5s usua y $ron# to hurt !eo! e. 9hi oso!hy has a!! ication to e%eryday ife and to fu y earn !hi oso!hy reDuires us to think !hi oso!hica yKto earn to think in the most reasonab e $ay !ossib e. There5s a continuum of better and $orse forms of reasonin#" and mora !hi oso!hy attem!ts to understand mora ity and he ! us think mora y in the most reasonab e $ay !ossib e. +econd" e%en if rationa i7ation is the most common cause of immora beha%ior in the business $or d" that doesn5t mean it5s the on y cause. Cne of the best $ays to sto! rationa i7in# is to earn to think !hi oso!hica y. There are difficu t decisions to be made and !hi oso!hy can he ! us make these decisions. Rationali1ation techni2ues in the !ork$lace <eath ar#ues that $e shou d e6!ect rationa i7ations in the $ork! ace because it5s an en%ironment that often im!airs our abi ity to reason ob3ecti%e y" and he offers the fo o$in# e6am! es of rationa i7ation 2* . Ty!ica y" the ar#uments they ha%e used to con%ince themse %es are sufficient y fra#i e that they can on y be sustained in a su!!orti%e en%ironment" amon# !eers $ho are a so inc ined to %ie$ these c aims as e#itimate. It mi#ht be true that !hi oso!hy taken in the abstract isn5t he !fu " but !hi oso!hy isn5t entire y abstract." by tracin# out the harm caused by embe77 ement" or e6!ense account abuseM by articu atin# the o#ic of #o%ernment re#u ation and the basis for its e#itimacyM by e6! ainin# the conce!t of market fai ure and $hy unconstrained com!etition sometimes !roduces inferior resu tsM and by e6! orin# the tendency to$ard dissi!ation of res!onsibi ity in bureaucracies. There are reasons to think that mora theories are true des!ite the fact that $e can5t yet !ro%e that one in !articu ar is true" and $e are more ike y to do the ri#ht thin# $hen $e kno$ why it5s ri#ht. This has serious im! ications in the business $or d ran#in# from farmin# to !o ution.#. Hor e6am! e" many !eo! e don5t think there5s anythin# $ron# $ith hurtin# nonhuman anima s" but it cou d be that hurtin# anima s is $ron# un ess $e ha%e an o%erridin# reason to do so. Cne $ay to tack e this !rob em" VV!reem!ti%e yUU so to s!eak" is to demonstrate the inadeDuacy of these rationa i7ations" e.

techniDues and discusses ho$ the $ork! ace often encoura#es !oor reasonin#: 0* 1enial o$ responsibility – Whene%er someone is #ui ty of doin# somethin# immora &or i e#a ' in a business" it5s often unc ear $ho e6act y &if anyone in !articu ar' is res!onsib e. This encoura#es !eo! e to ?!ass the buckA to someone e se and there is often no one $i in# to acce!t res!onsibi ity for immora beha%ior. ?Bue to the or#ani7ationa hierarchy of the firm" indi%idua s can a $ays try to !ass the b ame u! to their su!eriors. These su!eriors can" in turn" try to !ass the b ame back do$n" by insistin# that their subordinates acted inde!endent yA &-0='. <eath a so ets us kno$ that ethica codes are often used to he ! mana#ement and e6ecuti%es to b ame those o$er do$n. ?By im!osin# u!on each em! oyee the ob i#ation to resist any Vunethica U orders" they in turn make it more difficu t for these em! oyees to shift the b ame u!A &ibid.'. We need !eo! e to take res!onsibi ity for their o$n beha%ior and sto! !assin# the buck to others. 8 cor!orate cu ture cou d em!hasi7e the im!ortance of !ersona res!onsibi ity and ha%e a !rocess to he ! em! oyees dis!ute the immora decisions made by mana#ement" and it is !ossib e for !eo! e to earn to take !ersona res!onsibi ity and sto! rationa i7in# e%en $hen they find themse %es in a cor!orate en%ironment that encoura#es rationa i7ations. 8dditiona y" the ad%ersaria nature of com!etition bet$een businesses encoura#es $orkers to deny res!onsibi ity because it can #i%e !eo! e the im!ression that they ha%e no choice but to break the a$. (any !eo! e a ready ha%e a tendency to e6a##erate mora im!ortance of harms they can e6!erience and simu taneous y mar#ina i7e the im!ortance of harms others e6!erience. (any !eo! e rationa i7e that immora beha%ior is 3ustified $hene%er necessary to ma6imi7e !rofit for a cor!oration5s in%estorsM and many com!anies use the an#ua#e of ife and death in the $ork! ace that can sometimes ead to rationa i7ations that cou d be a!!ro!riate in rea ife and death situations" but not the actua situation of the com!any. ?Hor e6am! e" Geis Duotes one defendant in the hea%y e ectrica antitrust case e6cusin# his actions in the fo o$in# terms: VI thou#ht that $e $ere more or ess $orkin# on a sur%i%a basis in order to try to make enou#h to kee! our ! ant and our em! oyeesUA &-0='. The com!etiti%e nature of cor!orations a so often #i%es em! oyees the im!ression that their !rofessiona ife rests on their $i in#ness to do immora thin#s" such as bribe officia s" in order to make more !rofit for the firm &-0-'. This can he ! em! oyees rationa i7e their immora acts because doin# i e#a acts is seen as &a' norma &i.e. e%eryone does it'" &b' ine%itab e &i.e. if you don5t do it someone e se $i '" and &c' necessary to kee! one5s 3ob. <eath e6! ains that many !eo! e take ine%itab e immora acts to e6em!t res!onsibi ity because they can5t cause somethin# to ha!!en if it $ou d ha!!en no matter $hat they do &ibid.'. Cf course" one cou d be a $hist e b o$er and a ert to !ub ic to sto! immora acts if necessary rather than 3oin in. 2* 1enial o$ in'ury – <eath ar#ues that ?In #enera " !eo! e ha%e more !ermissi%e attitudes to$ard crime $hen the %ictim is unkno$n... (ost $hite co ar crimina s ne%er meet or interact $ith those $ho are harmed by their actions &and in many cases they $ou dnUt e%en kno$ ho$ to find their %ictims shou d they choose to'. This makes it more ! ausib e to c aim that no in3ury has occurredA &-0-'. It5s not a $ays c ear $ho #ets harmed by our decisions or to $hat e6tent they #et harmed" and the conseDuences of our decisions are often difficu t to kno$ about $ithout scientific research. Hor e6am! e" ?Geis Duotes a Westin#house e6ecuti%e" for instance" ackno$ ed#in# that !rice-fi6in# arran#ements $ere i e#a " but denyin# that they $ere crimina : VI assumed that crimina action meant dama#in# someone" and $e did not do thatUA &ibid.'. In this case it $as assumed that !rice fi6in# didn5t 30

hurt anyone sim! y because they didn5t kno$ the !eo! e $ho #ot hurt !ersona y and !erha!s s!ent %ery itt e time thinkin# about ho$ !rice fi6in# cou d hurt !eo! e. Who does !rice fi6in# hurt@ When !rices are ke!t hi#her than it $ou d be other$ise" then the customers can ose more money than they shou d ha%e to. 8nother e6am! e is that !o ution can make some !eo! e sick or e%en cause fata i ness" but not e%eryone $ho encounters !o ution has the same reaction. There5s often no ob%ious harm caused by !o ution to be seen by !eo! e $ho make the decisions to !o ute more rather than ess. We #et sick and $e tend to assume it5s because of a %irus or #erm" but $e rare y rea i7e $hen $e #et sick because of !o ution. 8dditiona y" sometimes !eo! e rationa i7e that harmin# !eo! e is 3ustified" such as stea in# from a ar#e cor!oration" because the harm done is s!read out to many !eo! e &ibid.'. If I hacked into a bank and sto e a !enny from mi ions of !eo! e" I cou d make for myse f a si7ab e amount of money $ithout causin# anyone si#nificant harm. 8t the same time this crime is c ear y unfair and cou d Duick y because si#nificant y harmfu if many !eo! e started to do it. In fact" many em! oyees stea from the cor!orations they $ork for and this is one of the eadin# causes of cor!orate bankru!tcy. The harmless actions of many !eo! e end u! bein# %ery harmfu . Hina y" some !eo! e rationa i7e that business transactions reDuire consent" so there are no un$i in# %ictims. This is a $ay to blame the victim. ?SITt is re ati%e y easy for !eo! e to con%ince themse %es that shareho ders $ho are e6! oited by mana#ement cou d ha%e in%ested their money e se$here" consumers $ho !urchase inferior #oods i#nored the Vbuyer be$areU ru e" $orkers $ho are in3ured Vkne$ the risks $hen they took the 3ob"U and so onA &ibid.'. Why is this fau ty reasonin#@ ;onsider $hether $e shou d a#ree $ith the ?buyer be$areA idea or not. In actua ity" !eo! e are often scammed but we rely on companies to be honest with us. When a doctor scams you into #ettin# a sur#ica !rocedure you don5t need $hen she $ants to make a fe$ e6tra bucks" I think it5s c ear $hy ?buyer be$areA isn5t a #ood e6cuse to scam !eo! e. We often !ay com!anies or !rofessiona s for #oods and ser%ices" and $e are often unDua ified to assess the Dua ity or necessity of the #oods or ser%ice. We de!end on the e6!ert o!inions of others to i%e our i%es. 3* 1enial o$ the victim – Those $ho harm others often ar#ue that the others ?started itA or deser%e !unishment. Hor e6am! e" some $orkers cou d stea from the com!any they $ork for because they fee under!aid &-02'. ?8mon# ess ski ed $orkers" !eo! e often confuse the fact that their ro e is in%a uab e to the or#ani7ation $ith the be ief that they are essentia to the or#ani7ation. Thus they fee undercom!ensated" i#norin# the fact that it is the ease $ith $hich they can be re! aced that determines their $a#e rate" not the %a ue that they contribute to the firm on a day-to-day basisA &ibid.'. In some cases em! oyees are under!aid or abused by their em! oyers and e#a action shou d be taken" but one immora act doesn5t usua y $arrant re%en#e &%i#i antism' e6ce!t !erha!s in the most e#re#ious cases $hen the a$ and non%io ent !rotest is inca!ab e of brin#in# about 3ustice. 4* 5ondemnation o$ the condemners – +ometimes !eo! e say that the a$ is un3ust. This cou d be ri#ht in some cases" but it seems absurd to think the a$ is always un3ust. We ha%e to be carefu $hen $e decide the a$ is un3ust" and there are ideo o#ica commitments that often encoura#e !eo! e to be dismissi%e of the a$ and the ro e of the #o%ernment" such as a commitment to laisse)'faire economics that states that $e shou d ha%e a ?free marketA $ith no #o%ernment re#u ation:

31

S;Tor!orate crimina s $i often contest the %ery e#itimacy of re#u ation" by su##estin# that the #o%ernment" $hen it im!oses constraints u!on the market! ace" is actua y beho den to ?s!ecia interests"A $hi e the cor!oration re!resents the broader interests of the !ub ic. +ince the atter is taken to be a ar#er constituency than the former" the su##estion is that the cor!oration en3oys stron#er democratic e#itimacy than the #o%ernment. 8nother common strate#y is to !ick out one o%er7ea ous or odd re#u ation and use it as #rounds for dismissin# the need for a re#u ation. &ibid.' We mi#ht need to make it c ear to !eo! e $hy re#u ation is im!ortant and ho$ the free market often eads to immora beha%ior. /e#u ation a most a $ays e6ists !recise y because of the abuse done in the !ast" and the ?democraticA idea of the free market cou d be based on the unreasonab e e6!ectation that consumers $i kno$ ho$ buy the best !roducts and ser%ices from the most ethica com!anies $hen they often ha%e no $ay to reasonab y assess the Dua ity of !roducts and ser%ices they buy. In e6treme cases ?$hite co ar crimeA is dismissed as a socia ist fiction e%en thou#h many $hite co ar crimes harm ca!ita ists" such as $hen businesses ie about their !rofits to se more stock. ?Hor e6am! e" $hen /obert Rane inter%ie$ed a #rou! of business e6ecuti%es in the ear y 1*=0s" askin# them ho$ to reduce the e%e of cor!orate crime" the most common recommendation $as to Vsto! the drift to socia ism and the restriction of freedomUA &-0>'. It mi#ht be true that the a$ restricts freedom" but $e #enera y ou#ht not ha%e the freedom to hurt !eo! e. 6* Appeal to higher loyalties – (any !eo! e e6cuse their immora acts because they are done to he ! !eo! e they are oya toKsuch as their fami y" cor!oration" or friends. Roya ty to businesses isn5t a $ays shockin# because some businesses $ork %ery hard at cu ti%atin# oya ty. This is im!ortant for some cor!orations that benefit from kee!in# the same em! oyees for se%era years. ?;onsiderab e effort on the !art of mana#ement is aimed to$ard cu ti%ation of these oya ties" from dramatic initiation ritua s for ne$ em! oyees" on-site recreationa and s!orts faci ities" !ersona counse in# ser%ices" to the ubiDuitous Vteam bui din#U seminars and $eekend retreatsA &ibid.'. This oya ty can become a source for rationa i7ation $hen !eo! e decide that it e6cuses their immora acts. ?Hor e6am! e" it is Duite ! ausib e to su!!ose that neither 4enneth Ray nor Jeffrey +ki in# $ere moti%ated by any !ersona !ecuniary incenti%e $hen they mis ed in%estors about )nronUs financia condition. They did it for the sake of )nron , an or#ani7ation that they both continued to insist $as a VV#reat com!anyUU e%en after its co a!seA &ibid.'. )%idence of $ides!read oya ty to the !oint of rationa i7ation can be found in a 1*>3 study of retired Hortune =00 mana#ers by (arsha ; inard that ?sho$ed a $ides!read condemnation of $hist eb o$in#" on the #rounds that it conf icted $ith the V oya tyU o$ed by em! oyees to the firm. (any be ie%ed that &$ith certain e6ce!tions" such as safety %io ations' indi%idua s $ho $ere un$i in# to !artici!ate in i e#a acti%ities shou d sim! y Duit their 3obs and kee! Duiet" rather than V#o to the #o%ernmentUA &ibid.'. In other $ords the retired em! oyees thou#ht oya ty to a corru!t com!any $as more im!ortant than the a$ or mora ity at ar#e. 7* veryone else is doing it – In the business $or d the corru!t business !ractices conducted by other com!anies" such as bribery" often creates an unfair ad%anta#e for one com!any and a#ainst the com!etition &-0>--0*'. Cne corru!t com!any can therefore create an incenti%e to e%ery com!etin# business to start conductin# the same corru!t business. This makes it ! ausib e enou#h to encoura#e !eo! e to rationa i7e that they can do somethin# immora for the sake of !rofit and fairness. <eath 32

8* 5laim to entitlement . Cne reason that the a$s are often seen to be i e#itimate in %io ation of our ri#hts is laisse)'faire ideo o#yKthe %ie$ that the #o%ernment shou d do itt e to no re#u ation of businesses" and the %ie$ a#ainst #o%ernment interference in the market in #enera &ibid.' Conclusion Cne $ay to understand ethics is to take a ook at bad mora reasonin#" and one of the eadin# causes of immora business !ractice is ?rationa i7ationA &!oor mora reasonin#'.notes that many mana#ers don5t see ?e%eryone is doin# itA as a #ood e6cuse for immora conduct because there are better $ays to dea $ith immora com!etiti%e !ractices" such as #i%in# the com!etition bad !ress &-10'. )%eryone reasons about mora ity to %aryin# de#rees and in %arious $ays" so $e shou dn5t 3ust assume ?norma A !eo! e are a eDua y %irtuous or reasonin#. Hor one thin# $e can earn more about $hat #ood mora reasonin# consists of. I cou d ima#ine someone $ho se s a coho durin# !rohibition mi#ht think the a$ is un3ust and decide to #o ahead and kee! se in# a coho " but I am actua y sym!athetic to those $ho o!!osed !rohibition. (any !eo! e $i a so defend their decision to break the a$ by ta kin# about a the #ood the com!any does in terms of the ser%ices" satisfied customers" etc. 33 . <eath te s us that some rationa i7ations are to the effect that $e can rea i7e that an action is i e#a " but $e mi#ht decide that the a$ shou d be broken out of some duty or that the a$ itse f is i e#itimate for %io atin# certain ri#hts $e are entit ed to &-0*'. <eath ar#ues that crimino o#y su##ests that rationa i7ations shou d be tau#ht instead of !hi oso!hica mora theories" but crimino o#y doesn5t te us a the mora differences bet$een !eo! e. <o$e%er" e6aminin# rationa i7ations isn5t the on y $ay to earn ho$ to reason $e about mora ity.'. We ha%e e6amined rationa i7ation so that $e can kno$ ho$ to a%oid en#a#in# in it ourse %es. It mi#ht be en i#htenin# to study the characteristics of our mora heroes in addition to our crimina s. &ibid.

It is $ron# to harm others to benefit yourse f because e%eryone counts.A To make the ri#ht mora decision for a uti itarian means to make a decision that is most ike y #oin# to actua y be ri#ht & ead to #ood resu ts' based on the a%ai ab e information I ha%e. What counts as ?satisfactoryA $i not be a#reed u!on by a !hi oso!hers. and it will be 9wrong: i$ it doesn/t .A +ome think that fu fi in# desires is #ood and th$artin# desires is bad" c assic uti itarians think that ha!!iness is #ood and sufferin# is bad" and ! ura ists be ie%e that there are mu ti! e ?intrinsic #oodsA that are $orth !romotin#. An action will then be said to be 9right: as long as it satis$actorily causes good conse!uences compared to alternative actions. +uch a decision can5t take far-fetched !ossibi ities into consideration. I $i discuss each of these theories and e6! ain ho$ to a!! y them in %arious situations. Cri#ina y some !hi oso!hers su##ested that on y the ?bestA action $e cou d !ossib y !erform is ?ri#ht"A but this is an e6treme" im!ractica " and o!!ressi%e %ie$. There mi#ht be an un imited number of actions $e can !erform and at east one of them cou d be better than $hat $e choose to do. ri#ht and $ron# can be determined by a cost-benefit ana ysis. 8dditiona y" it isn5t c ear that there is a ?bestA course of action a $ays a%ai ab e to us. 9eo! e mi#ht then say" ?Qou #ot ucky and ended u! doin# the ri#ht thin#. . 8n action is ri#ht $hen it !roduces #ood resu ts e%en if it $as made for the $ron# reasons. Hor e6am! e" I cou d decide not to #o to my 3ob one day $hen doin# so $ou d 3ust ha!!en to cause a car crash.hoosin# to #o to $ork is usua y the ri#ht decision to make des!ite the fact that there is a ne# i#ib e chance that I $i #et in a car $reck.Chapter *: +ormati e Theories Eormati%e theories of ethics or ?mora theoriesA are meant to he ! us fi#ure out $hat actions are ri#ht and $ron#. 0ti itarians disa#ree about $hat counts as ?#oodA or ?bad. 9o!u ar normati%e theories inc ude uti itarianism" the cate#orica im!erati%e" 8ristote ian %irtue ethics" +toic %irtue ethics" and W. B. 0tilitarianis0ti itarianism is a %ery sim! e %ie$ that matches common sense . If $e can c ear y kno$ that a course of action $i !roduce hi#h y #ood resu ts and ne# i#ib e bad resu ts" then that action is rationa . We must consider a the #ood and bad conseDuences $hen decidin# if an action is ri#ht. Why@ Whene%er you are takin# a sho$er or s!endin# time $ith friends it $ou d !robab y be better to be doin# somethin# e se" such as he !in# the needy" but it is absurd to say that you are a $ays doin# $ron# $hene%er you are takin# a sho$er or s!endin# time $ith friends. 0ti itarianism doesn5t discriminate or encoura#e e#oism. It is often $ron# to choose to do 31 . <o$e%er" $e aren5t a $ays #ood at kno$in# $hat actions $i !roduce #ood resu ts and $e can often be o%erconfident in our abi ity to do so. 0ti itarianism is not necessari y meant to be used as a ?decision !rocedureA to decide $hat to do. It shou d be !ointed out that ri#ht actions and ri#ht mora decisions are t$o different thin#s. There is no $ay to e6!ect a car crash to occur that day" but my action $ou d be ri#ht insofar $ou d cause !ositi%e resu ts. /oss5s intuitionism.

8dditiona y" atheism is often a !osition one be ie%es in because of #ood ar#uments" and it is a!!ro!riate for !eo! e to ha%e be iefs 3= .oura#e is essentia for mora ity because !eo! e must be $i in# to do $hat they be ie%e $i be ri#ht e%en at a !ersona cost. Therefore" it is not a $ays $ron#. . -tealing . To conc ude" in order to kno$ if somethin# is mora y !referab e for a uti itarian" $e must ask" ?Wi it ead to more benefits and ess harms than the a ternati%es@A If the ans$er is" Qes" then it is mora y !referab e. Polluting . 4i in# !eo! e is usua y $ron# either because !eo! e ha%e %a ue &and they mi#ht not e6ist after dyin#'" because e%eryone has a desire to stay a i%e" or because ki in# !eo! e makes other !eo! e unha!!y. +tea in# is usua y $ron# because it makes !eo! e unha!!y to ose their !ossessions" they mi#ht need their !ossessions to accom! ish certain im!ortant #oa s" and because the ri#ht to !ro!erty makes it !ossib e for us to make on# term #oa s in%o %in# our !ossessions.somethin# $e be ie%e $i !robab y ha%e #ood resu ts if that beha%ior is risky and has a chance of hurtin# !eo! e. 5ourage . It is !referab e to refuse to !o ute if too many !eo! e doin# so cou d a so harm others" but $e are not necessari y !ersona y res!onsib e for the harms caused by an entire ci%i i7ation. Atheism .8theism does not necessari y cause !eo! e harm other than throu#h discrimination" but b amin# atheists for discrimination is a so a form of b amin# the %ictim.ual behavior . +ometimes doin# the ri#ht thin# reDuires a truism" such as $hen a $hist e b o$er must te the 8merican !ub ic about corru!tion at the $ork ! ace &des!ite the fact that she mi#ht face reta iation for doin# so'. 9eo! e de!end on the honesty of others in order to take business risks" ! an on their retirement" and so on. <omose6ua beha%ior does not automatica y cause harm and it is somethin# many !eo! e find ! easurab e and !art of i%in# a ha!!y ife. <omose6ua ity can cause someone harm from discrimination" but to b ame homose6ua ity for the harms of discrimination is a form of b amin# the %ictim 3ust ike b amin# a $oman $ho #ets ra!ed for bein# too $eak. )ducation is #ood because it he !s us kno$ ho$ to be a !roducti%e member of society" it he !s us kno$ em!irica facts that are re e%ant to kno$in# $hich actions are ike y to benefit or cause harm &e.#. Hor e6am! e" a 3ury shou dn5t find someone #ui ty $hen someone has been !ro%en innocent in the ho!es that it $i !re%ent a riot in the streets because !eo! e can5t kno$ for sure that such a decision $i !roduce the desired resu ts" and they do kno$ that the #ui ty %erdict $i destroy someone5s ife. Promising . It is $ron# to break a !romise because doin# so $ou d make other !eo! e u!set and $aste their time. ducation . Applying <tilitarianism =illing people . >omose. It is $ron# to !o ute if the !o ution $i harm others. better !arentin# techniDues or hea thy eatin#'" and it he !s us think rationa y to make better decisions.

In other $ords" it asks us to behave in a rational way that would be rational $or anyone. 8dditiona y" heroic acts ike 3um!in# into a fire to sa%e a chi d seem ike they are beyond the call of duty rather than ob i#ations. If this is a duty" then it seems much too demandin#. In that case $e $ou d !robab y be doin# somethin# mora y $ron# a most e%ery second of the day" and $e $ou d ri#ht y be b amed and !unished for it. It5s not ob%ious that $e can dra$ this ine usin# uti itarianism. 0ti itarianism reDuires us to do $hate%er !romotes the #ood the most" but that cou d reDuire us to be disres!ectfu or e%en harm certain !eo! e. +econd" et5s transform the action into a uni%ersa a$ of nature. 0ti itarians think $e ou#ht to ma6imi7e the #ood. Bein# ?reasonab eA is ?ri#htA because it tends to ha%e #ood resu ts. 5onse!uences might not be enough* . 3- . ?4ant5s (ora 9hi oso!hy. +econd" recast that ma6im as a uni%ersa a$ of nature #o%ernin# a rationa a#ents" and so as ho din# that a must" by natura a$" act as you yourse f !ro!ose to act in these circumstances.A The +tanford )ncyc o!edia of 9hi oso!hy. )%eryone must act for the same reason that I $i act on. 12 (ay 2011. Hor e6am! e" I mi#ht ! an on eatin# food because I5m hun#ry or decide to break a !romise to !ay a friend back because I $ou d rather kee! the money. If it is ri#ht for me to defend myse f $hen attacked" then it is ri#ht for e%eryone to defend themse %es in se f defense. &+ection =" The Hormu a of the 0ni%ersa Ra$ of Eature. (b'ections 1. If it5s not a duty to ma6imi7e the #ood" then uti itarians $i ha%e to e6! ain $hen $e ha%e duties and $hen $e don5t. Cate"orical I-$erative The cate#orica im!erati%e asks us to act in a $ay that $e can $i to be a uni%ersa a$. /obert Johnson describes the cate#orica im!erati%e as a method to find out if an action is !ermissib e usin# four ste!s: Hirst" formu ate a ma6im that enshrines your reason for actin# as you !ro!ose. If it is" then" fourth" ask yourse f $hether you $ou d" or cou d" rationa y will to act on your ma6im in such a $or d.based on #ood ar#uments. <tilitarians aren/t sensitive to heroic acts* . 2. But it doesn5t seem $ron# for me to do a handstand or s!end time $ith friends 3ust because I cou d be doin# somethin# better $ith my time. )%eryone $i eat food $hen they5re hun#ry and break their !romises 3 Johnson" /obert. Hor e6am! e" if $e ki someone to donate their or#ans and sa%e fi%e i%es" then it seems ike our action ma6imi7ed the #ood and $asn5t $ron#. Hirst $e formu ate the ?ma6imA or moti%ationa !rinci! e that #uides our action. This resu t is counterintiti%e and it5s su##ests that uti itarianism is incom! ete because $e mi#ht ha%e ri#hts that must not be %io ated" e%en to ma6imi7e the #ood.' Rast u!dated 200>. If you cou d" then your action is mora y !ermissib e. Third" consider $hether your ma6im is e%en concei%ab e in a $or d #o%erned by this a$ of nature. 2.3 I $i describe each of these sta#es in more detai : 1.

The cate#orica im!erati%e is often re ated to hy!ocrisy" the #o den ru e" and the Duestion" ?What if e%eryone did that@A Hirst" our mora ity must not be hy!ocritica K$hat is ri#ht for me is ri#ht for e%eryone. If $e ha%e a ma6im that doesn5t !ass the fourth ste!" then it5s an im!erfect duty to refrain from doin# it" $hich means $e must refrain from doin# it at east some of the time. 4ant a so thinks $e ha%e a !refect duty not to commit suicide $hen $e $ant to a%oid sufferin#. There mi#ht be some actions that are ri#ht for reasons other than the ike ihood of !roducin# !ositi%e resu ts. 1. 3.to friends $hen they $ou d rather kee! their money. Johnson adds that $e ha%e a ?!erfect dutyA to refrain from doin# somethin# that %io ates the third ste! in the sense that there are no e6ce!tions. +econd" $e can demand that someone treat others ho$ she $ants to be treated as on# as she ?$antsA to be treated in a $ay that rationa ity !ermits. . Hourth" if the ma6im !asses the third ste!" cou d $e rationally $i the ma6im to be fo o$ed by e%eryone in our circumstances@ 9erha!s I can $i that !eo! e eat $hen they are hun#ry" but not necessari y in e%ery circumstance" such as $hen there5s imited food that needs to be shared $ith others $ho are a so hun#ry. In order to kno$ if an action is mora y acce!tab e based on the cate#orica im!erati%e $e must ask" ?Is the action rationa y a!!ro!riate for e%eryone e se in the same situation@A If the ans$er is" Qes" then the action is mora y acce!tab e. When $e ask" ?What if e%eryone did that@A $e are not askin#" ?Wou d there be bad conseDuences if e%eryone did W@A The cate#orica im!erati%e does not necessari y concern itse f $ith conseDuences and it doesn5t c aim that somethin# is $ron# 3ust because too many !eo! e doin# somethin# cou d become destructi%e. If ?e%eryone defended themse %es from attack"A then !eo! e $ou d be beha%in# a!!ro!riate y. Whene%er $e are in the re e%ant situation" $e must refrain from doin# the act as much as !ossib e. I sus!ect that the cate#orica im!erati%e is com!atib e $ith a other mora theories. Cf course" the cate#orica im!erati%e doesn5t reDuire us to be uti itarians. . Eo one $ou d end money in that $or d. Third" $e can demand that !eo! e don5t beha%e in a $ay that is $ron# for others. Hor e6am! e" a uti itarian $i ha%e to be ie%e that it is only rational to beha%e in a $ay ike y to !romote !ositi%e %a ues" and such mora rationa ity a!! ies to e%eryone.ou d e%eryone refuse to !ay their debts $hen they5d rather kee! their money@ Eo" because that $ou d undermine the $ho e !oint of ha%in# debts to be !aid. Third" et5s consider if such a ma6im cou d e%en be a uni%ersa a$ of nature. Applying the categorical imperative =illing people – 4i in# !eo! e is $ron# $hene%er it $ou d be ina!!ro!riate for someone to ki us" 32 . +ince refusin# to !ay one5s debts $hen $e !refer to kee! our money doesn5t !ass the third ste!" $e ha%e a !erfect duty not to refuse to !ay our debts for that reason. <o$e%er" ?if e%eryone stea s to benefit themse %es"A then they $i be doin# somethin# $ron#. 4ant thinks $e can5t a $ays refrain from he !in# others" so $e ha%e a duty to he ! others at east some of the time.ou d e%eryone eat food $hen they5re hun#ry@ Qes. 8t this !oint $e can a ready ru e out the ma6im of refusin# to !ay our debts out of con%enience" so it5s an irrationa and im!ermissib e ma6im and $e ha%e a duty not to act from that moti%e.

)he categorical imperative isn/t meant to be a complete decision procedure* . )ducation is a rationa reDuirement insofar as i#norance !uts others at risk. Boin# somethin# to attain ! easure is not irrationa as on# as there5s no o%erridin# reason to find it !rob ematic. 4ant5s theory reDuires that !eo! e 3> . &4ant actua y had somethin# different to say about this issue. <o$e%er" it mi#ht be $ron# to cause !o ution $hene%er $e kno$ that it $i cause harm. <o$e%er" if stea in# is necessary to sur%i%e because no one is $i in# to share food" then it mi#ht be necessary to stea out of se f-res!ect. (b'ections 1. +omeone can rationa y be ie%e in atheism if it is found to be a sufficient y reasonab e be ief 3ust ike a other be iefs. If $e can rationa y demand a business to !o ute ess" then others can make the same demand on us. 5ourage .and $e need to consider the moti%ationa reason for ki in# someone. Hor e6am! e" a enra#ed friend $ho asks for his #un you are borro$in# shou d be denied the $ea!on. ducation . +tea in# is $ron# $hene%er it $ou d be ina!!ro!riate for someone to stea from us" such as $hen they $ant somethin# $ithout !ayin# for it.' Polluting . It mi#ht be that breakin# a !romise is necessary from time to time &to res!ect our humanity'" but on y $hen it $ou d be $ron# for anyone in that situation to break the !romise. It $ou d be $ron# for !eo! e to ki us out of #reed 3ust to take our money" so it is $ron# for e%eryone to ki out of #reen to take other !eo! e5s money. If ha%in# se6 for ! easure can be rationa for heterose6ua s" then ha%in# se6 for ! easure can be rationa for homose6ua s. Atheism . If it is rationa to be ie%e in theism if it is found to be sufficient y reasonab e" and it can be rationa to be ie%e in atheism for the same reason. ?)%eryone committin# their ife to medicineA $ou d end u! causin# harm" but $e don5t $ant to say that someone is doin# somethin# $ron# for committin# her ife to medicine. 8 thou#h ?e%eryone !o utin# by dri%in# carsA causes harm" it isn5t c ear that !o utin# is a $ays $ron#. 2. )%en if the cate#orica im!erati%e e6ists" it5s not a $ays c ear ho$ to use it to decide $hat $e ou#ht to do in each uniDue situation $e find ourse %es in. <o$e%er" it $ou d be ri#ht for someone to ki us if necessary to defend themse %es from attack out of se f-res!ect" so it is ri#ht for e%eryone e se as $e . We don/t &now that categorical imperatives can help us* . -tealing . Promising .oura#e is rationa y necessary for us to be $i in# to do the ri#ht thin# $hen the ri#ht thin# is done at !ersona risk to onese f.ual behavior . >omose. It is !erfect y res!ectfu to deny someone out of their mind a $ea!on because they $i a!!reciate it ater once they re#ain their reason. )motions must be disre#arded if they conf ict $ith the demands of mora reason. . If $e can rationa y demand others to become educated because of the dan#ers of i#norance" then $e are a so rationa y reDuired to become educated. 4ant discusses the cate#orica im!erati%e in the conte6t of mora concepts rather than mora reality. (any !eo! e disa#ree about ho$ the cate#orica im!erati%e a!! ies in each situation. 4ee!in# a !romise is a rationa reDuirement insofar as $e can rationa y demand that other !eo! e kee! their !romises &out of res!ect for our humanity'.

Instead of ha%in# ru es" $e need to earn to ha%e an intuiti%e understandin# of mora ity and de%e o! ?%irtuousA character traits that cause a!!ro!riate beha%ior $ithout a #reat dea of thou#ht usua y bein# reDuired. In !articu ar" $e5re rationa and !o itica anima s" so $e need to de%e o! our abi ity to be rationa and our abi ity to #et a on# $ith others. he argues that we should learn to have habits and behave in ways that lead to our personal happiness* &To ha%e the ri#ht habits and fee in#s is to be %irtuous.can be moti%ated by cate#orica im!erati%es" but it5s not c ear that $e can. In order to kno$ if somethin# is mora y acce!tab e for an 8ristote ian $e must ask" ?Is the action based on a sensiti%ity to the situation@ 8nd does the action ead to !ersona ha!!iness@A If the ans$er to these Duestions is" Qes" then the action is mora y %irtuous. 9 easure" kno$ ed#e" and %irtue in !articu ar seem ike $orth$hi e #oa s in #enera " e%en if they don5t cause ha!!iness. Bein# a !o itica anima is manifested in ho$ $e care for others in #enera and desire to he ! others. 8 !erson $ith foolhardiness isn5t afraid" 3* . 8 !erson $ith cowardice is afraid" e%en $hen she shou d not be afraid. Hirst" 8ristot e5s idea of ?ha!!inessA is distinct from ! easure and means somethin# more ike ?#ood ifeA or ?f ourishin#. T$o c arifications sti need to be made. First.A &Hina ends are #oa s that are $orth !ursuin# and desirin# for their o$n sake.' 8ristot e thou#ht that becomin# the best kind of !erson by de%e o!in# our uniDue y human ca!acities $as the best $ay to be ha!!y. Hor e6am! e" $e kno$ not to attack !eo! e in most situations" but it mi#ht be necessary to attack !eo! e in se f defense. Aristotle argues that our personal happiness ?$lourishing@ is the ultimate goal that we should promote* -econd. 8 !erson $ho has an intuiti%e understandin# of mora ity and has %irtuous character traits has !ractica $isdom &the abi ity to achie%e $orthy #oa s' but not necessari y theoretica $isdom &the abi ity to kno$ about the $or d throu#h #enera i7ation and deduction'. 8ristot e" ike most %irtue ethicists" is ske!tica about usin# ru es to make mora decisions. It seems im!ractica to use ru es and !hi oso!hica ar#uments to make decisions e%ery second of the day" e%en if mora ity is u timate y #rounded in ru es.' We can earn $hat beha%iors cause ha!!iness throu#h our !ast beha%ior and $e can earn to be sensiti%e to !articu arities in each situation. 8 thou#h 8ristot e doesn5t think ethics is best understood in terms of ru es" he finds that $isdom tends to be based on a%oidin# e6tremes and findin# a moderate midd e #roundKthe #o den mean. If $e can5t be moti%ated by cate#orica im!erati%es" then $e need to kno$ ho$ !ractica they are. 8dditiona y" some of our #oa s cou d be mora y 3ustified for 8ristot e as on# as they don5t conf ict $ith ha!!iness. Wi they he ! us be mora in any im!ortant sense@ Aristotelian 3irtue 'thics 8ristote ian %irtue ethics has t$o !arts. The !rob em is that $e don5t kno$ ho$ $e are moti%ated in each situation and $e often decei%e ourse %es. <a!!iness is the u timate #oa or ?u timate and most fina end"A but there can be other $orthy #oa s or ?fina ends. +econd" 8ristot e ar#ues that virtue is the greatest form of happiness.

+tea in# is necessary if it is necessary for our !ersona ha!!iness" but stea in# makes us unha!!y insofar as $e care about !eo! e. ducation . 4ee!in# a !romise is %irtuous as on# as $e consider the situation at hand and kee! the !romise because it is ike y to !romote our ha!!iness. 8ristot e5s idea of findin# the #o den mean is a #enera ru e" and $e can use it make many other #enera ru es. Hor e6am! e" it cou d be coura#eous to 3um! in a burnin# bui din# to sa%e a chi d" e%en thou#h it mi#ht make sense to fee fear insofar as our o$n $e bein# $ou d be threatened. <omose6ua beha%ior is $ron# $hen done immoderate y &in an o%er ydan#erous $ay ike y to ead to unha!!iness'" but it is ri#ht $hen done in a $ay that eads to one5s !ersona fu fi ment. -tealing . . 8 ?contem! ati%e ifeA is the ha!!iest sort of ife $e can i%e. >omose. 8theists often can5t contro their atheism 3ust ike they can5t be ie%e in 10 . Polluting .ual behavior . . Promising . We shou dn5t eat too much food" $e shou d eat" desire" and en3oy food $hen it5s a!!ro!riate" but not $hen it5s ina!!ro!riate" and so on. We can5t be ha!!y $hi e hurtin# others. Atheism . )ducation is necessary for our !ersona ha!!iness not on y to kno$ ho$ to best be ha!!y" but a so because the most inte ectua forms of contem! ation are the most !ositi%e e6!eriences $e can ha%e.oura#e is our habit to be afraid $hen it is necessary for our ha!!iness and not afraid $hen it is necessary for our ha!!iness. Firtues ike coura#e" moderation" 3ustice" and $isdom cou d be taken to im! y %arious #enera ru es of a%oidin# certain e6tremes. 8ristot e ar#ues that e%en the u timate se f-sacrifice isn5t necessari y incom!atib e $ith our !ersona ha!!iness" but that is a %ery contro%ersia !oint. +ome !eo! e define coura#e as an abi ity to act des!ite fear. Applying Aristotle/s virtue ethics =illing people – It mi#ht be necessary to ki !eo! e in se f defense because i%in# is necessary to be ha!!y &and $e must !romote #oods that are necessary for our !ersona ha!!iness'" but ki in# !eo! e makes us unha!!y because $e are socia anima s and $e care about !eo! e.oura#e is necessary for us to take the risks needed to i%e a fu y ha!!y ife. In other $ords" kee!in# the !romise mi#ht not be !ersona y beneficia because $e can a so kee! a !romise out of res!ect &care' for the other !erson.e%en $hen she shou d be. 8theism is ri#ht as on# as the be ief is not under our contro or as on# as the be ief does not ead to our unha!!iness. 8 %irtuous !erson $ith courage $i on y be afraid $hen it5s a!!ro!riate to be. 9erha!s there are times $hen $e shou d endan#er ourse %es" e%en $hen it5s a!!ro!riate to fee fear. 5ourage . <o$e%er" e%en if it can be a!!ro!riate to fee fear and act des!ite our fear" coura#e is mere y more com! e6 than 8ristot e stated because the fact that we feel fear doesn#t guarantee inaction. 9o utin# is $ron# insofar as it hurts !eo! e and $e care about !eo! e. We don5t ike horrib e thin#s to ha!!en to others.

2. (y 11 . I discuss these so utions in much more detai in my (aster5s Thesis" T$o Ee$ 4inds of +toicism. 9ositi%e e%a uati%e be iefs ead to !ositi%e emotiona res!onses and ne#ati%e e%a uati%e be iefs ead to ne#ati%e emotiona res!onses. (b'ections 1. It defines %irtue in terms of ha%in# true e%a uati%e be iefs" emotions based on those e%a uati%e be iefs" and beha%in# accordin# to those e%a uati%e be iefs. It states that e%erythin# that ha!!ens is for the best because it $as !reordained by God &0ni%ersa /eason' and therefore there is no reason for us to ha%e a ne#ati%e emotiona res!onse. +econd" it5s not ob%ious that $e shou d on y be concerned $ith our !ersona #ood or ha!!iness.'. I ha%e t$o different su##estions for findin# them $ithout referrin# to a di%inity: 1. It seems ! ausib e to think that e%eryone5s ha!!iness shou d be taken into consideration. We can e6!erience some %a ues for ourse %es" such as the %a ue of ! easure and dis%a ue of !ain. It/s not 'ust our personal happiness that matters* . 1. It states that true &or $e reasoned' e%a uati%e be iefs and thou#hts tend to #i%e us a!!ro!riate emotions and actions. &)%a uati%e be iefs are %a ue 3ud#ments" such as ?! easure is !referab e.A' 3. Hirst" it5s not ob%ious that ha!!iness is the u timate #ood. Eo matter $hat $e %a ue" $e can5t !romote the %a ue un ess $e %a ue ife" consciousness" and freedom from !ain. 5aring $or others isn/t always good $or our happiness* . We can !refer $hate%er is necessary to be %irtuous. <o$e%er" $e don5t a $ays care about strangers and it5s not ob%ious that $e shou d nurture our em!athy for stran#ers #i%en 8ristot e5s assum!tion that our !ersona ha!!iness is the u timate #ood. It can be !ainfu to care for others because their sufferin# can cause sufferin# for us" and $e mi#ht ha%e some contro o%er ho$ much $e care for others and stran#ers in !articu ar. In !articu ar" $e ha%e an im!u se to care for others both emotiona y and throu#h action" $hich indicates the fact that ?carin# for others is !referab e. 2.many other thin#s that they find im! ausib e &#hosts" )+9" bi#foot" etc. 8ristot e thinks $e care for others by our %ery nature" so $e shou d take other !eo! e5s #ood into consideration. It states that $e can kno$ $hat is ?!referab eA from our instincts" $hich $as #i%en to us from God &0ni%ersa /eason'. <o$e%er" +toic %irtue ethics traditiona y has fi%e !arts: 1. What $e need is a $ay to determine is truths about !references. 2. 9erha!s our e6istence is more im!ortant. It ar#ues that %irtue is the u timate %a ue that o%errides a other %a ues. *toic 3irtue 'thics +im! y !ut" +toic %irtue ethics is a theory that true moral belie$s and thoughts tend to lead to appropriate emotions and actions.A =. The first three of these !arts sounds reasonab e" but the ast t$o reDuire us to acce!t the e6istence of the +toic di%inity" $hich is somethin# contem!orary !hi oso!hers find to be much too ambitious.

<omose6ua beha%ior insofar as it is based on a !reference for ! easure is a!!ro!riate as on# as it is com!atib e $ith our care for others. We shou d not break a !romise 3ust because $e are com!e ed to do somethin# more ! easurab e because that $ou d o%erem!hasi7e the im!ortance of ! easure and de-em!hasi7e the %a ue of the !erson that $ou d be disres!ected or harmed. It mi#ht be $orth dri%in# a car in a society $here cars he ! i%e a better ife des!ite the fact that the !o ution ends u! harmin# some !eo! e. -tealing . Polluting .A In order to determine if somethin# is mora y acce!tab e for a +toic !hi oso!her $e need to ask" ?What emotions are bein# fe t and $hat be iefs are he d@A If an emotion is caused by rationa be iefs" then it is mora y acce!tab e. The +toics be ie%ed that the fear of death $as based on an ina!!ro!riate be ief that death is an e%i &des!ite the fact that it is dis!referab e'. +econd" $e 3ustified and accurate be iefs he ! ead to a!!ro!riate emotions and actions. We can be cautious and !refer to i%e $e $ithout fearin# death or osin# our e6terna #oods. Instead" $e shou d dis!assionate y consider $hy ki in# cou d be a!!ro!riate based on rationa !references. Promising . The %irtuous !erson $i care for others and $on5t $ant to harm them for money. Hirst" education can he ! us attain #ood reasonin#" $hich he !s us form better &$e 3ustified and accurate' be iefs.ommon +ense +toicism. Applying -toic virtue ethics =illing people – It is $ron# to ki !eo! e insofar as ki in# !eo! e is moti%ated by ina!!ro!riate be iefs and thou#hts" such as" ?This !erson sto e my $a et and deser%es to die. ducation . To !o ute to the e6tent of harmin# others is often based on ina!!ro!riate se fishness" #reed" and an ina!!ro!riate ack of care for others.ual behavior .A +uch a be ief cou d moti%ate ra#e and $e cou d ose rationa contro of ourse %es. Hor e6am! e" it mi#ht be a!!ro!riate to ki in se f defense if necessary for our !reference for sur%i%a des!ite the fact that $e ou#ht to care about a !eo! e and !refer for #ood thin#s to ha!!en to others. 8n ina!!ro!riate o%e of ! easure cou d cause ina!!ro!riate ust that $ou d c oud our 3ud#ment $hether $e are ta kin# about homose6ua or heterose6ua se6. Atheism .A It mi#ht be necessary to stea to act on sufficient y im!ortant rationa !reference" such as a !reference to sur%i%e $hen stea in# is needed to sur%i%eM but ! easure $ou d not be an im!ortant enou#h !reference $orth !romotin# to $arrant theft. It is $ron# to stea insofar as it is moti%ated by ina!!ro!riate be iefs and thou#hts" such as" ?I need to ha%e more money. 5ourage . 8theism is a!!ro!riate insofar as the be ief is !robab y true based on the information 12 . Hor one thin# $e care for others and don5t ike others to suffer theft" and the e6!ectation of ! easure $ou d not o%erride the im!ortance of he !in# rather than harmin# others.theories are kno$n as ?Eeo-8ristonianismA and ?. The ancient +toics be ie%ed that coura#e $as a ack of fear. 4ee!in# a !romise is %irtuous as on# as $e do so based u!on 3ustified !references. >omose.

or fairness to !raise" b ame" re$ard" !unish" and distribute #oods accordin# to merit. 1. Buties can determine $hat $e ou#ht to do ?nothin# e se consideredA but they don5t determine $hat $e ou#ht to do a thin#s considered. (b'ections 1. /oss5s theoretica understandin# of mora ity e6! ained in The /i#ht and the Good $as not meant to be com!rehensi%e and determine ri#ht and $ron# in e%ery situation" but he doesn5t think it is e%er #oin# to be !ossib e to do so. The duty to ma6imi7e the #ood &thin#s of intrinsic %a ue'. The duty to refuse to harm others. We mi#ht ha%e a duty to respect !eo! e beyond these duties" and $e mi#ht ha%e a duty to 3ustice" eDua ity" and. 1uty o$ gratitude . /oss ar#ues that $e ha%e &at the %ery east' the fo o$in# duties: 1. The duty to kee! our !romises. Hor e6am! e" it5s unfair and disres!ectfu to b ame innocent !eo! e because they don5t merit b ameKthey $eren5t res!onsib e for the immora act. 1uty o$ reparation . 1oes <niversal Reason e. <e denies that there is one sin# e o%erarchin# mora !rinci! e or ru e. Prima facie duties We ha%e %arious !rima facie duties" such as the duty of non-in3ury &the duty to not harm !eo! e' and the duty of beneficence &to he ! !eo! e'. Grief" !assionate o%e" and an#er $ere often said to be ina!!ro!riate emotions by the +toics" but many !eo! e aren5t con%inced that they are ina!!ro!riate. These duties are ?!rima facieA because they can be o%erriden. /oss !ro!oses that &a' $e ha%e se f-e%ident !rima facie mora duties" and &b' some thin#s ha%e intrinsic %a ue. )he -toic virtue ethics can dull our emotions* . Is this ist com! ete@ That is not ob%ious. B. The +toics reDuire us to be ie%e in 0ni%ersa /eason" but not e%eryone be ie%es in uni%ersa reason and it5s not ob%ious that 0ni%ersa /eason rea y e6ists. 1uty o$ bene$icence . 13 . 3. 1uty o$ $idelity . The duty to try to !ay for the harm $e do to others. Whate%er $e ou#ht to do a thin#s considered $i o%erride any other conf ictin# duties. =. Instead" he thinks $e can make mora !ro#ress one ste! at a time by earnin# more and more about our mora duties" and do our best at ba ancin# conf ictin# ob i#ations and %a ues. It5s not entire y c ear $hat emotions are a!!ro!riate for the +toics" but some !eo! e think they $ou d dismiss many a!!ro!riate emotions that enrich our i%es. 1uty o$ nonin'ury . Hor the +toic !hi oso!her" true be iefs are of !rimary im!ortance. The duty to return fa%ors and ser%ices #i%en to us by others.ist% . 2. Hor e6am! e" the !romise to ki someone $ou d #i%e us a !rima facie duty to fu fi our !romise" but it $ou d be o%erridden by our duty not to in3ure others. 2. Ross4s IntuitionisW. We shou d ha%e a be ief because it is true" not because it is ! easurab e or because of our emotions.a%ai ab e to us.

+econd" $e need to determine if any of these duties or %a ues conf ict in our current situation. <o$e%er" minds" human ife" and certain anima ife cou d a so ha%e intrinsic %a ue. 4ee! in mind that intuition doesn5t necessari y et us kno$ that somethin# is se f-e%ident immediate y nor that intuiti%e contem! ation is infa ib e. <o$e%er" if I ha%e t$o friends $ho both $ant to borro$ my car at the same time and I $on5t be needin# it for a $hi e" I mi#ht ha%e to choose bet$een them and decide $hich friend needs the car the most or random y decide bet$een them if that5s im!ossib e. 9 easure is ?#ood 3ust for e6istin#A and is $orthy of bein# a #oa .elf'evidence and intuition /oss thinks $e can kno$ mora facts throu#h intuition. *ow do we use Ross#s intuitionism+ Hirst" $e need to determine our duties and $hat has intrinsic %a ue. The decision to eat candy to attain ! easure ?makes senseA if it has intrinsic %a ue" and $e a seem to think that eatin# candy to attain ! easure is at east sometimes a #ood enou#h reason to 3ustify such an act. 8 mathematica a6iom that seems to fit the bi is the a$ of non-contradictionKWe kno$ that somethin# can5t be true and fa se at the same time. /oss thinks $e can kno$ thin#s $ithout ar#uin# for them" and he thinks that anythin# ?tru y intuiti%eA is se f-e%ident. We ha%e !rima facie duties not to harm !eo! e at east to the e6tent that it causes somethin# intrinsica y bad &!ain' and to he ! !eo! e at east to the e6tent that it !roduces somethin# intrinsica y #ood" ike ! easure. Hor e6am! e" I can decide to #o to the dentist and #et a ca%ity remo%ed and this $i cause me !ain" but it is ike y that it $i he ! me a%oid e%en more !ain in the future. What5s intrinsica y #ood@ /oss su##ests that 3ustice" kno$ ed#e" %irtue" and ?innocent ! easureA are a intrinsica y #ood. . It reDuires fami iarity $ith addition and some !eo! e $i need to s!end more time contem! atin# than others. Therefore" it seems c ear that I ou#ht to #et the ca%ity remo%ed. If so" $e need to find a $ay to decide $hich duty is o%erridin#. We mi#ht need to reach a certain maturity to kno$ that this mathematica statement is true" and reco#nition of its truth is not necessari y immediate.onsider that ?123I321J111A cou d be se f-e%ident. We often use the $ord ?intuitionA to refer to thin#s $e consider ?common senseA or thin#s $e kno$ that are difficu t to !ro%e usin# ar#umentation. 9erha!s it can be ri#ht to ki someone if it5s necessary to sa%e many other i%es. If and $hen ki in# !eo! e isn5t $ron#" $e $i need an o%erridin# reason to do it. What does it mean for these duties to be self' evident@ It means that $e can contem! ate the duties and know they are true based on that contem! ationKbut on y if $e contem! ate them in the ri#ht $ay. /oss com!ares mora se f-e%idence to the se f-e%idence of mathematica a6ioms. 11 . (ntrinsic value (any uti itarians a#ree $ith /oss that ! easure is intrinsica y #ood and !ain is intrinsica y bad. Intuition is the $ay contem! ation can ead to kno$ ed#e of se f-e%idence. Applying Ross/s Intuitionism =illing people – It is #enera y $ron# to ki !eo! e because it &a' causes !eo! e !ain" &b' !re%ents them from fee in# future ! easure" and &c' destroys their kno$ ed#e.

I5%e mentioned before that both intuition and se fe%idence has been Duestioned by !hi oso!hers. 5ourage .oura#e is our abi ity to be moti%ated to do $hate%er it is $e ou#ht to do a thin#s considered" e%en $hen $e mi#ht risk our o$n $e bein# in the !rocess. 8dditiona y" bein# o!en and honest in !ub ic about one5s atheism cou d risk one5s o$n $e bein#" but it cou d a so he ! create acce!tance for atheists in #enera and he ! other atheists as a conseDuence.ual behavior . Hor e6am! e" uti itarians think $e shou d ma6imi7e the #ood and no mora consideration that conf icts $ith that !rinci! e $i count for anythin#. Conclusion 9hi oso!hers ha%e found ethica theories usefu because they he ! us decide $hy %arious actions are ri#ht and $ron#. Bein# an atheist doesn5t %io ate any of our !rima facie duties" so it5s not $ron#. It is $ron# to stea insofar as it causes !eo! e !ain" but it mi#ht be mora y !referab e to stea than to die.-tealing . Polluting . 4ee!in# a !romise is a ready a !rima facie duty" but it can be easi y o%erriden $hen more im!ortant duties conf ict $ith it. Atheism . It/s not clear that intuitions are reliable* . <omose6ua beha%ior can be 3ustified because it can he ! !eo! e attain ! easure" but $e a so ha%e a !rima facie duty to try not to endan#er our o$n ife or the ife of others" so it5s better to take certain !recautions rather than ha%e homose6ua se6 indiscriminate y. ducation . . Hor e6am! e" you cou d !romise to meet a friend for unch" but your !rima facie duty to he ! others mi#ht o%erride your !romise $hen a stran#er is in3ured and you can he ! out. It/s not clear how we resolve con$licts in duties* .A 2. Te in# one5s !arents that one is an atheist cou d cause momentary !ain" but one5s !rima facie duties to be o!en and honest seems to o%erride that concern in most situations. Cur duties to our chi dren cou d a so 3ustify stea in# $hen it5s the on y o!tion to feed them. (any !eo! e ha%e differin# intuitions and ar#ue different be iefs Dua ify as bein# ?se f-e%ident. Promising . 4no$ ed#e has intrinsic %a ue" so $e ha%e a !rima facie duty to educate !eo! e and seek education for ourse %es. (b'ections 1. In that case !o ution cou d be a!!ro!riate. This is no different than the mora ity of heterose6ua se6. >omose. (any !hi oso!hers don5t think $e can ha%e duties that conf ict. 9o utin# %io ates !eo! e5s !rima facie duty to nonin3ury" but !o utin# mi#ht be necessary for !eo! e to attain certain #oods they need to i%e. If it is #enera y $ron# to !unch someone then it is $ron# to kick them for the same 1= . If our duties can conf ict" then it5s not ob%ious ho$ $e can decide $hich duty is o%erridden by the other. Firtue has intrinsic %a ue" and coura#e is one s!ecific kind of %irtue.

#. In that case true e%a uati%e be iefs &e. 8 of the ethica theories abo%e ha%e %arious stren#ths and it is !ossib e that more than one of them is true &or at east accurate'. Ima#ine that uti itarianism" the cate#orica im!erati%e" and +toic %irtue ethics are a true.#. throu#h a cure to cancer' and dissatisfied about human ife bein# destroyed &e. Eot a mora theories are necessari y incom!atib e.reason.#. Hina y" $hat is ri#ht for one !erson $ou d be ri#ht for e%eryone e se in a sufficient y simi ar situation because the same reasons $i 3ustify the same actions. We $ou d fee more satisfied about human ife bein# !romoted &e. human ife is !referab e' $ou d te us $hich %a ues to !romote &e. human ife'" and $e $ou d be more ike y to ha%e an emotiona res!onse that $ou d moti%ate us to actua y !romote the %a ue. 1- . throu#h $ar'.#. We can then #enera i7e that it is $ron# to ?harmA !eo! e to he ! understand $hy !unchin# and kickin# tend to both be $ron#" $hich he !s us decide $hether or not %arious other actions and institutions are $ron#" such as ca!ita !unishment" abortion" homose6ua ity" atheism" and so forth.

./stice I $i discuss three theories of 3ustice: (i 5s 0ti itarianism" /a$ s5s Justice as Hairness" and Eo7ick5s ibertarianism. What economic or !o itica !rinci! es $i uti itarians say $e shou d acce!t@ That is not an easy Duestion to ans$er and is sti u! in the air. (ora ity is ar#er than 3ustice because it5s ! ausib e that $e can be heroic or act beyond the ca of duty to he ! others and such acts $ou d not be best described as e6am! es of ?3ustice. Mill4s utilitarian theory of 5ustice 0ti itarians tend to be amon# those $ho see no ma3or di%ide bet$een 3ustice and mora ity.'. 0ti itarians see 3ustice as !art of mora ity and don5t see 3ustice to ha%e a hi#her !riority than any other mora concern. 9eo! e $i think it5s un3ust to ha%e their ri#hts %io ated & ike bein# thro$n in !rison $ithout bein# found #ui ty in a court of a$'M or bein# unfairly harmed by someone un$i in# to !ay com!ensation for the harm doneM or bein# unfair y treated as an inferior &unequal' $ho isn5t hired for a 3ob des!ite bein# the most Dua ified !erson for the 3ob. What is 3ustice@ Justice can be used to mean any number of thin#s" ike the im!ortance of ha%in# ri#hts" fairness" and eDua ity &>2->>'. Cne conce!tion of uti itarian 3ustice can be found in the $ork 0ti itarianism by John +tuart (i &*1'.: Three Theories o.'. Theories of 3ustice are not necessari y ?mora A theories because ?3usticeA is a bit more s!ecific and cou d e%en be se!arate from mora ity entire y.. We ha%e to disco%er the best economic and !o itica systems for ourse %es by seein# the effects they !roduce &*0'. Cn the other hand uti itarians often ad%ocate free trade because &a' free trade can he ! re$ard !eo! e for hard $ork and encoura#e !eo! e to be !roducti%e" &b' the free market a o$s for a #reat dea of freedom" &c' freedom has a tendency to ead to more !ros!erity" and &d' takin# a$ay freedom has a tendency to cause sufferin#. In !articu ar" uti itarians think that $e shou d !romote #oodness &thin#s of %a ue'" and many think that #oodness can be found in a sin# e #oodM such as ha!!iness" f ourishin#" $e -bein#" or desire satisfaction. +ha$.Chapter . (i su##ests" ?Justice im! ies somethin# $hich is not on y ri#ht to do" and $ron# not to do" but $hich some indi%idua !erson can c aim from us as his mora ri#htA &ibid. (i said that 3ustice $as a subset of mora ityK?in3ustice in%o %es the %io ation of the ri#hts of some identifiab e indi%idua A &ibid.A When do $e &or shou d $e' ha%e a ri#ht@ When $e can e#itimate y make demands on society based on uti itarian #rounds. 0ti itarians often ad%ocate for socia $e fare because e%eryone5s $e -bein# is of mora interest and socia $e fare seems ike a #ood $ay to make sure e%eryone f ourishes to a minima e6tent. I $i e6!and my discussion of 3ustice by considerin# ob3ections to each of these theories" but I do not necessari y endorse any of the ob3ections and there cou d be #ood counterar#uments a#ainst them. If the ob3ector #oes on to ask $hy it ou#ht" I can #i%e him no other reason than 12 . 0ti itarian ideas of 3ustice connect mora ity to the a$" economic distribution" and !o itics. (uch of my understandin# of theories of 3ustice comes from Business )thics &Third )dition' by Wi ian <. to ha%e somethin# $hich society ou#ht to defend me in the !ossession of. ?To ha%e a ri#ht" then" is..

We often say that uti itarianism asks us to ?ma6imi7e ha!!inessA for short" and it5s im! ied that sufferin# is incom!atib e and destructi%e to ha!!iness. ?Eo one sha be arbitrari y de!ri%ed of his !ro!ertyA &8rtic e 12'. What rights will li&ely lead to greater happiness% – Cne !ro!osed ist of ri#hts that seem ike they cou d be 3ustified throu#h (i 5s uti itarianism are those isted in the 0ni%ersa Bec aration of <uman /i#hts.' Both of these sorts of ri#hts can !otentia y he ! !eo! e ha%e #reater $e bein#. +econd" $e ha%e to fi#ure out $hether those ri#hts are bein# %io ated in a #i%en situation. Hor e6am! e" !rofits cou d be shared $ith the $orkers. 9eo! e $ho ha%e bi ions of do ars don5t #et as much of a benefit from each dollar they own than others $ou d.'. We can !romote #reater eDua ity of income &*3'. T$o" $e make ! ans throu#hout the day concernin# our future &e. 2. <o$ can $e a!! y (i 5s uti itarian theory of 3ustice to our i%es@ Hirst" $e need to fi#ure out $hat ri#hts $i !robab y ead to #reater ha!!iness. Ret5s consider three of those ri#hts: 1. /i#hts are ru es society can make for e%eryone that cou d he ! !eo! e f ourish and !ros!er in #enera " and $e shou d ha%e ri#hts #i%en the assum!tion that they are ike y to increase #oodness in the on# run. There mi#ht be a $ay for $orkers and o$ners to b end to#ether rather than be shar! y di%ided #rou!s" $hich cou d reduce c ass $arfare and hosti e re ations. The more money you #et" the ess that additiona money can he ! your $e bein#. Cne" because $e ha%e %arious needs and !ro!erty is %ery he !fu to fu fi those needs.#enera uti ityA &ibid. Applying #ill/s theory o$ 'ustice (i thinks that $e shou d ha%e ri#hts" a$s" and #o%ernment inter%ention $hen doin# so $i best ma6imi7e the #ood" $hich he finds to be ha!!iness" and minimi7e e%i in the form of sufferin#.#. 9eo! e ou#ht to ha%e a ri#ht to !ro!erty for at east four reasons. <is uti itarian theory of 3ustice doesn5t te us $hat the idea ri#hts are. <e thinks somethin#5s 3ust if it doesn5t %io ate any ri#hts" and there are idea ri#hts that $ou d ma6imi7e ha!!iness. The !oor often die from medica ne# ect" but e%eryone e se can !retty much attain e%erythin# needed for sur%i%a . Hor e6am! e: 1. Three" it often 1> . If $e ta6 the rich to he ! the !oor" than $e cou d e6!ect that #reater #oodness $ou d resu t. (i 5s conce!tion of ri#hts can inc ude both !ositi%e ri#hts &for !ub ic education" food" she ter" medica assistance" etc.' and ne#ati%e ri#hts &to be a o$ed to say $hat $e $ant" to be a o$ed to ha%e any re i#ion" etc. Workers and o$ners often en#a#e in c ass $arfare or other hosti e re ations. retirement' and !ro!erty ri#hts are needed to ha%e the stabi ity reDuired for these ! ans. The u6uries en3oyed by the rich are much ess im!ortant to their $e bein# than the necessities that cou d be en3oyed by others if that $ea th is shared. 5oncrete utilitarian suggestions 0ti itarians ha%e su##estions for im!ro%in# economic systems. We need food and she ter" and $e can become i or die $hen !eo! e take our food and she ter from us. (i ar#ued that $e shou d reduce the di%ision bet$een $orkers and o$ners &*2-*1'. /i#ht to !ro!erty .

Hour" the ri#ht to make a !rofit from one5s abor can be an incenti%e to $ork hard and be !roducti%e" $hich can he ! create #reater !ros!erity for society at ar#e. 9erha!s $e don5t ha%e a ri#ht to socia $e fare" but the need for redistribution of $ea th cou d sti be a mora !riority that o%errides !ro!erty ri#hts in some conte6ts. The !oor cou d e%en be moti%ated to commit crimes if it5s the on y $ay for them to attain a better !osition in ife. When are rights violated% . Wides!read education can he ! society in many $ays" but I $i 3ust discuss a cou! e. The #reater ha!!iness #i%en to the !oor can 3ustify sacrificin# some $e fare of e%eryone e se. (i doesn5t make it entire y c ear $hen $e ha%e an ?ob i#ationA to he ! other !eo! e" but redistribution of $ea th certain y seems to im! y that $e can ha%e such ob i#ations because !eo! e can be !unished if they refuse to !ay their ta6es and so forth. T$o" $ithout a ri#ht to education many !eo! e cou d be stuck bein# !oor $ithout much of a chance at attainin# a better !osition in society" and that cou d destroy their moti%ation to be !roducti%e. /i#ht to education . Cne cou d ob3ect that the ri#ht to socia $e fare %io ates !ro!erty ri#hts" but it is Duite !ossib e for !eo! e5s ri#hts to conf ict. ?)%eryone has the ri#ht to a standard of i%in# adeDuate for the hea th and $e -bein# of himse f and of his fami y" inc udin# food" c othin#" housin# and medica care and necessary socia ser%ices" and the ri#ht to security in the e%ent of unem! oyment" sickness" disabi ity" $ido$hood" o d a#e or other ack of i%e ihood in circumstances beyond his contro A &8rtic e 2='. /i#ht to socia $e fare . Hirst" it can he ! !eo! e kno$ ho$ to be better !roducti%e and attain hi#her !ositions in society. Increased education not on y im!ro%es o!!ortunity" but it can he ! moti%ate !eo! e to be !roducti%e kno$in# that they ha%e an o!!ortunity to im!ro%e their i%es by attainin# better !ositions. The a ternati%es to coerced redistribution of $ea th cou d be #reater crime ratesKthe !oor mi#ht ha%e no better rationa o!tion than to stea from the richKor e%en re%o ution $hen the !oor think their current state is tota y unacce!tab e. ) ementary education sha be com!u sory. It5s a so !ossib e for mora concerns that reDuire us to %io ate !eo! e5s ri#hts in uti itarianism. ?)%eryone has the ri#ht to education. Hor e6am! e" I can attack someone in se f-defense to !rotect myse f" e%en thou#h $e ha%e a ri#ht a#ainst bein# harmed. . The ri#ht to the necessities of ife reDuires the redistribution of $ea th" but it can he ! many !eo! e $ho need he ! the most and thus increases ha!!iness &the #rater #ood' des!ite the fact that it can harm certain !eo! e. 8s I said before" uti itarianism can 3ustify #reater income eDua ity" and redistributin# $ea th can ead to #reater income eDua ity. +ometimes $e think one ri#ht can o%erride another. Technica and !rofessiona education sha be made #enera y a%ai ab e and hi#her education sha be eDua y accessib e to a on the basis of meritA &8rtic e 2-'. Better o!!ortunities diminish the desire to commit crime because there are often more efficient and ess risky $ays to try to im!ro%e one5s ife than crime has to offer. 0ti itarians can 3ustify $hen one ri#ht o%errides another if $e kno$ that #reater ha!!iness $i resu t from the %io ation. 3. 2.onsider the fo o$in# si6 situations and $hether or not any ri#hts are bein# %io ated: 1* . )ducation sha be free" at east in the e ementary and fundamenta sta#es.makes !eo! e u!set $hen they are robbed" e%en $hen on y u6uries are sto en. (y o$n $e bein# mi#ht 3ustify the act of harmin# another $hen that other !erson is a dan#er to me.

Buyin# a TF set im! ies that it $orks un ess it5s e6! icit y made c ear that the TF set is broken. (b'ections 0* It/s too simple – (any !hi oso!hers $ho re3ect uti itarianism are ?deonto o#istsA $ho #enera y a#ree that uti itarianism has much to say about mora ity that5s re e%ant" but uti itarianism is too sim! e and i#nores some mora !rinci! es. 3. 2. 9eo! e ha%e duties to he ! one another and they can5t 3ust et others die of star%ation.1. 8nyone $ho doesn5t !ay their ta6es can be !unished. +he cou dn5t afford food and cou dn5t find a 3ob" so she star%es to death. =. Was any ri#ht bein# %io ated@ (i cou d ar#ue" yes" because &a' she shou d ha%e been #i%en a free education and &b' she has a ri#ht to socia $e fare and redistributin# $ea th cou d ha%e he !ed her sur%i%e. Is this a %io ation of anyone5s ri#hts@ (i can ar#ue" yes" because a !erson5s !ro!erty ri#hts entai that !ro!erty is transferred #i%en an a#reement and no one a#reed to buy a broken TF set. 8 cor!oration hires hit men to ki the com!etition. The ha!!iness of the ?com!etitionA &and their fami y and friends' matters 3ust as much as e%eryone e se5s ha!!iness. The crimina s ha%e ri#hts not to be harmed" 3ust ike e%eryone e se" and bein# in !rison is a %io ation of ibertyKsomethin# that $ou d ordinari y be considered to be un3ust beha%ior a#ainst ?innocent !eo! e. Was any ri#ht bein# %io ated@ (i $i ar#ue" yes" because $e ha%e a ri#ht not to be harmed and it $i !robab y not ser%e the #reater #ood. The #o%ernment ta6es a !rofits 10X to he ! !oor fami ies buy the necessities of ife. Was any ri#ht bein# %io ated@ It seems ob%ious that the ri#ht to !ro!erty $as %io ated in this case" but (i cou d ar#ue that such a %io ation is necessary for ethica reasonsKeither because of conf ictin# ri#hts or other mora considerations to the ?#reater #ood. The #o%ernment subsidi7es the bi# bank industry by usin# ta6 money to #i%e the bi# banks bi ions of do ars to he ! them a%oid bankru!tcy. The !eo! e $ho !ersona y made the decision to hire hit men to ki the com!etition are thro$n in !rison after bein# found #ui ty in a court of a$. Was any ri#ht bein# %io ated@ Qes" !ro!erty ri#hts are bein# %io ated in this case because !eo! e are coerced to !ay ta6es to fund a bai out.A <o$e%er" a uti itarian cou d ar#ue that it5s for the ?#reater #oodA to thro$ the crimina s in !rison because such use of coercion he !s discoura#e and !re%ent further crimina acts and ri#hts %io ations. =0 . 1. This seems un ike y considerin# that businesses that #o bankru!t are often either not conductin# business !ro!er y or aren5t !ro%idin# a ser%ice !eo! e $ant" but some !eo! e mi#ht ar#ue that ?sa%in# the banksA $i !re%ent a hu#e disaster to the economyKand absolutely no other alternative course of action would be better. -. Is it 3ust to %io ate !ro!erty ri#hts in this case@ It de!ends $hether the bi# bank industry #ettin# oads of free money $i ead to the #reater #ood. +amantha $as born in a !oor fami y and she cou d ne%er afford an education. (ean$hi e there is an abundance of food and $ea th that is a most e6c usi%e y o$ned by the $ea thiest members of society. 8 cor!oration se s TF sets that don5t $ork and scams !eo! e out of their money because !eo! e assume that the TF sets $ork $hen they buy them. It5s !ossib e that conseDuences &!romotin# #oodness' is not the on y thin# of mora re e%ance. 8re any ri#hts bein# %io ated@ Qes" the ri#hts not to be harmed are bein# %io ated here.A It is !ossib e that a uti itarian cou d ar#ue that ta6in# !rofits by 10X isn5t enou#h" or there5s some better $ay to redistribute $ea th" but $e $i ea%e that concern aside for no$.

(aybe you cou d be curin# cancer ri#ht no$ instead of readin# this. This seems to entai no #o%ernment re#u ation or !ub ic education. They are the !ro!erty of anyone $ho takes them. Qou can read more about (i here. Eo7ick ar#ues that $e ha%e ?Rockean ri#htsA by our %ery nature !rior to any !o itica institutions" such as the ri#ht to !ro!erty &*='. (any ibertarians ascribe to an e6treme %ie$ that denies the e6istence of !ositi%e ri#hts and fa%ors a laisse)'faire free market no matter ho$ horrib e the conseDuences are. Hor e6am! e" !arents ha%e a duty to !rotect and feed their chi drenM but they don5t ha%e the same duty to a chi dren that e6ist. There are some ?countere6am! esA !hi oso!hers often #i%e a#ainst uti itarianism" and they often ar#ue that it mi#ht &sometimes' be $ron# to hurt someone e%en if it !romotes the #reater #ood. (i 5s uti itarianism in !articu ar says it5s $ron# to do somethin# that ma6imi7es ha!!iness ess than an a ternati%e course of action. This conce!tion of !ro!erty ri#hts are described by three !rinci! es of 3ustice: 1. 8 !erson $ho acDuires a ho din# in accordance $ith the !rinci! e of 3ustice in acDuisition is entit ed to that ho din#. Hor e6am! e" $e $ou dn5t think it5s ri#ht to ki someone and donate their or#ans to those $ho need them to sur%i%e" e%en if the !erson5s death ead to a ?#reater #ood. They shou dn5t s!end 3ust as much time !rotectin# and feedin# the chi dren of stran#ers as they s!end to feed and !rotect their o$n chi dren.=0 here. Hor Eo7ick these ri#hts are abso ute and can5t be %io ated for any reasonKe6ce!t !erha!s if the on y a ternati%e action $ou d directly %io ate e%en more ri#hts. +ome uti itarians are ibertarians because they think ibertarianism $i !romote #oodness best" but /obert Eo7ick de%e o!ed his o$n theory of 3ustice that finds uti itarianism com! ete y irre e%ant to 3ustice" $hich $as described in 8narchy" +tate" and 0to!ia. 3* It ignores personal relationships – +ome !hi oso!hers ar#ue that !ersona re ationshi!s !ro%ide us $ith uniDue ob i#ations that uti itarianism can5t account for. 4* It/s too demanding – +ome !hi oso!hers ar#ue that uti itarianism im! ies that $e ha%e a duty to !romote #oodness as much as !ossib e" but that5s too hard.2* <tilitarianism $ails to account $or the need to be respect$ul – It5s not c ear that uti itarians can fu y account for $hy $e need to res!ect !eo! e. There mi#ht be no imit to ho$ much #ood $e can do" and $e $ou d then be fore%er condemned for fai in# to i%e u! to the un imited demands of uti itarianism. This not on y reDuires us to sto! en3oyin# ourse %es $hen $e cou d be doin# somethin# better" but it im! ies that no actions are ?abo%e the ca of dutyA des!ite the fact that it seems intuiti%e that there are.A +omeone cou d ar#ue that uti itarian #o%ernments $ou d take a$ay !eo! e5s ri#hts $hene%er they decide that it $i ser%e the ?#reater #oodA to do soM but such a dis!ensab e %ie$ of ri#hts cou d miss the !oint of ha%in# ri#hts in the first ! ace. Eo7ick thinks that $e ha%e !ro!erty ri#hts to kee! our !ossessions as on# as they were attained fairly "$ithout %io atin# other !eo! e5s ri#hts" harmin# others" or defraudin# them &*=-*-'% The $or d5s natura resources are a u! for #rabs. It mi#ht be that you cou d be doin# somethin# better to !romote #oodness e%ery second of your ife. Eo7ick5s Ribertarian Theory of Justice Ribertarians are !eo! e $ho fa%or ne#ati%e ri#hts &and the ri#ht to !ro!erty in !articu ar'" sma #o%ernment" and a free market. Qou can read 0ti itarianism for free here or buy it for Y2. =1 .

+amantha $as born in a !oor fami y and she cou d ne%er afford an education. 8 cor!oration se s TF sets that don5t $ork and scams !eo! e out of their money because !eo! e assume that the TF sets $ork $hen they buy them.hamber ain" a#rees to ! ay for a team by #ettin# !aid t$enty fi%e cents for each ticket so d. Eo7ick says !ub ic education is one more form of redistributin# $ea th. Ima#ine that your favorite form of economic justice is enacted and a basketba ! ayer" Wi t .hamber ain e6am! eA &*2-*>'. 3.hamber ain a so seems entit ed to the money #i%en to him &assumin# that !eo! e ha%e a ri#ht to s!end their money as they $ish after 3ust y attainin# it'. 2.2. Applying +oAic&/s theory o$ 'ustice Eo7ick5s theory of 3ustice affirms that $e ha%e ne#ati%e ri#hts &to be eft a one' but denies that $e ha%e !ositi%e ri#hts &to socia $e fare or education'.or be funded by donations. (ean$hi e there is an abundance of food and $ea th that is a most e6c usi%e y o$ned by the $ea thiest members of society. <e thinks $e ha%e ?Rockean ri#htsAKa ri#ht from bein# harmed" a ri#ht to !ro!erty" freedom of s!eech" and so on.or reDuires %o unteers. To redistribute $ea th usin# coercion $ou d be a %io ation of our !ro!erty ri#hts and there is no conf ictin# ri#ht a#ainst our !ro!erty ri#hts in this situation. 8s I stated before" a !erson5s !ro!erty ri#hts entai that !ro!erty is transferred #i%en an a#reement and no one a#reed to buy a broken TF set. 3. &*2' Eo7ick5s %ie$ seems to im! y that ta6ation is a form of theft because it %io ates our !ro!erty ri#hts. It $ou d be $ron# to ta6 !eo! e to ha%e a !o ice de!artment because that5s 3ust one more un3ust %io ation of our !ro!erty ri#hts. I e6!ect that Eo7ick5s #o%ernment to be fu y funded by donations and. Wi t . The #o%ernment ta6es a !rofits 10X to he ! !oor fami ies buy the necessities of ife. <o$ do $e a!! y Eo7ick5s theory of 3ustice@ Hirst" $e need to kno$ $hat ri#hts $e ha%e. )%eryone $as entit ed to their money &assumin# your fa%orite form of economic 3ustice is tru y 3ust'" and that they therefore ha%e a ri#ht to s!end their money as they $ish. Eo one is entitied to a ho din# e6ce!t by &re!eated' a!! ications of 1 or 2.A Eo one has a ri#ht to anythin# nor does anyone ha%e an ob i#ation to he ! others. The !o ice de!artment" fire de!artment" !ub ic schoo s" !risons" and e%erythin# e se must either be ?for !rofit"A e6ist from %o unteers" and. 8ny !ub ic ser%ice funded by ta6ation $ou d then a so be i e#itimate" such as !ub ic education or food for the !oor. Eo one can take a$ay our e#itimate y attained !ro!erty $ithout !ermission. Is this un3ust@ I e6!ect that Eo7ick $i a#ree $ith (i here. 9eo! e are coerced by #o%ernments to #i%e u! their !ro!erty $hen they are bein# ta6ed. 8nyone =2 .onsider ho$ Eo7ick5s theory of 3ustice cou d a!! y to the conte6ts mentioned ear ier: 1. Was any ri#ht bein# %io ated@ Eo7ick $ou d say" ?Eo. 8 !erson $ho acDuires a ho din# in accordance $ith the !rinci! e of 3ustice in transfer" from someone e se entit ed to the ho din#" is entit ed to the ho din#. Eo7ick says ta6ation is a form of coerced redistribution of $ea th and it5s un3ust because $e ha%e a ri#ht to !ro!erty and $e don5t ha%e a ri#ht to socia $e fare. +he cou dn5t afford food and cou dn5t find a 3ob" so she star%es to death. We ha%e no ethica ob i#ations to he ! othersKand e%en if $e did" his theory of 3ustice $ou d o%erride any other mora considerations there mi#ht be. . Eo7ick ar#ues for his theory of 3ustice throu#h a thou#ht e6!eriment" ca ed the ?Wi t . +econd" $e need to kno$ ho$ those ri#hts a!! y to %arious conte6ts.

-.A In that case Wi t . Hreedom can a so entai !o$er. The !oor are seen as $hat +croo#e ca ed the ?e6cess !o!u ation. In some $ays some freed s a%es $ere $orse off than $hen they $ere s a%es. 8re any ri#hts bein# %io ated@ Eo7ick can ar#ue" ?Qes"A the ri#hts not to be harmed are bein# %io ated here. The s a%es that $ere freed after the ci%i $ar cou d ha%e ne#ati%e ri#hts" but they acked !ositi%e ri#htsKri#hts to food" to resources" to education" to medica attention" to o!!ortunity" and so on. If a ibertarian society donates to !ub ic ser%ice of its o$n free $i " there is no !rob em $ith it. <o$e%er" $e can find fau t $ith his ibertarian ethics %ia a countere6am! e% Ima#ine a ibertarian society $here the !oor a star%e to death because there is no $ay for them to buy food and no 3ob o!!ortunities.hamber ain5s $ea th $ou d be much better used to he ! the !oor" and he is refusin# to he ! them. <o$e%er" there can be conf ictin# ri#hts in this case.$ho doesn5t !ay their ta6es can be !unished.A Cne cou d ar#ue that Eo7ick5s Wi t . Eo7ick o%es freedom and he thinks that his ibertarian form of 3ustice $i be the best theory to su!!ort freedom. The #o%ernment subsidi7es the bi# bank industry by usin# ta6 money to #i%e the bi# banks bi ions of do ars to he ! the bi# bank industry a%oid bankru!tcy. The !oint is that Eo7ick5s ibertarianism isn5t necessari y un3ust" but that it mi#ht a o$ for un3ust situations that shou d not be a o$ed in a !ro!er theory of 3ustice. We ha%e reason to think that Wi t . The !eo! e $ho !ersona y made the decision to hire hit men to ki the com!etition are thro$n in !rison after bein# found #ui ty in a court of a$. 8 cor!oration hires hit men to ki the com!etition. <o$e%er" $e can ar#ue that Eo7ick isn5t 3ustified to eDuate freedom $ith ne#ati%e ri#htsKri#hts to be eft a one" ike freedom of s!eech and a ri#ht to !ro!erty. 2* Freedom is more than negative rights . The crimina s in Duestion shou d be in !rison assumin# it5s necessary to !rotect the ri#hts of others" and that seems ike a fair assum!tion. Was any ri#ht bein# %io ated@ Eo7ick $ou d say" ?Qes"A because ta6ation is a %io ation of our !ro!erty ri#hts" 3ust ike any other form of coerced redistribution. There are no conf ictin# ri#hts in this situation" so the cor!oration has done somethin# un3ust. =. (any !eo! e ar#ue that $e ha%e duties to each other" and Eo7ick isn5t 3ustified to re3ect such a mora fact. Was any ri#ht bein# %io ated@ Eo7ick $i ans$er" ?Qes"A because $e ha%e a ri#ht not to be harmed and !eo! e $ere ki ed.hamber ain $ou d ha%e a duty to he ! the !oor" and he is fai in# to fu fi his ob i#ation. We start the $or d as he ! ess infantsM and a most e%eryone becomes inca!acitated from i ness" in3ury" or o d a#e at some !oint in their a#e. 1.hamber ain thou#ht e6!eriment is a #ood e6am! e of 3ustice" but on y accounts for one e6am! e of a 3ust form of ibertarianism rather than the un3ust forms. If $e ha%e no duties to anyoneM then $e can et or!hans die" $e can et uninsured !oor !eo! e die from i ness and in3ury" and $e can et the e der y die out in the streets. The so-ca ed choice to $ork under the same &and !erha!s =3 . In the scenario #i%en" there is nothin# un3ust ha!!enin# !recise y $hen $e assume that there is a ?3ust distributionA of $ea th that assures us that no one is sufferin# from e6treme !o%erty. Was any ri#ht bein# %io ated@ Qes" !ro!erty ri#hts are bein# %io ated in this caseKand there5s no ri#hts that cou d !ossib y 3ustify ta6ation or coerced redistribution of $ea th. That doesn5t seem ike acce!tab e beha%ior and cou d hard y be described as ?mora beha%ior. In that case $e seem to ha%e itt e choice but to ta6 him and therefore take a !ortion of his $ea th to he ! the !oor. (any became sharecro!!ers and made bare y enou#h money to sur%i%e and had itt e to no o!!ortunity to im!ro%e their i%es. (b'ections 0* We have duties to each other .

+harecro!!in# is one e6am! e. Qou can read more about Eo7ick5s theory of 3ustice here. Eo7ick doesn5t think a $orker deser%es to make more money than com!anies $i !ay them. Ra!ls4s theory of 5ustice =1 .e%en $orse' conditions as a s a%e or die doesn5t seem ike the kind of freedom an economic system embodyin# 3ustice cou d a o$. In other cases a country $ou d rather se its ferti e and to rich forei#ners than se it to its o$n star%in# !eo! e for ess. 6* )he $ree mar&et can lead to horrible conse!uences. This is re ated to the ast ob3ection. 4* Inheritance is un$air . 8bso ute !ro!erty ri#hts seems to ead to a free market" but that cou d hurt a ot of !eo! e. 8 thou#h the a%era#e !erson thinks of famine as caused sim! y by a shorta#e of food" +en and other e6!erts ha%e !ointed out that famines are freDuent y accom!anied by no shortfa of food in abso ute terms. Indeed e%en more food may be a%ai ab e durin# a famine than in nonfamine yearsKif one has the money to buy it.' and means of !roduction &factories and machines' are ho din# a the cards and are ?#ood enou#h cha!sA to !ro%ide $ork for those in !o%erty $hi e makin# a #reat dea of !rofit. 3* )he $ree mar&et can lead to e. Eo7ick seems to im! y that such $orkers shou d be resi#ned to die youn# from a disease or !oor $orkin# conditions rather than re%o t a#ainst those $ho are $ea thy. &101' In some cases a country $ou d rather e6!ort its food to other countries for #reater !rofits than se them to their o$n !eo! e $ho are star%in#. Hor e6am! e" ots of !eo! e can star%e to death $hen they can5t #et access to food" e%en $hen there5s a free market. Is there any reason to think that this cou dn5t ha!!en in a free market@ 9erha!s there is no reason for Eo7ick to critici7e !eo! e for e6!ortin# a their country5s food to other countries. +ome !eo! e ar#ue that Eo7ick5s ibertarian 3ustice a o$s for un imited inheritance" but that a o$s chi dren of the $ea thy to be #i%en an unfair amount of freedom" !o$er" o!!ortunity" and education $hi e the chi dren of the !oor mi#ht a most be #uaranteed to i%e a horrib e ife of no better Dua ity than a s a%e &101'.ploitation and oppression . Qou can buy Eo7ick5s 8narchy" +tate" and 0to!ia here. Hamine occurs because ar#e numbers of !eo! e ack the financia $here$itha to obtain the necessary food. It seems ike the resu t of a com! ete y free market is that com!any o$ners $i often make tons of money $hi e many of their $orkers $i be forced to i%e in !o%erty $ithout any ho!e for medica insurance or educationa o!!ortunities. 9rofessor 8martya +en of C6ford 0ni%ersity sho$s ho$" in certain circumstances" chan#in# market entit ementsKthe economic dynamics of $hich he attem!ts to unra%e Kha%e ed to mass star%ation. Those $ho ha%e attained the $or d5s resources &food" oi " etc. 8bso ute !ro!erty ri#hts eads to a free market" but an unre#u ated free market can ead to e6! oitation Kdisres!ectfu and o!!ressi%e beha%ior to$ards others. If $orkers ha%e no choice but to $ork in horrib e conditions for bare y enou#h money to i%e" then that5s !erfect y fine. Cne cou d a so ar#ue that the fact that $e needed a minimum $a#e is e%idence that a com!any $ou d !ay their !oor $orkers e%en ess if it $as e#a to do so.

The ori#ina !osition asks us to ima#ine that a #rou! of !eo! e $i #et to decide the !rinci! es of 3ustice./a$ s described his theory of 3ustice ca ed ?Justice as HairnessA in his book 8 Theory of Justice. <e ar#ues that in a %ei of i#norance they cou dn5t be as biased to$ards their !rofession" race" #ender" a#e" or socia status because they $ou dn5t kno$ $hich cate#ories they be on# to &101-10='. These !eo! e don5t kno$ $ho they are &$hat he ca s a 5%ei of i#norance5'" they are se f-interested" they kno$ e%erythin# science has to offer" and they5re fu y rationa .'. /a$ s disa#rees $ith uti itarians that economic ineDua ity is 3ustified if it ma6imi7es ha!!inessKby !ro%idin# re$ards to bein# !roducti%e members of societyKif such ineDua ity doesn5t he ! those $ho are the $orst off. The distribution of socia #oods can inc ude education" food" and housin#M $hich cou d be considered to be !ositi%e ri#hts. /a$ s says that the first !rinci! e has !riority o%er the second" ?at east for societies that ha%e attained a moderate e%e of aff uenceA &ibid. &8 uti itarian cou d ar#ue that some !eo! e i%in# in !o%erty are a necessary for the ?#reater #oodA but /a$ s $ou d rather no one i%e in !o%erty. <e ar#ues that t$o intuiti%e !rinci! es of 3ustice in !articu ar $i reach ref ecti%e eDui ibrium: 1. 9eo! e $on5t be a o$ed to be $ea thier unless the $ea th is shared $ith the !oor. /a$ s ar#ues that the !eo! e in the ori#ina !osition $i discuss $hich !rinci! es of 3ustice are best before %otin# on them" and the best !rinci! es $orth ha%in# $i reach a ?ref ecti%e eDui ibriumAKthe most intuiti%e !rinci! es $i be fa%ored and incom!atib e ess intuiti%e !rinci! es $i ha%e to be re3ected in order to maintain coherence. 8s far as se f-interest is concerned" /a$ s ar#ues that they $i $ant !rinci! es of 3ustice that $i ?fair y distributeA certain #oods that e%eryone $i %a ueK$hat /a$ s ca s ?!rimary socia #oodsA &10='. /a$ s a#rees $ith Eo7ick that 3ustice is Duite se!arate from mora ity and he too re3ects uti itarian forms of 3ustice. The second !rinci! e5s second restrictionKthat socia and economic ineDua ities must benefit the $orst off #rou!Kis kno$n as the ?difference !rinci! eA and seems to im! y that tota communism is automatica y 3ust if such a system has no economic or socia ineDua ities because it5s on y ineDua ities that reDuire a rationa e. <e thinks tota economic eDua ity is 3ust &!erha!s in a == . +ocia and economic ineDua ities are to satisfy t$o conditions: first" they are to be attached to !ositions and offices o!en to a under conditions of fair eDua ity of o!!ortunityM and second" they are to be the #reatest e6!ected benefit of the east ad%anta#ed members of society &102'. Applying Raws/s theory o$ 'ustice /a$ s a#rees $ith Eo7ick that $e ha%e ne#ati%e ri#hts and no !ositi%e ri#hts" but he ar#ues that socia and economic ineDua ities are un3ust un ess they meet certain reDuirements. <e first su##ests a ne$ $ay to earn about !rinci! es of 3usticeKthe ori#ina !osition &103-10='. The assum!tion is that ineDua ity can a o$ hard $ork to be re$arded to the !oint that !eo! e decide to be more !roducti%e and share their $ea th $ith the !oor.a!ita ism $i on y be 3ustified if it benefits the east ad%anta#ed #rou!Kthe !oor" or!hans" and so on. In !articu ar" there must be eDua o!!ortunity &!ub ic education' and #reater ineDua ity must benefit those $ho ha%e the east socia and economic #oods &the $orst off #rou!'. The iberties /a$ s has in mind are ne#ati%e ri#hts" ike the freedom of thou#ht. 2. )ach !erson is to ha%e an eDua ri#ht to the most e6tensi%e tota system of eDua basic iberties com!atib e $ith a simi ar system of iberty for a .' /a$ s thinks that redistribution of $ea th and ta6es are 3ustified if it is the best $ay for the ?$orst offA to benefit from socia and economic ineDua ities. .

The #o%ernment subsidi7es the bi# bank industry by usin# ta6 money to #i%e the bi# banks bi ions of do ars to he ! the bi# bank industry a%oid bankru!tcy. 8nyone $ho doesn5t !ay their ta6es can be !unished. Was any ri#ht bein# %io ated@ /a$ s $ou d say" ?Qes"A because ta6ation is a %io ation of our !ro!erty ri#htsKbut he mi#ht sti think this form of ta6ation is 3ust if it5s the best $ay to redistribute $ea th and make sure the ?$orst offA benefit from economic ineDua ities. 1. +he cou dn5t afford food and cou dn5t find a 3ob" so she star%es to death. The #o%ernment ta6es a !rofits 10X to he ! !oor fami ies buy the necessities of ife. 8 cor!oration hires hit men to ki the com!etition. Why not make freedom innocent unti !ro%en #ui ty@ We shou dn5t be restrictin# any freedom unti $e ha%e an o%erridin# reason to do so. /a$ s can a#ree $ith Eo7ick that the crimina s in Duestion shou d be in !rison assumin# it5s necessary to !rotect the ri#hts of others. (b'ections 0* Basic liberties aren/t good enough .' 3. The idea of ha%in# a finite ist of ri#hts im! ies that $e can restrict freedom and o!!ress !eo! e $i y ni y as on# as the s!ecific freedom in Duestion isn5t on some officia ist.A &9erha!s /a$ s assumes that !eo! e $on5t star%e to death if $e ha%e economic eDua ity. +amantha $as born in a !oor fami y and she cou d ne%er afford an education.socia ist state'" but he thinks that a ca!ita istic system mi#ht actua y be better and he ! the ?$orst offA by re$ardin# !roducti%e beha%ior to #i%e an incenti%e to increase !roducti%ity and therefore !ros!erity. 8re any ri#hts bein# %io ated@ /a$ s can ar#ue" ?Qes"A the ri#hts not to be harmed are bein# %io ated here.A =. <o$e%er" it seems ike y that /a$ s $ou d a#ree that sa%in# an incredib y !o$erfu com!any from #oin# bankru!t $ou d someho$ benefit those $ho are the ?$orst off. -. Was any ri#ht bein# %io ated@ /a$ s $ou d ike y say" ?QesA because the economic ineDua ities don5t seem to he ! the ?$orst off. It5s not entire y c ear ho$ /a$ s kno$s $hat !rinci! es !eo! e $i a#ree to in the ori#ina !osition nor is it entire y c ear that the ori#ina !osition is #oin# to =- . Was any ri#ht bein# %io ated@ /a$ s $i a#ree $ith uti itarians and Eo7ick here and $i ans$er" ?Qes"A because $e ha%e a ri#ht not to be harmed and !eo! e $ere ki ed. 2. The transaction im! ied that a TF set $as bein# so d ?because it5s a TF setA and does $hat TF sets are e6!ected to do. (ean$hi e there is an abundance of food and $ea th that is a most e6c usi%e y o$ned by the $ea thiest members of society. The first !rinci! e of 3ustice eDuates freedom $ith some ist of ne#ati%e ri#hts" but $e can ar#ue that freedom is and ou#ht to be more than that. 8 cor!oration se s TF sets that don5t $ork and scams !eo! e out of their money because !eo! e assume that the TF sets $ork $hen they buy them. Was any ri#ht bein# %io ated@ Qes" !ro!erty ri#hts are bein# %io ated in this case" but is it a so un3ust@ If this form of redistribution $i he ! the ?$orst off"A then it is 3ust. 8s I stated before" a !erson5s !ro!erty ri#hts entai that !ro!erty is transferred #i%en an a#reement and no one a#reed to buy a broken TF set. Is this un3ust@ I e6!ect that /a$ s $i a#ree $ith (i and Eo7ick here. The !eo! e $ho !ersona y made the decision to hire hit men to ki the com!etition are thro$n in !rison after bein# found #ui ty in a court of a$. 2* Aren/t these people too ris& averse% . <o$e%er" there can be conf ictin# ethica considerations in this conte6t. <o$ $i /a$ s5s theory of 3ustice a!! y to the si6 abo%e conte6ts@ 1.

6* International responsibilities .he ! us disco%er the best !rinci! es of 3ustice. +econd" it5s o#ica y !ossib e that e%ery economic system that eads to !ros!erity reDuires that the east off #rou! to do %ery !oor y. In !articu ar" some !eo! e ar#ue that they $ou dn5t a#ree the difference !rinci! e because so fe$ !eo! e $i be !art of the east ad%anta#ed #rou!. Qou can buy /a$ s5s 8 Theory of Justice here. The difference !rinci! e $ou d force us to re3ect !ros!erity and i%e in !o%erty 3ust because economic differences mi#ht ine%itab y reDuire that the $orst off #rou! do !oor y com!ared to e%eryone e se. They cou d be the best !hi oso!hers ha%e to offer at this time and they are certain y im!ortant to understand the history of the historica debate of 3ustice. )%eryone can a be eDua y !oor" but that doesn5t seem to im! y that it5s a just economic system. Conclusion It5s !ossib e that none of these theories of 3ustice are true" but they ha%e been the resu t of decades of !hi oso!hy. +omeone cou d ar#ue that many of us $ant as much freedom and !o$er as !ossib e and the difference !rinci! e $i deny the abi ity of the $ea thy and !o$erfu to attain more $ea th or !o$er" e%en $hen it doesn5t hurt anyone. What if the rich cou d attain a #reat dea more !o$er and $ea th $ithout hurtin# anyone@ It seems o!!ressi%e to sto! them from doin# so. Why not take a risk by scre$in# o%er the !oor to he ! e%eryone e se as on# as there5s a %ery o$ chance of bein# !oor@ 3* )he di$$erence principle un'ustly restrains $reedom and power . Hirst" it5s !ossib e that communism mi#ht ead to mass !o%erty. =2 . /a$ s5s Justice as Hairness doesn5t #uarantee that a ci%i i7ation $i treat other ci%i i7ations $ith res!ect nor does it reDuire ci%i i7ations to he ! other ci%i i7ations i%in# in !o%erty and $ith many !eo! e $ho are star%in# to death. Qou can read more about /a$ s here. It5s !ossib e that no theory of 3ustice needs to be endorsed and $e cou d reason about 3ustice usin# intuiti%e assum!tions rather than a systematic attem!t to ca!ture 3ustice in its entirety. 0ti itarians cou d ar#ue that 3ustice doesn5t sto! $ithin our borders" but it e6!ands to e%eryone in the $or d and /a$ s5s Justice as Hairness i#nores this fact. 4* )he di$$erence principle can lead to poverty . The fact that $e are i#norant about 3ustice neither im! ies that a be iefs concernin# 3ustice are eDua nor does it im! y that $e kno$ abso ute y nothin# about it. That doesn5t im! y that 3ustice is 3ust a matter of o!inion or meanin# ess.

'.a!ita ism has com!anies" business or#ani7ations ?that e6ist se!arate y from the !eo! e associated $ith themA &12*'. There are many key features of ca!ita ism" such as the fo o$in#: 1. The desire to attain riches mi#ht ha%e a $ays e6isted" but attainin# !rofit is no$ one of the main #oa s &if not the centra #oa ' in many !eo! e5s i%es &ibid. Cne of the assum!tions of ca!ita ism is that being productive will lead to profit" so the !rofit moti%e $i a so moti%ate !eo! e to be !roducti%e.a!ita ism e6!ects and encoura#es com!etition because of the assum!tion that !eo! e $i ha%e better !roducts and ser%ices at a o$er cost due to com!etition &ibid. The 0nited +tates has one of the most ca!ita istic systems insofar as it has re ati%e y itt e #o%ernment inter%ention and re#u ation.'. +imi ar y" a => . The o!!osite e6treme of aisse7-faire is an e6treme form of communism $here none of the means of !roduction is !ri%ate y o$ned &and is instead shared by communities'.Part II: A-erican 6usiness and Its 6asis Chapter 0: The +at/re o. . 5ompanies . Without com!etition one business can dominate ci%i i7ation by se in# a !roduct e%eryone needs &such as food' and inf ate !rices to make more !rofit. 3. )ither they are $ron#" or $e shou d start ookin# for so utions.a!ita ists assume that !eo! e $i be moti%ated to make a !rofitKmore money than is necessary to run a businessKin !art because it rea y is !ossib e for !eo! e to do so. . There is no !recise definition of ca!ita ism" but a ibertarian aisse7-faire system &a free market $ith no #o%ernment re#u ation" ta6ation" or ta6-funded !ub ic ser%ices' is a c ear-cut e6treme sort of ca!ita ism at one end of the s!ectrum. 2. )he pro$it motive . I $i discuss the nature of ca!ita ism" mora 3ustifications of ca!ita ism" cha en#es to ca!ita ism" and ne$ !rob ems ca!ita ism is facin#. It is assumed that com!etition $i e iminate inf ated !rices and shoddy !roducts because you can 3ust buy from the com!any that #i%es you the best dea .Capitalism Is ca!ita ism a #ood idea@ If so" is there any $ay to im!ro%e our ca!ita istic system@ These are the sorts of Duestions that moti%ate us to face the cha en#es to ca!ita ism. +hat is ca$italis-/ . (ost #o%ernments are some$here in the midd e of ha%in# an e6treme form of ca!ita ism and communism because a most a #o%ernments ha%e a some$hat free market $ith some ta6ation" re#u ation" and ta6-funded !ub ic ser%ices &such as !ub ic education'. .a!ita ism is a ty!e of economic system that em!hasi7es the im!ortance !ri%ate !ro!erty and there5s at east some !ri%ate o$nershi! of the ?means of !roductionA &resources and machines' $ithin ca!ita istic societies. The ca!ita ism of the 0nited +tates is no$ #reat y inf uenced by !o$erfu com!anies" cor!orations" that can fi#ht for their o$n interests throu#h obbyin#" !ub ic re ations" and !o itica donations. 8 com!any $ith artificia y hi#h !rices $i suffer the conseDuences. (any !eo! e be ie%e that our ca!ita istic system has !rob ems that need to be so %ed. 5ompetition . (y discussion is based on cha!ter four of Business )thics &Third )dition" 1***' by Wi iam +ha$.

1. Those $ho o$n the means of !roduction cou d end u! bein# the ru ers $ho o!!ress e%eryone e se. Private property . ?When indi%idua s mi6 their abor $ith the natura $or d" they are entit ed to the resu tsA &121'. Moral 5ustifications for ca$italisTo decide if ca!ita ism is a mora y 3ustified economic system" $e $ou d ha%e to com!are and contrast ca!ita ism $ith e%ery other kind of economic system. )%en if e%ery !hi oso!her a#rees that some !ro!erty ri#hts are !art of the idea system of 3ustice" they $on5t a a#ree in the s!ecifics to ha%in# !ro!erty ri#hts. We can5t 3ust c aim to o$n anythin# unclaimed by others 3ust by ca in# dibs" and $e can5t o$n other human bein#s. <o$e%er" many ob3ect to the idea of ha%in# any natura ri#hts. 9ri%ate !ro!erty is a bund e of ri#hts and ru es that assure us that $e can o$n ob3ects &such as food' and abstract entities &such as com!anies' &ibid. Hor e6am! e" 4ar (ar6 ar#ued that the means of !roduction shou d not be o$ned as !ri%ate !ro!erty because it $ou d #i%e the o$ners an unfair amount of !o$er.com!any that tries to e6! oit their $orkers can ose em! oyees $ho find better 3obs e se$here &130'. That is a hu#e undertakin#" but $e can certain y consider !ossib e benefits ca!ita ism has o%er other systems. It mi#ht be unethica to o$n an unfair share of the earth5s resourcesM or to o$n inte i#ent anima s" such as #reat a!es" do !hins" or e e!hants. These are ar#uments for ca!ita ism that don5t sufficient y !ro%e that ca!ita ism is mora y 3ustified once and for a " but they are considerations in fa%or of ca!ita ism.'. )he natural right to property* John Rocke ar#ued that !eo! e are entit ed to the fruits of their abor.onsider that e%eryone a#rees that there are imits to !ro!erty ri#hts. If you o$n somethin#" then you ha%e a #reat dea of contro o%er it" you can #i%e it to someone e se" and others can5t take it from you $ithout !ermission. 9erha!s there is an idea set of ri#hts that $e can disco%er once $e kno$ $hich theory of 3ustice is correct" but $e can5t 3ust assume that !ro!erty ri#hts as understood by ca!ita ists is that idea . 8 thin#s eDua " it $ou d certain y seem immora for someone to sei7e a your cro!s after you $orked a year to create them. I $i discuss t$o such ar#uments: &1' The natura ri#ht to !ro!erty and &2' the in%isib e hand.a!ita ism not on y reDuires that many !eo! e ha%e !ri%ate !ro!erty" but it reDuires that a #reat dea of the means of !roductions are !ri%ate y o$nedM such as farm and" factories" and crude oi . . This is one $ay that se fishness in the =* . . 9ro!erty ri#hts can kee! that from ha!!enin#" and Eo7ick5s theory of 3ustice su!!orts our natura ri#ht to !ro!erty. )he invisible hand* 8dam +mith" one of the founders of ca!ita ism" ar#ued that a free market cou d be #uided by an ?in%isib e handA in the sense that !ro!erty ri#hts" a !rofit moti%e" a free market" and com!etition can ead to a !roducti%e and abundant societyM e%en if the #o%ernment doesn5t inter%ene or re#u ate businessKas on# as !eo! e are rationa and informed &133'. +ome !ri%ate !ro!erty" inc udin# the means of !roduction" is capitalKin%estments used to make more money &131'.

form of the !rofit moti%e can end u! bein# beneficia to e%eryone in a society. +ome of the cha en#es are on y re e%ant for aisse7-faire forms of ca!ita ism and others cou d be re e%ant to forms of ca!ita ism that ha%e socia istic !ro#rams. If the in%isib e hand ar#ument succeeds" then $e $i ha%e a #ood reason to endorse ca!ita ism on uti itarian #rounds.ha en#es to ca!ita ism don5t !ro%e that ca!ita ism is immora M they are mere y considerations for im!ro%ement and can be !art of a #reater discussion about the o%era mora 3ustification of ca!ita ism. . 2. <o$e%er" ?neither theoretica economics nor the study of history su!!orts this re! yA &13='.om!etition and free markets mi#ht not a $ays !ro%ide a fair" 3ust" !roducti%e" or !ros!erous system. IneDua ity has not on y ead to !o%erty" but a so o!!ression" inadeDuate education" and uneDua o!!ortunities.onsumers need to be $i in# and ab e to buy Dua ity !roducts from ethica businesses to make sure that businesses ha%e an incenti%e to !roduce Dua ity !roducts and be ethica . <o$e%er" it5s not ob%ious that the in%isib e hand functions as $e as $e $ou d ike" e%en thou#h it5s ! ausib e that it does function to some e6tent. The ?in%isib e handA is caused by the ? a$ of su!! y and demand. <e didn5t seem to think the in%isib e hand to be infa ib e. (ost economists and socia theorists a#ree that redistribution of $ea th throu#h ta6ation and ta6funded !ub ic ser%ices ha%e reduced !o%erty and !erha!s e%en economic ineDua ity &ibid. Challen"es to ca$italis. I $i discuss four cha en#es to ca!ita ism: 5apitalism leads to severe economic ine!uality* There is a #reat dea of income ineDua ity in our ca!ita istic system. Cf course" ca!ita ism doesn5t reDuire a com! ete y free market. The a$ of su!! y and demand can !re%ent !rice #ou#in# &inf ated !rices'" shoddy $ork" and !erha!s e%en inadeDuate $orker com!ensation &131'. Hor e6am! e" $e can reduce !o%erty throu#h ta6ation and !ub ic -0 . If consumers aren5t rationa or informed" then $e ha%e no reason to e6!ect them to buy Dua ity !roducts or buy from ethica businesses. 9o%erty and e6treme income ineDua ity can be reduced &or e iminated' in ca!ita istic systems throu#h !o itica action.A If there is a demand for a !roduct or ser%ice" !eo! e $i com!ete to !ro%ide it" and $e $i buy from the !erson #i%in# the best dea &133-131'.'. ?The dis!arity in !ersona incomes is enormousM a tiny minority of the !o!u ation o$ns the %ast ma3ority of the country5s !roducti%e assetsM and in the fina years of the t$entieth century" our society continues to be marred by !o%erty and home essnessA &131'. )%en 8dam +mith seemed to a#ree that at east some #o%ernment re#u ation is a #ood idea. . 8 chi d born in a $ea thy fami y $i !robab y ha%e better o!!ortunities" a better education" and better medica insurance than a chi d born into !o%erty. Businesses can hire the best $orkers" fire inefficient $orkers" and com!ete to hire the best $orkers throu#h hi#h com!ensation. The free market doesn5t cause !o%ertyM it5s caused by #o%ernment interference. The in%isib e hand ar#ument assumes that !eo! e are rationa and informed. +ome defend ca!ita ism from this ob3ection in the fo o$in# $ays: 1.

8dditiona y" to make ma6ima y rationa and $e -informed economic decisions reDuires us to e iminate our confirmation bias and fa acious forms of reasonin# throu#h scientific e6!erimentation and !eer re%ie$. )%en if ca!ita ism eads to !o%erty" the benefits of ca!ita ism cou d out$ei#h the harms &ibid. 3. +ome ha%e estimated that there are around Y>= bi ion $orth of direct subsidy !ro#rams funded by the 0+ #o%ernment e%ery year" the Hedera /eser%e recent y #a%e out Y* tri ion in ?emer#ency oansA to !o$erfu cor!orations" and banks ha%e the ri#ht to end money they don5t ha%e due to our fractiona reser%e bankin# system. The cha en#e to ca!ita ism concernin# a ack of com!etition has been $ide y acce!ted and ?antitrust actions ha%e sometimes fostered com!etition and broken u! mono!o ies" as in the cases of such cor!orate behemoths as +tandard Ci and 8TGTA &132'. . Today more than a Duarter of the $or d5s economic acti%ity comes from the 200 ar#est cor!orationsA &ibid.a!ita ism has an insufficient defense a#ainst mono!o ies and the e imination of com!etition" and actua y encoura#es these thin#s. We don5t ha%e the time or resources to be as ?$e informedA and rationa as the ca!ita istic system demands. It5s not !ossib e for e%eryone to com!ete on a e%e ! ayin# fie d $hen the $ea thy ha%e so much more !o$er and resources than e%eryone e se. <o$e%er" ?such actions ha%e !ro%ed ineffectua in ha tin# the concentration of economic !o$er in ar#e o i#o!o istic firms. Wea thy cor!orations obby the #o%ernment and donate to !o iticians in the ho!e to #et fa%ors in the form of e#is ation" ta6 oo!ho es" and other subsidies &#o%ernment fundin#'. Hor e6am! e" ?SaTnnua ta6!ayer subsidies to a#ricu ture a one run bet$een Y10 bi ion and Y20 bi ion &and a tota of Y3= bi ion" if the hi#her !rices consumers !ay are inc uded'A &13>'.'. (any of the !roducts and ser%ices $e !ay for reDuire a hi#h e%e of e6!ertise and s!ecia i7ation that $e are unab e to 3ud#e a!!ro!riate y &13='.'. In !articu ar" ca!ita ism encoura#es !eo! e to ha%e the $ron# !riorities insofar as it makes us ?materia isticA and #reedy &obsess o%er attainin# money and !ossessions'" and insofar as it makes us se fish &and mar#ina i7e the im!ortance of other !eo! e' &13-'.. We don5t a $ays ha%e the resources to ha%e scientific e6!eriments to determine $hich decisions are best" so $e ha%e itt e choice but to re y on re%ie$s and testimonia s &anecdota e%idence' and $e $i ine%itab y ha%e a #reat dea of confirmation bias. -1 . 5apitalism is based on a $alse conception o$ human nature* Hirst" ca!ita ism de!ends on a conce!tion of !eo! e as $e -informed rationa !rofit seekers $ho kno$ ho$ to make decisions to benefit themse %es.. )hree problems with competition* Cne" ca!ita ism reDuires there to be com!etition" but it5s !ossib e and desirab e for se f-interested !rofit seekers to e iminate the com!etition and sei7e as much !o$er o%er society as !ossib e. (any ca this ?cor!orate $e fareA &ibid.'. T$o" our ca!ita istic !o itica system fa%ors cor!orations and the $ea thy. 8dditiona y" ca!ita ism #reat y fa%ors the $ea thy o%er e%eryone e se because the most !roducti%e businesses reDuire e6!ensi%e eDui!ment for ar#e-sca e !roduction &ibid.e. redistribution of $ea th'. +econd" ca!ita ism can effect our !ersona ity and %a ues by encoura#in# us to be ?$e -informed rationa !rofit seekers"A but that5s a bad thin#.ser%ices &i.'. <o$e%er" $e can5t a $ays be $e informed.

8 $orker $i in# to $ork o%ertime $ithout !ay to #et a !romotion can end u! forcin# a other com!etiti%e $orkers to do the same to com!ete for that !romotionM but such hard $ork can encoura#e $orkers to be e6! oited rather than res!ected. (oreo%er" coo!eration is often more !roducti%e than com!etition. The $ea thy can not on y choose to treat $orkers as !oor y as is e#a y !ossib e in order to ma6imi7e !rofit" but the $ea thy often fee mora y 3ustified in doin# so. When !eo! e $ork to#ether" coordination of effort and an efficient di%ision of abor are !ossib e. Workers a ienated from their o$n abor see their abor as a se!arate thin# sacrificed for the necessities of ife rather than as !art of a fu fi in# ife or a ref ection of onese f. Workers ha%e occasiona y $orked in conditions com!arab e to s a%ery" such as many of the sharecro!!ers. There are ?em!irica studies estab ishin# that in business en%ironments there is freDuent y a ne#ati%e corre ation bet$een !erformance and indi%idua com!etiti%enessA &ibid. This can cause dehumani7ation bet$een $orkers $ho no on#er see each other as !eo! e $ho deser%e di#nity and res!ect" but rather as the enemy.Three" com!etition mi#ht not a $ays be a #ood thin#.ploitation and alienation* The $ea thy sometimes ?ho d a the cardsA and can refuse to hire $orkers un ess the $orkers a#ree to $ork in disres!ectfu " unsafe" and. Workers a ienated from $orkers can see other $orkers as a means to an end &a $ay to #et !roducts' or as the enemy rather than as friends or fe o$ human bein#s. 8dditiona y" rather than bein# moti%ated to attain e6terna re$ards &!rofits' or other e6terna #oa s &defeatin# the com!etition'" $e are often more !roducti%e $hen $e do $hat $e en3oy or %a ue for its o$n sake. T$o !eo! e are a ienated e%en if they are in the same room $hen they see each other as e6terna and se!arate. The !o$er difference bet$een the $ea thy and $orkers often causes a rift in socia status" $here the $ea thy think they deser%e their $ea th" and disres!ect the $orkers because they are of a o$er socia c ass. )m! oyers a ienated from their $orkers see their $orkers as a means to an endKa $ay to make !rofit" rather than as friends and fe o$ human bein#s. By contrast" com!etition can inhibit economic coordination" cause need ess du! ication of ser%ices" retard the e6chan#e of information" foster co!ious iti#ation" and ead to socia y detrimenta or counter!roducti%e resu ts such as business fai ures" mediocre !roducts" unsafe $orkin# conditions" and en%ironmenta ne# ect. 7e! $roble-s ca$italis. /ather than an en3oyab e and fu fi in# ife" a ife $ith a ienation can be more de!ressin# and o!!ressi%e. Workers $ho are more !roducti%e or hard $orkin# can be a threat to the i%e ihood of the other $orkers.or under!aid conditions. &13>-13*'.is facin" -2 . +ometimes coo!eration is much more !roducti%e than com!etition.'. 8 ienation is the !sycho o#ica se!aration bet$een t$o thin#s. (oreo%er" $orkers often com!ete for 3obs" !romotions" and raises. 5apitalism leads to e.

)he <nited -tates $aces slow growth in productivity* The 0nited +tates is e6!eriencin# ess economic #ro$th than it did for a hundred years !rior to 1*23" and many e6!erts be ie%e it ?ref ects a dec inin# rate of #ro$th in !roducti%ityA &111-112'.'.'. (any of these com!anies are focused on marketin# rather than !roduction" and others are no$ midd emen $ho do itt e more than !acka#e and distribute #oods made by someone e se. This can be" in !art" because $e ha%en5t been in%estin# as much in factories and eDui!ment.'. I ha%e discussed many of those ar#uments here in addition to some s!ecific !rob ems the 0nited +tates ca!ita istic system is facin# today. )he <nited -tates has a declining interest in production* There are a dec inin# number of com!anies focused on !roducin# #oods" and some com!anies ha%e sto!!ed !roducin# #oods &ibid. Cn y one out of three !eo! e acce!t the 8merican dream" ?do$n from -0 !ercent in a 1*-0 sur%eyA &ibid. -3 . Hor e6am! e" $e shou d be more $i in# to ose short term !rofits for on# term benefits" and in%est in on#term research and de%e o!ment &113'. Conclusion We often take it for #ranted that ca!ita ism is mora y 3ustified" but there are !hi oso!hers $ho !refer some kind of socia ism after considerin# the ar#uments for and a#ainst ca!ita ism. It5s not entire y c ear $hy the 0nited +tates has this !rob em and it5s not a uni%ersa !rob em found around the $or d. Three" !eo! e5s 3obs are often takin# a back seat to their ?!ersona needsA &ibid. The ack of !roducti%ity is o$erin# our standard of i%in# and cou d ead to o$er share of internationa business.'. )he <nited -tates $aces changing attitudes towards wor&* Hirst" some ha%e ar#ued that the $ork ethicKseein# hard $ork as !art of i%in# a fu fi in# ife and enab in# us to attain the 8merican dreamKis bein# ost &11='. Hour" em! oyee sabota#e and %io ence are on the rise.I $i discuss three !rob ems the ca!ita istic system of the 0nited +tates is facin#.'. (any no on#er think !roducti%e $ork $i necessari y ?!ay off"A and there is e%idence that ?8mericans ! ace $ork ei#hth in im!ortance behind %a ues such as their chi dren5s education and a satisfactory o%e ifeA and ha%e conseDuent y a o$ed their !rofessiona i%es to suffer in order to s!end more time $ith their fami ies &ibid. +ome !eo! e ha%e su##ested that the reduction in !roducti%ity #ro$th cou d be caused by a !reoccu!ation ?$ith short-term !erformance at the e6!ense of on#-term strate#iesA &112-113'. Cne" !eo! e are no on#er interested in factory $ork and $ant more fu fi in# and ess monotonous $ork &ibid. Hi%e" theft" absenteeism" and o$ !roducti%ity is increasin# as dru# use at the office is increasin# &ibid.' In addition" there are other chan#es in our %a ues and interests that ha%e an im!act on business.'. T$o" oya ty to em! oyers is dec inin# and oya ty to other em! oyees is increasin# &ibid.

.or!orations are ? imited iabi ity com!aniesA created by ?incor!oratorsA and o$ned by in%estors ca ed ?stockho dersA or ?shareho dersA $ho ha%e certain ri#hts and res!onsibi ities.or!orations no on#er need to ser%e the !ub ic #ood and can 3ust try to make a !rofit. Introduction What are corporations% . Instead" they can on y be sued for the amount eDua to their in%estment. . The term ? imited iabi ityA is a bit dece!ti%e because I think $e can a a#ree that in%estors $ho kno$ itt e about $hat the cor!oration they in%est in is doin# shou d ha%e ess iabi ity than is human y !ossib e" and ? imited iabi ityA is actua y ? imited immunity. They aren5t iab e to the amount of dama#e they can do to society and customers.A 8 !erson can in%est in a horrib e cor!oration that does an incredib e amount of dama#e and that !erson is immune from bein# res!onsib e for any dama#e beyond the in%estment made. There are many considerations for and a#ainst cor!orations and $e $ou d ha%e to assess them a to kno$ for sure $hether or not cor!orations are mora y 3ustified. These are considerations in fa%or of ha%in# cor!orations" but they don5t sufficient y !ro%e that cor!orations are mora y 3ustified.or!orations are an incredib y !o$erfu force in in the 0nited +tates. +tockho ders ?may sue and be sued as a unit and. #oral 'usti$ications $or corporations I $i discuss t$o mora 3ustifications for cor!orations. <o$e%er" that5s no on#er the case.or!orations $ere ori#ina y considered to be mora y 3ustified because they $ere created to ad%ance !ub ic interests. .. These !eo! e can face e#a action for the crimes they commit. +econd" I $i discuss %arious mora debates concernin# cor!orations" such as &a' $hether cor!orations ha%e mora res!onsibi ity" &b' the nature of cor!orate socia res!onsibi ity" and &c' the im!ortance of institutiona i7in# ethics $ithin cor!orations.Chapter 11: Corporatio&s . This discussion is #reat y based on cha!ter fi%e of Business )thics &Third )dition" 1***' by Wi iam +ha$. are ab e to consi#n !art of their !ro!erty to the cor!oration for %entures of imited iabi ityA &1-0'. They ha%e a hu#e inf uence in !o itics and the i%es of mi ions of em! oyees. Rimited iabi ity e6tends to in%estors $ho ha%e itt e inf uence on the cor!oration they &!artia y' o$n" but imited iabi ity doesn5t e6tend to anyone $ho has an acti%e ro e $hen makin# i e#a decisions. Hirst" I $i discuss the nature and mora 3ustification for cor!orations. The in%estors en3oy ? imited iabi ityA meanin# that in%estors can5t be sued for a their $orth. In !articu ar" the ar#ument that cor!orations shou d e6ist" e%en if they don5t e6ist to ser%e the !ub ic #ood. The in%estors often ha%e itt e to no idea $hat is #oin# on in their cor!oration" and the i e#a actions of the em! oyees are often dea t $ith se!arate y. This chan#e $as caused &in !art' due to the ar#uments of 8dam +mith and 8 e6ander <ami ton" $ho conc uded that cor!orations shou dn5t be reDuired to ser%e the !ub ic #ood for at east t$o reasons: -1 .

The fact that in%estors don5t ha%e to !ay for the actua amount of dama#e they are &!artia y' res!onsib e for can encoura#e risky beha%ior by a o$in# in%estors to risk other people#s $e bein# rather than their o$n. 8dditiona y" cor!orate em! oyees often think that obedience is an e6cuse for breakin# the a$ or committin# immora acts because they can ose their 3obs for insubordination.Cne" they thou#ht that the ?in%isib e handA of a free market $ou d assure us that cor!orations $ou d ser%e the !ub ic interest $ithout doin# so intentiona y &1-1'. These mana#ers and e6ecuti%es can be fired for not makin# enou#h !rofit and it can be that the on y mana#ers or e6ecuti%es $ho can kee! their 3obs are ones $ho are $i in# to break the a$.'. .or!orations are often %ery #ood at bein# !roducti%e" and the e6istence of cor!orations can ead to #reater !ros!erity. Bue to the in%isib e hand" cor!orations offer the best #oods and ser%ices at the o$est !rices to remain com!etiti%e and !rofitab e. It mi#ht be a better idea to encoura#e !eo! e to be res!onsib e and take an acti%e ro e in their business in%estments to make sure that nothin# i e#a or immora is ha!!enin# there. (oreo%er" $hen ar#e numbers of !eo! e $ork to#ether" it5s not a $ays c ear $ho shou d be b amed for immora or i e#a beha%ior. (b'ections to corporations It5s not ob%ious that cor!orations are mora y 3ustified.A Hourth" cor!orations don5t seem conduci%e to the res!onsibi ity of the em! oyees. Third" #i%in# in%estors imited iabi ity and !rotectin# ignorant in%estors from crimina char#es encoura#es !eo! e to be irres!onsib e. T$o" they thou#ht that !eo! e shou d ha%e the ri#ht to create cor!orations due to a ?ri#ht of associationA &ibid. I $i discuss se%en ob3ections to cor!orations. Hirst" cor!orations are a %io ation of the free market. 9eo! e mi#ht not $ant to in%est their money in com!anies if they ha%e to take an acti%e ro e to make sure the com!any is beha%in# mora y" e#a y" and res!onsib yM and risk their entire fortune from each financia in%estment in com!anies. It encoura#es in%estors to be i#norant because it %a idates c aims that ignorance can excuse their involvement in a crime. (ana#ers and e6ecuti%es in !articu ar can be encoura#ed to make a !rofit at the e6!ense of mora and e#a considerations. 8 free market demands that !eo! e !ro%ide the best #oods and ser%ices because of the financia ruin in%o %ed $ith harmin# others and breakin# the a$. We don5t $ant i#norance to be a ?#et out of 3ai free card. +econd" the idea of a business doin# a #reat dea of dama#e and no one bein# iab e to !ay for the entire amount of dama#e sounds ike a %io ation of a !erson5s actua ri#hts and res!onsibi ities. It shou d a so be noted that imited iabi ity can encoura#e in%estment. We ha%e a ri#ht to be com!ensated to the harm done to us" and com!anies ha%e a res!onsibi ity to com!ensate for that harm. These ob3ections don5t !ro%e that cor!orations shou dn5t e6ist" but they are considerations a#ainst usin# cor!orations" and $e mi#ht be ab e to find so utions to these !rob ems. Without imited iabi ity there $ou d !robab y be a ot ess in%estment in com!anies and a ot ess !roducti%e com!anies as a resu t. +ometimes $e think e%eryone shares b ame" but $e don5t a $ays think $e shou d send -= .

Are cor$orations -orally res$onsible/ In many $ays cor!orations are treated as ? e#a !ersonsA $ith ri#hts and res!onsibi ities.e%eryone to !rison. If cor!orations are in some sense e#a !ersons $ith constitutiona y !rotected ri#hts" then !erha!s they a so ha%e mora or socia res!onsibi ities. Hifth" it5s not ob%ious that the ?in%isib e handA has $orked out so $e . The $ea thy cou d then use cor!orations as a ha%en to be irres!onsib e and destructi%e $ithout any si#nificant mora res!onsibi ities" and $ith the on y risk bein# the oss of a financia in%estment.or!orations no$ ha%e a hi#h y unrestricted freedom of s!eech" and they are a o$ed to offer their o!inion in the form of !o itica donations" obbyin#" ad%ertisin#" and so on &1-2'.iti7ens 0nited %. . The in%isib e hand ar#ument assumes that consumers act in their rationa best interest" but they often don5t. 9eo! e are mora y res!onsib e if they can be a!!ro!riate y !raised or b amed for their beha%ior &1-3'. The +u!reme .ommissionZ ru ed that it5s a constitutiona ri#ht for cor!orations to s!end un imited amounts of money to inf uence !o itica cam!ai#ns. The 2010 +u!reme .ourt ru ed that cor!orations ha%e a constitutiona y !rotected ri#ht to free s!eech in the 1*2> decision ?Hirst Eationa Bank of Boston %. . B9 and bankin# cor!orations in%o %ed in immora acts are sti hi#h y !rofitab e. B9 decided to risk the en%ironment to rake in the dou#h and caused a horrific oi s!i that de%astated our ocean $aters" se%era bankin# cor!orations $ere in%o %ed in fraud that ed to the financia crisis" and Go dman +achs has been in%o %ed in se%era scanda s o%er the years. This has further !rotected cor!orations from the need to act res!onsib y. Banks that took risks and committed fraud #ot a bai out from the #o%ernment and federa reser%e" and ha%e faced itt e or no !unishment for their crimes.or!orations ha%en5t a $ays acted in the !ub ic interest. +e%enth" $e don5t rea y ha%e a free market" in !art because cor!orations are a o$ed to obby the #o%ernment and #i%e donations to !o iticians in the ho!e for fa%orab e e#is ation and subsidies.'. +i6th" consumers ha%e not done a #ood 3ob at !unishin# cor!orations for their immora actions. Hedera ) ection . If cor!orations ha%e the ri#ht to make mora decisions that can hurt !eo! e" then they shou d a so be mora y res!onsib e for the benefits and harms caused by their actions. It seems a bit unfair to #i%e cor!orations a the ri#hts of bein# a !erson $ithout any of the res!onsibi itiesKa the benefits and none of the costs. If !eo! e choose to #i%e to a charity that sa%es i%es of their o$n free choice" then $e -- . Be otti"A $hich inc uded the ri#ht to donate to !o iticians &ibid. Hreedom of s!eech in%o %es moral o!inions and can ha%e a harmfu im!act on !eo! eKes!ecia y $hen it in%o %es !o itica fundin# and obbyin#" $hich is one of the most cherished cor!orate acti%ities.ourt decision ?. What is moral responsibility% There are at east four ty!es of mora res!onsibi ity: 1.

. Cur mora heroes $ho dis! ay mora %irtue" such as +ocrates and (ohandas 4aramchand Gandhi" seem ike they are hi#h y mora y res!onsib e insofar as they are e6ce!tiona !eo! e $ith an unusua y hi#h de#ree of mora %irtue. Indi%idua s $ithin cor!orations can be mora y res!onsib e" but that doesn5t mean a cor!oration" an abstract socia construct" can be mora y res!onsib e. It seems ! ausib e to think that hi#h rankin# officers are at -2 .'. Hor e6am! e" Eationa +emiconductor so d !roducts to the Befense Be!artment $ithout conductin# the !romised tests on the !roducts and $ere fined o%er a mi ion do ars as a resu t &ibid. What is the nature o$ personal moral responsibility within corporations% (any !eo! e share res!onsibi ity $ithin a cor!oration and they often refuse to acce!t !ersona res!onsibi ityKto be $hist eb o$ers" to disobey orders to break the a$" and so on &1-='.onsider ho$ many o$-rankin# so diers in the mi itary are found #ui ty of $ar crimes" but a most no hi#h-rankin# ones are b amed. 9erha!s $e cannot consider cor!orate em! oyees to be res!onsib e in the sense of bein# ca!ab e of thinkin# rationa y and mora y for themse %es. We don5t think they fu y deser%e !raise or b ame for their actions because they aren5t fu y ca!ab e of thinkin# mora y or rationa y. 3. 8 cor!oration that b ames a fe$ indi%idua s for breakin# the a$ $hen se%era !eo! e actua y share res!onsibi ity cou d e%en be a form of sca!e#oatin#Kb amin# a fe$ so that many others can #et a$ay scott free. The cor!oration then refused to te the Befense Be!artment $hich indi%idua s made the decision to ha%e incom! ete testin# because such a decision $as ?an industry !attern beyond any one indi%idua 5s res!onsibi ityA &1--'. 9arents are res!onsib e for their chi dren and ha%e to !ro%ide food for their chi drenM the ne$s has a duty inform us of !o itica misconductM accountin# auditors ha%e a duty to kee! an eye out for fraudM and so on. +ome !hi oso!hers ar#ue that cor!orate decision makin# is ike a machine and is inca!ab e of makin# mora or rationa decisions because the !rofit moti%e $i o%erride a mora considerations &ibid. 2. . Hina y" !eo! e are mora y res!onsib e insofar as they are #ood at actin# and thinkin# in a rationa and mora manner. Cn the other hand some !eo! e" such as 4enneth ).think they are a!!ro!riate !raised. 9eo! e are mora y res!onsib e insofar as they are accountab e for the $e fare of others" and ha%e duties to he ! other !eo! e &ibid. . <o$e%er" if !eo! e are forced to #i%e to a charity that sa%es i%es at #un!oint" then $e don5t think they deser%e !raise for doin# so.'.or!orations ha%e %arious #oa s &re ated to makin# !rofit' and they ha%e !rocedures to decide ho$ to best achie%e these #oa s &1-1'. 9eo! e are mora y res!onsib e insofar as they are ca!ab e of makin# mora and rationa decisions &ibid. +uch !eo! e can not on y think rationa y" but they choose to do so.an cor!orations think and act mora y or rationa y@ If so" then it is !ossib e for cor!orations to be a!!ro!riate y !raised and b amed" accountab e for the $e fare of others" and %irtuous. 1.'.hi dren" certain !eo! e $ho are insane" and most nonhuman anima s seem to ack this kind of mora res!onsibi ity.'. Good!astor" ha%e ar#ued that cor!orate decision makin# is ana o#ous to human de iberation because many conf ictin# #oa s can be re e%ant other than !rofit &1-='. I $i consider a case for and a#ainst the idea that cor!orations can think and act mora y. 5an corporations thin& and behave morally% .

Cf course" $e cou d decide that both cor!orations and cor!orate em! oyees are both res!onsib e and we could punish both corporations and individuals. 8dditiona y" it seems ! ausib e that corru!t cor!orate cu ture can make immora acts a most ine%itab e. 0nfortunate y" if indi%idua s are !unished" then the cor!oration cou d continue to encoura#e or demand immora beha%ior.)Cs can occasiona y face bein# fired if they aren5t $i in# to !o ute or break the a$ to increase !rofits. Cf course" e%en if this is true" $e can $onder if this contract is mora y bindin# #i%en that it reDuires us to abandon certain mora -> . There are at east fi%e ar#uments that cor!orations only ha%e a duty to make !rofit: &a' +ome ar#ue that it5s because the in%estors a#ree to in%est their money in cor!orations !recise y because they $ant to make !rofit. (i ton Hriedman e%en su##ested that cor!orations shou d fee free to !o ute to $hate%er e6tent is e#a : SBusiness !eo! e $hoT be ie%e that they are defendin# free enter!rise $hen they dec aim that business is not concerned ?mere yA $ith !rofit but a so $ith !romotin# desirab e ?socia A ends" that business has a ?socia conscienceA and takes serious y its res!onsibi ities for !ro%idin# em! oyment" e iminatin# discrimination" avoiding pollution and $hate%er e se may be the catch$ords of the contem!orary cro! of reformers.imiAe pro$its* +ome !eo! e think that cor!orations on y ha%e a duty to ma6imi7e !rofits. 8 cor!oration that sacrifices !rofit to ook out of the !ub ic interest is committin# themse %es to the $ron# ro e. T$o" $e can assi#n res!onsibi ity to cor!orate em! oyees and dismiss the c aim that they ack res!onsibi ity. If no one is res!onsib e" then $ho is #oin# to !ay for the dama#e done to !eo! e by cor!orations@ There are at east t$o !ossib e so utions to this !rob em. 0nfortunate y" if cor!orations are !unished" then the indi%idua s $ho are mora y res!onsib e cou d #et off scott free. .. &1->-1-*' Cf course" !o ution can hurt !eo! e" and cou d be taken to be a %io ation of our ri#hts. +hat4s the e(tent of cor$orate res$onsibility/ There are at east t$o ma3or ideas of cor!orate res!onsibi ity other than to abide by the law . 9eo! e mi#ht be $i in# to !ay Y=0 a year to a cor!oration if it $ou d a#ree not to !o ute" but that $ou d be a form of coercion. +ome !eo! e think it5s the duty of the #o%ernment to ook out for the !ub ic interest" not cor!orations..east !artia y res!onsib e as $e . It $ou d be a %io ation of an im! icit contract or !romissory a#reement in%o %ed $ith such in%estments &121'.onsider ho$ it seems ! ausib e to think that . The cor!oration $ou d be !aid to sto! hurtin# !eo! e" but it $ou dn5t be ?free tradeA because free trade can5t a o$ !eo! e to be coerced into conductin# business transactions. SareT un$ittin# !u!!ets of the inte ectua forces that ha%e been underminin# the basis of a free society these !ast decades.and refuse to hurt people-. 0* )o ma. 9o ution destroys the en%ironment" makes us sick" and can e%en cause fata i ness. Cne" $e can attribute res!onsibi ity to cor!orations 3ust ike $e do !eo! e in #enera . If $e find out that cor!orations and cor!orate em! oyees both ack mora res!onsibi ity" that $ou d be a serious !rob em.

+ome !eo! e ar#ue that cor!orations are too ine!t to be ethica &ibid. . They are fu of #reed and se fish !eo! e $ho don5t kno$ $hat is tru y im!ortant in ife" so their corru!t idea of beha%in# ethica y $i s!read their ?%a uesA to the rest of our cu ture &12-'.or!orations ha%e some sort of res!onsibi ity to make !eo! e5s i%es better either throu#h Dua ity !roducts and ser%ices or some sort of charity. <o$e%er" cor!orations ha%e a ready been doin# e%erythin# they can to s!read corru!t %a ues and e%en use such %a ues to inf uence !o itics &122'. . +ome !eo! e think that cor!orations are e%i or corru!t. Cf course" ots of !eo! e aren5t !articu ar y informed about mora !hi oso!hy and $e sti demand that they are ethica . Those in the !osition to do the most #ood ha%e the res!onsibi ity to he ! !eo! e. If cor!orations harm us" then $e ha%e no reason to a o$ them to e6ist &ibid.or!orations must someho$ try to !ay for these e6terna itiesKthe hidden costs they force on othersKor the business can cause more harm than #ood. +ome !eo! e re3ect this idea because &i' it reDuires an ?intrusi%e #o%ernment"A &ii' the #o%ernment is #reat y inf uenced by cor!orations that can !re%ent #o%ernment re#u ation throu#h obbyin#" or &iii' a$s and re#u ations can5t sto! e%ery sin# e !ossib e immora act that cor!orations $i en#a#e in &12='. Bein# i#norant about ethics isn5t a #et out of 3ai free card. 9erha!s their corru!t %a ues are !artia y caused more from bein# to d to be se finterested !rofit seekers rather than to a so care for other !eo! e in our society.'. &c' .or!orations don5t 3ust make decisions that effect themse %es and those $ho en#a#e in a#reements $ith them.A )6am! es inc ude !o ution and harm done to nonhuman anima s. There are at east four ar#uments to su!!ort this %ie$: &a' +ome ar#ue that $ith !o$er comes res!onsibi ity &ibid. 9erha!s !eo! e are too se fish or unethica to make sure cor!orations can act in the !ub ic interest on their o$n &$ithout #o%ernment inter%ention'. We need cor!orations to be as !rofit makin# as !ossib e to he ! our ci%i i7ation !ros!er.'. Their decisions and business dea s can harm !eo! e and cause hidden costs to others" $hich are ca ed ?e6terna ities.or!orations ha%e the !o$er to do #reat amount of #ood and e%i to society at ar#e &120'. Cur ?free marketA hasn5t been sto!!in# the immora beha%ior of cor!orations or our socia i s &such as !o ution and !o%erty'. )o ma&e pro$its and help people +ome !eo! e think that cor!orations ha%e a duty to make !rofits in addition to he !in# !eo! e. &b' There is an im! icit socia contract bet$een society and cor!orations that demand that cor!orations benefit society rather than harm it.&b' &c' &d' &e' considerations &122'.'. +ome !eo! e ob3ect that the ?in%isib e handA has not been #uidin# cor!orationsK!erha!s because they are too mono!o istic or massi%e &121'. We demand e%eryone beha%e mora y $hether they are mora e6!erts or not. This ar#ument is su!!orted by the fact that most 8mericans be ie%e that a cor!oration5s hi#hest !riority is to the em! oyees and ?SoTn y 12 !ercent think stockho ders deser%e the hi#hest !riorityA &121'. +ome ar#ue that cor!orate socia res!onsibi ity $i harm our economy by #oin# a#ainst the ?in%isib e handA &1-*" 123-121'. 8dditiona y" it5s unc ear that cor!orate charity is rea y infused $ith corru!t %a ues. 8 com!any that makes com!uters can se each com!uter for Y300" but creatin# each com!uter mi#ht cause -* . Hor e6am! e" scientists $ho are best eDui!!ed to cure cancer mi#ht ha%e a res!onsibi ity to do so. +ome ar#ue that $e can5t trust cor!orations to be mora on their o$n" so $e shou d re y on #o%ernment re#u ation rather than demand cor!orations to se f-re#u ate &ibid'. .

or!orations can make their commitment to bein# ethica e6! icit and educate their em! oyees about the mora code in an attem!t to im!ro%e the im!ortance of ethics $ithin the cu ture of the cor!oration and foster trust $ith the !ub ic as a resu t &1>0'.A /a$ s5s theory of 3ustice doesn5t necessari y su!!ort cor!orations because imited iabi ity can #i%e the 20 .or!orations shou d admit that they ha%e mora res!onsibi ities and make their mora commitments %isib e. To! mana#ement can do the fo o$in#: 1. 3. 8rticu ate the cor!oration5s mora %a ues and #oa s. It $ou d be unfair of that cor!oration to rea! a the re$ards of their business $ithout !ayin# for any of the dama#e it does. . 2. . Ribertarian 3ustice doesn5t necessari y su!!ort imited iabi ity considerin# that it a o$s com!anies to disres!ect human ri#hts and refuse to !ay the fu dama#es done. 1. 8dd ethica trainin# to other forms of 3ob trainin#. 0ti itarian 3ustice doesn5t necessari y su!!ort cor!orations because it5s not c ear that imited iabi ity is rea y best for the ?#reater #ood. Institutionali1in" ethics !ithin cor$orations We need to kno$ ho$ cor!orations can best i%e u! to their mora res!onsibi ities &122-12>'. 2. 5orporate moral codes . 8 o$in# cor!orations to ha%e the ri#hts of !eo! e $ithout the res!onsibi ities cou d turn cor!orations into ha%ens that a o$ the $ea thy to esca!e their mora res!onsibi ities.or!orations shou d encoura#e their em! oyees to take mora res!onsibi ities serious y. )%en if cor!orations don5t ha%e a duty to help !eo! e" they sti ha%e a duty to obey the a$ and encoura#e trust $ith the !ub ic. It mi#ht be more a!!ro!riate for the cor!oration to char#e Y200 for each com!uter and to use Y100 to c ean u! the !o ution the business causes. 3.or!orations need to res!ect the indi%idua ity of !eo! e and the di%ersity of #rou!s. It is ! ausib e to think that one $ay this can be done is by im!ro%in# the cor!orate cu ture and make sure em! oyees are takin# mora ity serious y. 8t east four ste!s can be taken &12>': 1. 1. &d' +ome !eo! e cou d ar#ue that insofar as $e a o$ cor!orations to en3oy the ri#hts of bein# e#a !ersons" $e must demand cor!orations to acce!t res!onsibi ities of bein# !ersons as $e . )m! oyees can be re$arded for bein# ethica rather than !unished. . . +et u! an ethics committee that has the !o$er to enforce the mora code and o%ersee ethica issues $ithin the business. There shou d be a $ay for em! oyees to %oice mora concerns or be $hist eb o$ers $ithout fear of reta iation.or!orations shou d seek rather than try to a%oid criticism. Conclusion 8 thou#h cor!orations are an entrenched force in our ci%i i7ation that !robab y aren5t #oin# any$here soon" it5s not ob%ious that cor!orations are mora y 3ustified or su!!orted by any system of 3ustice. 8rticu ate an ethica code a!! icab e to a em! oyees.Y100 of dama#e to others throu#h !o ution.

21 . This can reDuire an im!ro%ed cor!orate cu ture that takes ethics serious y" and it is ! ausib e to think that cor!orate mora codes enforced by ethics committees can do a ot to he ! im!ro%e cor!orate cu tures. )%en if $e on y demand that cor!orations make a !rofit" $e sti need to demand that cor!orations obey the a$ and encoura#e trust $ith the !ub ic.$ea thy more ri#hts and ess res!onsibi ities than are en3oyed by the !oor" and it5s not c ear that the !oor $i benefit from it. We ha%e itt e choice but to i%e in a $or d $ith cor!orations" and the ar#uments here offer a #reater su!!ort to the %ie$ that cor!orations ha%e a mora res!onsibi ity beyond mere y makin# a !rofit.

Hor e6am! e" any theory of 3ustice can deny the ri#ht to o$n human bein#s. Cur actua mora ri#hts and res!onsibi ities are a matter of debate. <o$e%er" Eo7ick5s ibertarian theory can5t 3ustify a res!onsibi ity to he ! others. The $ork! ace is a o$ed to %io ate our constitutiona ri#hts.Part III The 8r"ani1ation and the Peo$le in It Chapter 11: The Wor2place 314: Basic 5ss/es Cur constitutiona ri#hts !rotects us from #o%ernment interference" but they don5t !rotect us from !ri%ate industry. <o$e%er" the a$ doesn5t #uarantee that em! oyees $i be treated $ith res!ect. I $i discuss mora issues concernin# the $ork! aceM such as &a' the nature of mora ri#hts and res!onsibi ities in the $ork! ace" &b' !ersonne !o icies and !rocedures" and &c' unions. Eonethe ess" the a$ demands that businesses treat em! oyees $ith a certain amount of res!ect based on the assumption that people deserve to be treated with respect. This discussion is #reat y based on cha!ter si6 of Business )thics &Third )dition" 1***' by Wi iam +ha$. )%en so" Eo7ick5s theory can 3ustify the fact that $e ha%e a ri#ht to nonin3ury and em! oyers ha%e a res!onsibi ity not to harm their em! oyees. If $e assume that !eo! e deser%e to be treated $ith res!ect" that has mora im! ications in the $ork! ace. (i 5s uti itarian theory of 3ustice mi#ht be used to 3ustify our res!onsibi ity to he ! !eo! e" and em! oyees mi#ht ha%e a ri#ht to ha%e a $ork! ace that can im!ro%e rather than harm them. There $as a time $hen $orkers had a most no e#a ri#hts in the $ork! ace" but an em! oyer must no$ treat minorities as eDua s" !ay em! oyees the minimum $a#e" !ay em! oyees more for o%ertime" and !ro%ide re ati%e y safe $ork conditions. This cou d inc ude an em! oyee5s ri#ht not to be %erba y abused" assumin# that %erba abuse is harmfu . 8 thou#h there5s an 8merican tradition that assumes that ?cor!orate efficiency reDuires em! oyees to sacrifice their ci%i iberties and other ri#hts bet$een * and ="A there5s reason to think other$ise &20>'. +tri!!in# a !erson of their iberties cou d be considered to be a form of s a%ery. That means that em! oyers ha%e a res!onsibi ity to !ro%ide em! oyees $ith safe $orkin# conditions and mana#ers ha%e a res!onsibi ity not to be abusi%e to their em! oyees. 22 .ookin# bottom ines than the a%era#e cor!oration doesA &ibid. Hor e6am! e" )$in# ar#ues that" ?STThe com!anies that ead in encoura#in# ri#htsKor#ani7ations such as 9o aroid" IB(" Bonne y (irrors" and Be ta 8ir inesKha%e hea thier. Eo matter $hat theory of 3ustice $e a#ree to" $e ha%e reason to think that em! oyees ha%e certain ri#hts that can5t be taken a$ay. )m! oyers cou d ha%e a mora res!onsibi ity to their em! oyees beyond $hat the a$ reDuires. We ha%e ri#hts and res!onsibi ities other than $hat the a$ demands.'. Hor more information" #o here. If that5s true" then $hat e6act y does it mean to o$n a !erson or to se onese f@ It mi#ht be immora to se onese f to a com!any" e%en for imited !eriods of time &from * to ='. The nature of -oral ri"hts and res$onsibilities in the !ork$lace Workers $ant to be !aid $e " ha%e safe $ork conditions" be re$arded for their !roducti%e $ork" ha%e a chance to #et !romotions" ha%e a chance to do somethin# im!ortant" ha%e free s!eech" !ri%acy" and so on.

)m! oyers can a so be tem!ted to be disres!ectfu of em! oyees because it can cost money to !ay more for $a#es" to create safer $orkin# conditions" and so on. <o$ does this re ate to mora ity@ Hirst" if a 3ob descri!tion or s!ecification is inadeDuate" ?candidates can $aste time and money !ursuin# 3obs they aren5t suited forA &ibid. >iring <irin# often in%o %es" screenin#" testin#" and inter%ie$in#Kand each of these ste!s of a hirin# !rocess ha%e uniDue mora im! ications &210'. +creenin# inc udes the 3ob descri!tion and 3ob s!ecification. Hor e6am! e" re$ardin# em! oyees $ith a bonus cou d be a #ood thin# to do" and it cou d be more res!ectfu than is mora y reDuired of a business.'. +ometimes illegal forms of discrimination are moti%ated by the actua !rofitabi ity of an em! oyee 23 . It5s !ossib e for a $ork en%ironment to res!ect em! oyees beyond mora reDuirements. +ometimes many !eo! e a!! y for a 3ob and screenin# he !s a com!any reduce the ist of e i#ib e a!! icants to be more mana#eab e. Instead" #ender neutra 3ob tit es ike ?mai carrierA are better &211'. +econd" 3obs must not screen out Dua ified !eo! e on the basis of irre e%ant characteristicsKand disabi ities" race" a#e" re i#ion &or ack of re i#ion'" and #ender are often irre e%ant to Dua ification. The 3ob descri!tion shou d disc ose the re e%ant detai s of a 3ob" such as ?its duties" res!onsibi ities" $orkin# conditions" and !hysica reDuirementsA &ibid. I $i discuss the mora im! ications of %arious !ersonne !o icies and !rocedures. Bein# res!ectfu of em! oyees can increase !roducti%ity by raisin# mora e" he ! a com!any hire better em! oyees by makin# a business more attracti%e to a!! icants" and kee! !roducti%e em! oyees from ookin# for better 3obs e se$here.'. The 3ob s!ecification shou d ist a the reDuirements needed to be hired" ?such as ski s" educationa e6!erience" a!!earance" and !hysica attributesA &ibid.'. -creening . 9eo! e shou d be screened on the basis of their Dua ifications rather than discriminate on the basis of race" #ender" and so on &ibid. +ometimes discrimination is $arranted and sometimes it isn5t. )%en 3ob descri!tions that are for ?mai menA cou d end u! screenin# out $omen. Hor e6am! e" it can make sense to hire $omen for fashion mode in# !ositions or to be the attendant in a $omens5 bathroom &211'. +ometimes $e can treat !eo! e in $ays that are beyond the ca of duty. /eDuirin# a!! icants to ha%e certain educationa or !hysica ca!acities isn5t a $ays $arranted" and discrimination a#ainst !eo! e $ith disabi ities and other minorities is occasiona y 3ustified because the 3ob mi#ht ha%e a #ood reason for doin# so &211-212'. Personnel $olicies and $rocedures 9ersonne !o icies and !rocedures determine ho$ a com!any hand es hirin#" firin#" !romotin# etc. Cur mora ri#hts and res!onsibi ities are mere y minimal mora standards and on y ref ect a minima e%e of res!ect.'. What is mora isn5t necessari y a duty. <o$e%er" em! oyers ha%e a moral reason to be res!ectfu of em! oyees" and it can be in the best interest of the com!any.

Fa id tests are re e%ant to the 3ob. Hor e6am! e" tests shou dn5t be cu tura y or #ender biased. )ests Tests can measure an a!! icant5s ski s in an attem!t to make the a!! icant !oo sma er and efficient y decide $hich a!! icants are most Dua ified for a 3ob &213'. <o$e%er" seniority is a mora y re e%ant factor in determinin# !romotions because &a' it5s im!ortant that $orkers ha%e o!!ortunities for 3ob ad%ancement and &b' the actua !ro on#ed contributions an em! oyee makes to a com!any shou d count for somethin# &21-'. /e iab e tests make sure that the scores !ro!er y assess the a!! icant5s abi ities and that ?a sub3ect5s score $i remain constant from test to testA &ibid. Inbreedin# is $hen !eo! e $ho $ork for a com!any tend to be considered for !romotions rather than hirin# !eo! e from outside of the com!any. It $ou d usua y be unfair to reDuire com!uter !ro#rammers to be sociab e or to reDuire di! omats to be #ood at com!uter !ro#rammin#. ?Inter%ie$ers must e6ercise care to a%oid thou#ht ess comments that may hurt or insu t the !erson bein# inter%ie$edKfor instance" a !assin# remark about a !erson5s !hysica disabi ity or !ersona situation &a sin# e !arent" for instance'A &211'. Valid . 8dditiona y" seniority" inbreedin#" and ne!otism are tem!tin# reasons to #i%e !eo! e !romotions des!ite not necessarily bein# #ood reasons to #i%e a !romotion &21='.'. Eonethe ess" com!anies cannot discriminate based on the !re3udice of customers. Reliable . Inbreedin# is a re e%ant 21 . Hor e6am! e" racist customers mi#ht !refer a $hite sa es!erson o%er a b ack one" and a $hite sa es!erson cou d make more money for the com!any as a resu t. 8ssurin# that tests are %a id and re iab e can be e6!ensi%e" but it5s mora y necessary to !rotect the ri#hts of a!! icants" to hire the most Dua ified em! oyees" and to !rotect the interests of stockho ders.'.'. 8n inter%ie$er5s ne#ati%e attitude around minorities can be an o!!ortunity to #et minorities to decide they don5t $ant to be hired. These three factors must com!ete $ith the actua Dua ifications of an em! oyee and $ho is ike y to do the best 3ob. Promotions Becidin# $ho #ets !romotions is a decision $ith mora im! ications Duite simi ar to hirin# ne$ em! oyees. Hair tests must be re e%ant to 3ob !erformance and must not discriminate a#ainst anyone $ho is Dua ified for the 3ob &ibid. Interviews Inter%ie$s a o$ em! oyers to assess the Dua ifications of an em! oyee throu#h !ersona communication" but they are one more o!!ortunity to discriminate a#ainst !eo! e. It is im!ortant that em! oyers re$ard oya ty" but seniority doesn5t a $ays indicate oya ty either &ibid. +eniority determines ho$ on# someone has $orked for a com!any. -eniority . Inbreeding .&ibid.'. Fair . )m! oyers ha%e a duty to make sure that tests are %a id" re iab e" and fair. 8 Dua ified !erson can be insu ted if they are !assed u! for !romotion time and time a#ain" but not e%eryone $ith seniority are most Dua ified for a 3ob.

)m! oyers must carefu y ana y7e the reasons for dismissin# an em! oyee" and ?$ron#fu terminationA is a common cause of a$suits &ibid.'. Bisci! ine and dischar#e shou d be #i%en for ?3ust cause"A meanin# they shou d be re e%ant to 3ob !erformance &ibid. 4no$in# ho$ much other com!anies are !ayin# $orkers 2= . 1.consideration to #i%in# !romotions to the same e6tent as seniorityKit5s im!ortant that em! oyees ha%e a chance for ad%ancement and the !ro on#ed contributions em! oyees #i%e to a com!any are $orth somethin#.hastisin# em! oyee in !ub ic can be humi iatin# and is disres!ectfu . =. 2. )m! oyers shou d be carefu ho$ they dismiss em! oyees &ibid. The 3ob shou d !ro%ide $orkers $ith due !rocessKfair and consistent sanctions &21>'. Cur ri#hts to !ri%acy and freedom of s!eech outside the workplace shou d be assumed to o%erride the business5s interest to contro their $orkers $hi e they5re off the c ock un ess $e are #i%en #ood reason to think other$ise. 3. Bisci! ine and dischar#e shou d be administered to e%eryone eDua y $ithout fa%oritism.'. The a$. (ora im! ications to disci! ine and dischar#e inc ude the fo o$in#: 1. The !re%ai in# $a#e in the industry.'. Wages When decidin# ho$ much $orkers shou d be !aid" the fo o$in# criteria seems re e%ant &220-221': 1. +epotism .'. Ee!otism can be a e#itimate factor in 3ustifyin# a !romotion $hen a com!any e6ists !rimari y for the interests of a fami y" but em! oyers must not disre#ard the actua Dua ifications" oya ty" o!!ortunities for ad%ancement" and actua contributions of other em! oyees. Bisci! ine in%o %es !unishment and dischar#e in%o %es a se!aration bet$een an em! oyee and the com!any" such as bein# fired. 2. )m! oyees shou d ha%e chances to correct their beha%ior rather than bein# fired for the first minor infraction &ibid. )m! oyees shou d be dismissed !ri%ate y" and they usua y shou dn5t be dismissed after funera s" ?on Hridays" birthdays" $eddin# anni%ersaries" or the day before a ho idayA &ibid.'. )m! oyees shou d not be !unished or fired for ha%in# %arious i nesses" bein# a minority" smokin# ci#arettes" etc. Infractions can #i%e em! oyees an incenti%e to be !roducti%e and im!ro%e their !erformance and firin# em! oyees too Duick y $i destroy this incenti%e. Workers shou d not be !aid ess than the minimum $a#e. )%en if an em! oyer dismisses an em! oyee e#a y" they mi#ht not ha%e done so mora y. )m! oyees shou d not be dismissed $ithout a #ood reason. The reasons for dischar#e shou d be out ined in an ?em! oyee handbook" co ecti%e bar#ainin# a#reement" or cor!orate !o icy a#reementA &ibid. 2.'.'. <o$ a !erson beha%es outside of $ork is #enera y not re e%ant to 3ob !erformance" but it can occasiona y ha%e a re e%ant im!act on the business &212-21>'. . )m! oyees shou d be notified of infractions !ri%ate y rather than !ub ic y or not at a &212'. -. Those $ho a e#ed y %io ate the ru es shou d be #i%en a ?fair and im!artia hearin#A and ?the settin# u! of a ste!-by-ste! !rocedure by $hich an em! oyee can a!!ea a mana#eria decisionA &ibid. 1iscipline and discharge Bisci! ine and dischar#e are necessary measures to make sure that em! oyees stay !roducti%e. Ee!otism is sho$in# fa%oritism to$ards fami y and friends.

Thou#h they did not em! oy a sin# e $orkman" Sem! oyersT cou d #enera y i%e a year or t$o u!on the stocks $hich they ha%e a ready acDuired. =. 0nions e6ist to he ! em!o$er $orkers and he ! e iminate the dis!arity in !o$er bet$een ar#e com!anies and $orkers. 8 com!any that has a #reat dea of !rofit can afford to !ay em! oyees more than those that don5t.. 2.a!ita ism" a#reed that there is an unfair dis!arity in !o$er bet$een $orkers and com!anies.. -. It5s more e6!ensi%e to i%e in some ! aces than others" and $a#es shou d be hi#her in those areas as a resu t. 0nions Rar#e com!anies not on y ha%e contro o%er the $or d5s resources" but they ha%e the machines reDuired to make #oods. In actin# as a sin# e body" a union" $orkers in effect make em! oyers de!endent on them in a $ay that no indi%idua $orker canA &22='. Workers ha%e itt e choice but to #et 3obs at com!anies to earn enou#h money to buy food and other #oods" $orkers are often $i in# to $ork for %ery itt e money in unsafe $orkin# conditions $hen there is no better a ternati%e a%ai ab e to them" and no better a ternati%e is #uaranteed to be a%ai ab e. 0nions a o$ $orkers to use ?co ecti%e bar#ainin#A to ne#otiate $ith businesses as a ar#er and more !o$erfu #rou!. 8 com!any shou dn5t be unfair or discriminatory in ho$ much an em! oyee is !aid. <o$ much other em! oyees make for com!arab e $ork. *.onsider ho$ he says" The masters" bein# fe$er in number" can combine much more easi y. +ecurity and ad%ancement o!!ortunities. The nature of the 3ob. Jobs $ith hi#h securityKa hi#h chance of kee!in# em! oyeesKand #ood o!!ortunities for ad%ancement reDuire ess !ay than 3obs $ith o$ security and o$ !ros!ects for ad%ancement. The cost of i%in# in the area. (any $orkmen cou d not subsist a $eek" fe$ cou d subsist a month" and 2- . <o$ the $a#e a#reement $as arri%ed at. 1. >. We ha%e no acts of !ar iament a#ainst combinin# to o$er the !rice of $orkM but many a#ainst combinin# to raise it. 9roducti%e em! oyees can be re$arded for their hard $ork and ta ent throu#h hi#her $a#es. to redress the ba ance of !o$er in their dea in#s $ith em! oyers" $orkers band to#ether. 0nions a o$ $orkers to team u! to he ! them demand more from com!anies" and to try to con%ince com!anies that they shou d be #ratefu to hire $orkers. ?In an attem!t. The em! oyer5s financia ca!abi ities. . Workers are su!!osed to be #ratefu to #et 3obs" no matter ho$ !oor y they are !aid.. Job !erformance.. If a $orkers refuse to $ork for o$ !ay and in unsafe $orkin# conditions" then com!anies $i ha%e no choice but to com! y.3. can he ! us #et a ba !ark fi#ure for the a!!ro!riate amount. There mi#ht be a uniDue contract bet$een an em! oyee and em! oyer that reDuires hi#her than usua !ay. This a makes com!anies much more !o$erfu than indi%idua s.. )%en 8dam +mith" one of the founders of . The same $ork and Dua ifications shou d determine that t$o !eo! e #et eDua !ay" and there shou dn5t be hu#e !ay dis!arities bet$een mana#ement and e%eryone e se.. In a such dis!utes the masters can ho d out much on#er. The reDuired education" ski e%e " stress e%e " and dan#er e%e of a 3ob can a be re e%ant to the amount !eo! e shou d be !aid.

In the on#-run the $orkman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him" but the necessity is not immediate. <o$e%er" a se!arate com!any cou d im! icit y endorse the $orkers $ho are $ron#ed by doin# business $ith the ?enemy. Boycotts and corporate campaigns . +econdary boycotts $ere made i e#a by the Taft-<art ey 8ct. 0nions can refuse to $ork un ess an em! oyer meets their demands. 1irect stri&es . -ympathetic stri&es . Workers shou d &a' a#ree to strike $ithout coercion and &b' strikers must attem!t to attain union backin# &222'. 22 . Workers shou d try to ne#otiate and communicate their #rie%ances before ha%in# a strike because ?$e shou d a $ays use the east in3urious means a%ai ab e to accom! ish the #ood $e desireA &ibid. . Boycotts can be 3ustified in much the same $ay as strikes and it5s not c ear that secondary strikes are a $ays immora " e%en thou#h they are i e#a . Hour" strikes shou d be non%io ent" noncoerci%e" and nondestructi%e.'. +trikes are a !o$erfu too " but can be harmfu to a com!any and shou d not be used un ess certain criteria is met.'. 0nions are not a $ays the enemy of businesses" they can be beneficia to them. Hirst" there must be ?3ust cause"A a e#itimate reason to strike" such as inadeDuate !ay or unsafe $orkin# conditions &22-'. +ome critics ha%e ca ed cor!orate cam!ai#ns ?cor!orate b ackmai "A but su!!orters insist that it is sometimes needed to #et com!anies to be $i in# to beha%e ethica yKes!ecia y $hen considerin# that cor!orations ha%e ?been so successfu at e6! oitin# abor a$s and re#u ations to undermine unions and th$art their recruitment effortsA &22*'. 8 !rimary boycott is $hen union $orkers and their su!!orters refuse to do business $ith a com!any" and a secondary boycott $hen union $orkers and their su!!orters refuse to do business $ith any com!anies doin# business $ith the abusi%e com!any &22>'. +econd" there shou d be !ro!er authori7ation.or!orate cam!ai#ns are tactics unions use to !ut !ressure on a com!any by en istin# the he ! of the com!any5s creditors in an attem!t to #et their demands met &ibid.scarce any a year $ithout em! oyment. +ym!athetic strikes can be 3ustified in the same $ay as direct strikes $hen the $orkers $ho are $ron#ed $ork for the same em! oyer" but it is much more difficu t to 3ustify a sym!athetic strike a#ainst another em! oyer because the strike can harm innocent !eo! e $ho ha%e no connection to the !eo! e $ho are $ron#ed &222-22>'. 0nion $orkers can refuse to buy !roducts from com!anies $ho refuse to #i%e into the demands of unions. I $i discuss some of these issues. <nion tactics 0nions are an im!ortant !art of ha%in# a ri#ht to association for $orkers and can benefit many !eo! e" but there are many mora issues concernin# union tactics" and not e%erythin# unions do is ethica .'. )m! oyees can strike at a #rie%ance e6!erienced by other $orkersK$ho don5t necessari y e%en $ork for the same com!any &222'.A In that case $orkers can refuse to do business $ith the abusi%e com!any as !art of a sym!athetic strike. &ibid. Hor e6am! e" the Wor d Bank found that $orker unions cou d ?im!ro%e !roducti%ity and efficiency" !romote stabi ity in the $ork! ace" and make #o%ernment ess ike y to medd e in the abor marketA after considerin# thousands of studies concernin# the effects of abor unions &22='. Third" strikes shou d be a ast resort. Hinancia institutions cou d in turn be !ressured $ith the threat of mass $ithdra$a s and cance ations of !o iciesA &22*'.

Conclusion The a$ and unions can both fi#ht to !rotect $orkers from abuse" but com!anies shou d treat em! oyees $ith res!ect $hether that is reDuired by the a$ or not. It mi#ht be immora to outri#ht hurt an em! oyee" but riskin# their $e bein# in unsafe $orkin# conditions" treatin# them $ith disres!ect" and un3ust y sho$in# !referentia treatment cou d a so be forms of harm. <o$e%er" this is not a conc usi%e discussion of mora im! ications and the $ork! ace and thereUs much more to be said. In fact" itUs Duite !ossib e that $e can treat !eo! e $ith #reater res!ect than mora ity demands. 2> . )m! oyers and union members make many decisions $ith mora im! ications" and I ha%e brief y touched u!on them here.

2.'. (any former bosses are ?!assin# on dama#in# information to !ros!ecti%e em! oyersA &ibid. Hor 2* . .or!orations often $ant to restrict the beha%ior of em! oyees based on their interest to ?!rotect the com!any ima#e"A and cou d be tem!ted to fire an em! oyee for bein# a stri!!er in his or her free time &213-211'.onsider the fo o$in# e6am! es: 1.ontro in# the i%es of em! oyees is usua y i e#itimate $hen it has nothin# to do $ith 3ob !erformance or the re!utation of the com!any" such as forbiddin# b ack em! oyees from $earin# their hair in corn ro$s &213'. Privacy We ha%e a ri#ht to !ri%acy" and a ack of !ri%acy can endan#er our i%e ihood. ?+ome com!anies routine y ea%esdro! on their em! oyees5 !hone ca s" and many of them read their em! oyees5 emai A &212'. +ome com!anies use !ri%ate in%esti#ators to in%esti#ate em! oyees $ho ca in sick &ibid.or!orations ha%e a duty to !rotect our !ri%acy at east insofar as the !ri%acy is !art of our $e bein#" but cor!orations often disres!ect !ri%acy &211'.or!orations sometimes try to inf uence the beha%ior of em! oyees both in or out of the $ork! ace" and this can be taken as an in%asion of !ri%acy. 8 ack of !ri%acy doesn5t a $ays harm us direct y" but !ri%acy is needed to !rotect us from %arious dan#ers. )m! oyees that sho$ a si#nificant ? ack of 3ud#mentA outside the $ork! ace throu#h hi#h y reck ess" immora " or i e#a beha%ior cou d be legitimately dismissed if their 3ob reDuires #ood 3ud#ment. 1. <o$e%er" cor!orations must res!ect their em! oyees &and uniDue characteristics of their em! oyees'" e%en $hen the !ub ic is !re3udiced and cou d ash out a#ainst a com!any for bein# associated $ith un!o!u ar characteristics &or sho$in# to erance to$ards minorities'. . This discussion is based on cha!ter se%en of Business )thics &Third )dition" 1***' by Wi iam +ha$. We don5t $ant !eo! e to see us durin# our se6ua encounters" $e don5t $ant !eo! e to #et our credit card or socia security numbers" and $e don5t $ant embarrassin# facts of our !ast to ruin our i%es. 3. ?The data banks and !ersonne fi es of business and nonbusiness or#ani7ations contain an immense amount of !ri%ate information" the disc osure of $hich can serious y %io ate em! oyees5 ri#htsA and this information is often used to harm em! oyees.'.'.Chapter 12: The Wor2place 324: To(ay6s Challe&7es I ha%e a ready discussed %arious mora im! ications of the $ork! ace" and I $i continue the discussion here by considerin# &a' !ri%acy" &b' $ork conditions" and &c' 3ob satisfaction. .om!anies can ha%e #rounds to try to contro the beha%ior em! oyees outside the $ork! ace $hen the beha%ior %io ates the fo o$in# !rinci! es: &a' The em! oyee5s beha%ior must be com!atib e $ith #ood 3ob !erformance. "egitimate and illegitimate in$luence in private lives . . . ?S8T $ide ran#e of snoo!s sti mana#e" e#itimate y or i e#itimate y" to #et their hands on itA &ibid.

Issues concernin# em! oyee5s !ri%acy ri#hts can in%o %e &a' informed consent" &b' !o y#ra!h tests" &c' !ersona ity tests" &d' monitorin# em! oyees on the 3ob" and &e' dru# testin#. <o$e%er" dama#in# the re!utation of a com!any throu#h ies or dece!tion $ou d be ina!!ro!riate.om!anies not on y store !ri%ate information" but they can sometimes attain !ri%ate information $ithout the consent of their em! oyees. 8nd em! oyees ha%e been fired for smokin# or takin# a drink at homeA &ibid.'..om!anies often !ressure em! oyees to #et in%o %ed in ci%ic acti%ities" such as ?runnin# for the oca schoo board or headin# u! a commission in the arts"A but such !ressure must not constitute coercion &ibid. This is e#a in some states" but it5s not c ear that it5s mora considerin# that !unishin# and firin# em! oyees for bein# unhea thy in%ites discrimination a#ainst !eo! e $ho are unhea thyKsuch as !eo! e $ho are o%er$ei#ht or ha%e 8IB+.. +ome businesses !ressure em! oyees to under#o ?!ersona #ro$thA to he ! !eo! e ?rea i7e their !otentia for !ercei%in#" thinkin#" fee in#" creatin#" and e6!eriencin#A &ibid. Intensi%e #rou! e6!erience can im!ro%e !roducti%ity" so it is re e%ant to 3ob !erformance.'. $on a suit c aimin# that the !ostin# of names of so diers $ho had not contributed to the 0nited Way constituted coercionA &21='. To further assess the mora im! ications of a com!any5s inf uence o%er the i%es of em! oyees" consider the fo o$in# three common forms of inf uence: Involvement in civic activities . >ealth programs . <o$e%er" +ha$ ar#ues that em! oyees shou d not be !unished for refusin# to !artici!ate because these acti%ities can be !ersona and intrusi%e. It is a!!ro!riate for em! oyees to be $hist e b o$ers $hen the com!any refuses to rectify i e#a or immora beha%ior" but em! oyees shou dn5t set out to dama#e to re!utation of their com!any un ess there is a #ood reason to do so. The !ub ic has a ri#ht to kno$ of i e#a and immora beha%ior com!anies are en#a#ed in" so that $e ha%e a sufficient y ?free marketA based on informed rationa se f-interest that a o$s the !ub ic to refuse to do business com!anies that don5t meet re e%ant criteria. This is at east some$hat re e%ant $hen hea thier em! oyees are more !roducti%e and medica insurance can be more e6!ensi%e for unhea thy em! oyees. Intensive group e. . I $i discuss each of these to!ics. +ome com!anies try to !ressure em! oyees to i%e hea thier i%es. (btaining in$ormation .'.perience . There are many different kinds of intensi%e #rou!s and com!anies often use ?team-bui din# #rou!s to faci itate the attainment of !roduction and re ated #oa s as $e as to !ro%ide o!!ortunities for im!ro%ed human re ations and !ersona #ro$thA &ibid. &b' )m! oyees must be be minima y oya to their com!anies and are not su!!osed to illegitimately dama#e the re!utation of the business. There5s nothin# $ron# $ith educatin# em! oyees about ho$ to be hea thier" but some com!anies $ant to make ?em! oyees !ay more for their hea th care benefits if they are o%er$ei#ht" ha%e hi#h b ood !ressure" or don5t e6ercise. )m! oyees must not be disci! ined or dismissed for a ack of !artici!ation" and e%en !ub ic embarrassment cou d be considered to be a form of coercion. Hor e6am! e" ?SmTembers of the 8rmy Band. >0 .'.e6am! e" a security #uard $as fired for dra$in# his #un a#ainst an anta#onist and the court system a#reed that he sho$ed reck ess beha%ior that $as incom!atib e $ith the #ood 3ud#ment reDuired for the 3ob &211'.

9o y#ra!h tests" a so kno$n as ? ie detector tests"A can not on y be an in%asion of !ri%acy" but it5s not c ear that they are e%er an a!!ro!riate $ay for a com!any to #ather information. Hor e6am! e" Rykken has ar#ued that ?co%ert se f-stimu ation" ike bitin# your ton#ueA durin# the contro Duestions $ou d destroy the test5s credibi ity &ibid.' 2. The information attained from the !o y#ra!h test must be sufficient y re e%ant to the 3ob &ibid. 9ersona ity tests are used to he ! screen 3ob a!! icants. Personality tests . Hina y" +ha$ ar#ues that !o y#ra!h tests must meet the fo o$in# mora reDuirements to ha%e a chance of bein# a $arranted in%asion of !ri%acy: 1. Ba%id T Rykken ar#ues that three credib e scientific studies found the test $as on y accurate by -3X" 3*X" and ==X &21>'. +ome em! oyers screen em! oyees based on their emotiona maturity and sociabi ity &ibid.'. There can5t be si#nificant y better o!tions to accom! ish the com!any5s #oa s other than the !o y#ra!h test. 8dditiona y" informed consent reDuires that em! oyees and a!! icants ?understand $hat they are a#reein# to" inc udin# its fu ramifications" and must %o untari y choose itA &212'.om!anies can !unish em! oyees for refusin# to #i%e !ri%ate information" and a a!! icants can be reDuired to #i%e !ri%ate information. We shou d consider if the information #athered is too embarrassin# or !ersona " if the !eo! e $ho ha%e access to the !o y#ra!h resu ts $i %io ate the !erson5s !ri%acy ri#hts" and if the !o y#ra!h test resu ts $i be dis!osed of in a $ay that doesn5t %io ate a !erson5s ri#ht to !ri%acy.In$ormed consent . 3. &he test can#t be beaten. 2. . This is often a measure taken in an attem!t to sto! hirin# em! oyees $ho stea from the com!any.'. In%asion of a !erson5s !ri%acy can ead to abuse and often threatens a !erson5s i%e ihood" so it shou d on y be done as a ast resort.'. 3. 9o y#ra!h tests are used for many reasons. .om!anies use !ersona ity tests to find out if a!! icants are trust$orthy or ha%e the ri#ht !ersona ity traits for the 3ob. 9ersona ity tests can re%ea !ersona and embarrassin# information" so they can be a %io ation of an a!! icant5s !ri%acy ri#hts. To make sure a 3ob a!! icant is honest &ibid. <o$e%er" the test on y te s us that a !erson is disturbed by a Duestion rather than $hy they $ere disturbed.'. To %erify the information !ro%ided by a 3ob a!! icant &ibid. &he test is reliable% <o$e%er" that is hi#h y dis!uted. ?+ome !ersons contend that amon# the reasons must be the fact that the !o y#ra!h is the on y $ay the or#ani7ation can #et information about si#nificant 3ob-re ated mattersA &21*.'. <o$e%er" this is dis!uted. 8dditiona y" it5s not entire y c ear $hen usin# !ersona ity tests is mora y 3ustified. Hor e6am! e: 1. 9o y#ra!h tests are on y 3ustified #i%en three contentious assum!tions" and these assum!tions are not necessari y $arranted: 1. Whene%er $e do somethin# that can harm or threaten the $e bein# of others" $e shou d choose the east harmfu o!tion. Polygraph tests . 8 thou#h attem!ts to attain !ri%ate information from em! oyees &and other !eo! e' is coerced for the !erson $hen at #un!oint" there are more subt e forms of coercion &21-'. >1 . &he test only detects lying &ibid. 2.'.

#onitoring employees on the 'ob . Bru# testin# is un3ustified $ithout informed consent or sufficient re e%ance to 3ob !erformance. +orkin" Conditions Workin# conditions in%o %e hea th and safety concerns on the 3ob" sty es of mana#ement" maternity !o icies" and day-care. Tests used to re3ect a!! icants for fai in# to i%e u! to an or#ani7ation5s idea s threatens our indi%idua ity e%en further. 8dditiona y" it5s not a $ays c ear $hen dru# testin# is re e%ant to 3ob !erformance &2=1-2=2'. >2 . 9ersona ity tests can be defended in much the same $ay as !o y#ra!h tests. (ost of us !ossess a %ariety of !ersona ity traits in %arious de#rees" and socia circumstances often inf uence the characteristics $e dis! ay and ta ents $e de%e o!A &ibid. 8#ain" 3ustifyin# monitorin# reDuires the same kinds of 3ustification as !o y#ra!h tests. This is often done because it is $ide y be ie%ed that em! oyees takin# i e#a dru#s ha%e $orse 3ob !erformance" #reater absenteeism" and hi#her rates of theft.The use of !ersona ity tests can5t be 3ustified $ithout at east one assum!tionK?a indi%idua s can usefu y and %a id y be ! aced into a re ati%e y sma number of cate#ories in terms of !ersona ity ty!es and character traitsA &ibid. (onitorin# em! oyees shou d not be done $ithout the em! oyee5s consent" and many em! oyers ?confuse notification of such !ractices $ith em! oyee consentA &ibid. +uch !otentia %io ations of someone5s !ri%acy can5t be 3ustified if the information !ro%ided is unre iab e" insufficient y re e%ant to the 3ob" or a better a ternati%e is a%ai ab e.'. +teroids cou d be re e%ant to the !erformance of footba ! ayers" but it5s !robab y not re e%ant to the !erformance of accountants.'.'. Bru# testin# tends to be used to check if em! oyees are usin# i e#a dru#s &ibid. 9erha!s one of the most Duestionab e common !ractices usin# !ersona ity traits is $hen it5s used to test ?or#ani7ationa com!atibi ity. Eor is the !ossession of a character trait an a -or-nothin# thin#.'. (onitorin# shou d #enera y be a%oided e%en $hen consent is attainab e because sensiti%e and !ersona information can often be attained" threatened" and %io atedM and em! oyees cou d fee coerced to a#ree to bein# monitored to kee! their 3ob.A Cr#ani7ations often !ressure em! oyees to obey and conform to the or#ani7ation5s ru es and traditions" and that5s a threat to the em! oyee5s indi%idua ity &2=0'. <o$e%er" this is not ob%ious. Hina y" the !ro!er res!onse to dru# addiction is not ob%ious. +ha$ su##ests that addiction $arrants ?medica and !sycho o#ica assistance rather than !uniti%e actionA &2=2'. 8 com!any can decide not to hire someone thinkin# she#s an introvert $hen she cou d !erform !erfect y $e on a 3ob reDuirin# human interaction. 1rug testing . (any em! oyers monitor the !erformance of their em! oyees throu#h %ideo sur%ei ance and the em! oyee5s use of com!uters or te e!hones &2=1'. (onitorin# em! oyees must be re e%ant to 3ob !erformance and the best interests of the com!any" and there must not be a better a ternati%e a%ai ab e. +ha$ insists that ?!eo! e rare y re!resent !ure !ersona ity ty!es" such as the c assic intro%ert or e6tro%ert.

>ealth and sa$ety +ha$ ar#ues that hea th and safety !recautions must be taken by businesses &ibid. Ritt e to nothin# has been done about this issue.'. 8dditiona y" a most no contem!orary mana#ement theorists a#ree that bosses shou d try to bu y $orkers to ma6imi7e !roducti%ity. >3 . /e!etiti%e strain in3ury ?resu ts from the constant re!etition of a$k$ard hand and arm mo%ementsA and can cause a #reat dea of !ain from doin# menia tasks &2=='. Hina y" no sin# e mana#ement sty e shou d be ri#id y adhered to because em! oyees a ha%e uniDue !ersona ities and needs that shou d be taken into consideration. The federa #o%ernment has fined com!anies for reck ess and ne# i#ent $orkin# conditions that %io ate the a$" but it has been critici7ed for &a' bein# too soft on com!anies $ith %ery o$ fines and &b' bein# ne# i#ent in its duty to fine com!anies that %io ate the a$.om!anies that succeed $ith this ar#ument cou d refuse to !ay the fu amount of the actua dama#e done by their unsafe $orkin# conditions. . Instead" they ad%ocate more res!ectfu mana#ement sty es.om!anies shou d a so kee! an eye out for dan#erous $orkin# conditions that are not yet co%ered by the a$. Hina y" $orkers ha%e a ri#ht to be informed about dan#ers on the 3ob and $orkers shou d #i%e informed consent before they are assi#ned dan#erous $ork. +afety a$s tend to on y be !assed after !eo! e are in3ured or ki ed.om!anies no$ try to use C+<8 as a shie d by ar#uin# that bein# !unished by the federa #o%ernment ? e#a y !reem!ts state crimina !rosecutions"A and this ar#ument ?has met $ith success in some state courtsA &ibid. . ?S8T team of scientists from <ar%ard and +tanford uni%ersities be ie%es that the hea th and !roducti%ity of 2= mi ion 8mericans $hose $ork hours chan#e re#u ar y can be measurab y im!ro%ed if em! oyers schedu e shift chan#es to conform $ith the body5s natura and ad3ustab e s ee! cyc es"A and +ha$ informs us that ?fati#ue is a eadin# cause of industria accidentsA &ibid. (any in3uries on the 3ob are caused by fati#ue" $hich can be caused by im!ro!er $ork hours. #anagement styles (ora ity reDuires that bosses res!ect their $orkers" but a study found that ?mi ions of $orkers suffer from bosses $ho are abusi%e" dictatoria " de%ious" dishonest" mani!u ati%e" and inhumaneA &2=-'.'.'. . 9resident Bush re!ea ed a a$ that $ou d reDuire em! oyers to re!ort stress re ated in3uries" and C+<8 has mere y #i%en %o untary #uide ines to he ! com!anies a%oid stress re ated in3uries. (->A The 1*20 Cccu!ationa +afety and <ea th 8ct has #i%en the federa #o%ernment the res!onsibi ity to re#u ate businesses to ?ensure so far as !ossib e e%ery $orkin# man and $oman in this nation safe and hea thfu $orkin# conditionsA and resu ted in C+<8" the Cccu!ationa +afety and <ea th 8dministration &2=1'. There are a ready a$s !rotectin# em! oyees from $orkin# in dan#erous $ork conditions" and businesses must take those a$s serious y e%en $hen it $ou d be !rofitab e to i#nore them. +ew health challenges +ha$ ar#ues that businesses and C+<8 $i need to find $ays to address %arious hea th and safety issues" such as re!etiti%e strain in3ury and $ork shifts that cause fati#ue.

Hor e6am! e" com!anies can set aside some funds to s!end on food and !arties for em! oyees.' Cuality o$ wor& li$e >1 .'. (any !eo! e ack o!!ortunities to become their o$n boss. &+ome 3obs ha%e better ad%ancement o!!ortunities than others" and they can !ro%ide more o!!ortunities for em! oyees to ha%e uniDue o%ersi#ht" res!onsibi ities" or eadershi! ro es in%o %in# %arious !ro3ects. Hor e6am! e" consider the fo o$in# three common sources of 3ob dissatisfaction mentioned by the study &2-0': 1. 8 thou#h a com!any cou d !ro%ide chi d care faci ities $ith the assum!tion that it5s the mora thin# to do" em! oyers $ho offer chi d care can be benefited from doin# so because it can decrease absenteeism" boost mora e" and increase oya ty. (any $orkers are assi#ned to sim! e" monotonous tasks in an attem!t to increase !roduction. Workers $ho are more satisfied are ike y to be more !roducti%e.' 3. 9ob *atisfaction : Redesi"nin" +ork (any !eo! e are dissatisfied $ith their 3ob. Job satisfaction is not 3ust a mora issue" but a so a !ra#matic one. It is !ossib e for com!anies to try to make 3obs more satisfyin#" and it seems to be mora y !referab e to do so. 8dditiona y" ?SmTany fami ies are unab e to make satisfactory chi d-care arran#ements" either because the ser%ices are una%ai ab e or for the sim! e reason that the !arents cannot afford themA &2=>'.A &+uch com!anies can make an effort to be more !ersona and sho$ a!!reciation to their em! oyees.' 2. (oreo%er" com!anies can do much to he ! $ith chi d care" such as set u! chi d care faci ities" and it5s cost-effecti%e for ar#e businesses to do so. &8t the %ery east" com!anies can try to rotate such sim! e tasks amon# em! oyees. 1issatis$action on the 'ob 8 study conducted in the 1*20s by the federa #o%ernment had i uminatin# findin#s that are sti re e%ant no$ &2=*'. (any !eo! e think that it $ou d be mora y !referab e for businesses to do $hat they can to make sure that chi dren aren5t ne# ected" e%en if it5s not mora y reDuiredM but ?%ery fe$ com!anies do much to he ! $ith em! oyee chi d careA &ibid. (any !eo! e $ork for ar#e cor!orations and the enormity and de!ersona i7ation of the business makes them fee ?!o$er ess" meanin# essness" iso ation" and se f-estran#ement. ?8s ear y as the 1*20s" researchers be#an to rea i7e that $orkers $ou d be more !roducti%e if mana#ement met those needs that money can5t buyA &2-0'. They mi#ht fee that the $ork is unfu fi in#" they mi#ht fee a ienated" and they mi#ht fee e6! oited or una!!reciated.1ay care and maternity leave The number of $omen in the $orkforce has dramatica y increased des!ite the fact that they continue to usua y bear the !rimary res!onsibi ity for care of their chi dren" so the need for day care and maternity ea%e is increasin# y im!ortant &2=2'.

>= .'. Conclusion The im!ortance of !ri%acy ri#hts can be 3ustified by any theory of 3ustice insofar as a %io ation of !ri%acy can be harmfu to a !erson and e%ery theory of 3ustice #rants us a ri#ht to nonin3ury. Im!ro%in# $ork conditions and increasin# 3ob satisfaction can a so be 3ustified by any theory of 3ustice that reco#ni7es !ro!erty ri#hts" such as Eo7ick5s ibertarianism" insofar as doin# so can increase !roducti%ity and !rofits.+o utions to 3ob dissatisfaction #enera y in%o %e an attem!t to im!ro%e the Dua ity of $ork ife" and Dua ity of $ork ife &[WR' !ro#rams are attem!ts to do so &2-1-2-2'. Hor e6am! e" com!anies can use ?Dua ity-contro circ esA $here $orkers meet $ith su!er%isors to discuss Dua ity im!ro%ement &2-2'. +uch circ es made su##estions that sa%ed Westin#house mi ions of do ars. [WR !ro#rams often attem!t to increase $orker !artici!ation in the !roduction !rocess by seekin# their ideas. [WR !ro#rams cou d be mora y !referab e" and they are be ie%ed to be ab e to ?im!ro%e attendance" moti%ation" and !erformanceA &ibid. There is no #uarantee that [WR im!ro%ements $i increase !roducti%ity" but it does at east some of the time &2-3'. 8dditiona y" im!ro%in# $orkin# conditions and 3ob satisfaction can be 3ustified by any mora theory that reco#ni7es the im!ortance of he !in# !eo! e i%e better i%es and increase their ha!!iness" and a most e%ery mora theory reco#ni7es that he !in# !eo! e is a #ood thin#.

?They may e6!ect em! oyees to defend the com!any if it is ma i#ned" to $ork o%ertime $hen the com!any needs it" to acce!t a transfer if necessary for the #ood of the or#ani7ation" or to demonstrate their oya ty in count ess other $aysA &2>3'. 5on$licts o$ interest 8n em! oyee5s interests can conf ict $ith the com!any5s. )m! oyees shou d try to a%oid si#nificant conf icts of interest by stayin# a$ay from situations that cou d tem!t them from bein# dis oya " but it is difficu t to decide $hen a conf ict of interest is si#nificant and it5s not a $ays c ear $hat em! oyees shou d do $hen they are faced $ith a conf ict of interest besides tryin# to resist the tem!tation to be dis oya . "oyalty to the company (ost !eo! e assume that em! oyees ha%e a mora ob i#ation to be oya to the com!any they $ork for &ibid.'.'. This discussion is based on cha!ter ei#ht of Business )thics &Third )dition" 1***' by Wi iam +ha$. )%en if Bart doesn5t act a#ainst his com!any5s interest" he cou d sti be tem!ted to do so and the conf ict of interest $i sti e6ist &2>3-2>1'.a$. 8bli"ations to the fir)m! oyees are hired to do somethin# for the com!any &2>2'. <o$e%er" other conf icts of interest are serious and can tem!t em! oyees to beha%e dis oya ty. 8s a resu t" Reisure +!orts Wor d !ays about 1= !ercent more in ad%ertisin# costs than it $ou d if its $ork $ent to another a#encyA &ibid.Chapter 13: Moral Choices 8aci&7 $mployees )m! oyees ha%e %arious mora decisions to make. +ha$ does not te us if $e are obligated to ha%e any oya ty to our em! oyers" but $e certain y think oya ty to the com!any is often a #ood thin# and $e ho!e that our oya ty $i be re$arded throu#h raises" !romotions" #ood etters of recommendation" and so on. I $i discuss &1' ob i#ations em! oyees ha%e for the firm" &2' the i e#itimate use of one5s !osition for !ri%ate #ain" &3' bribery" &1' the ob i#ations em! oyees ha%e to third !arties" &=' $hist e b o$in#" and &-' se f-interest. ?Hor e6am! e" Bart Wi iams" sa es mana#er for Reisure +!orts Wor d" #i%es a his firm5s !romotiona $ork to Im!act 8d%ertisin# because its chief officer is Bart5s brother-in. They ob i#ate themselves to $ork for that com!any for financia #ain. It is ! ausib e that $e are ob i#ated to do our 3obs in order to #et our !aychecks" but do $e ha%e an ob i#ation to he ! the com!any in any $ay beyond strict y doin# our 3ob@ (any em! oyers seem to think so. (any of these decisions shou d be made on the basis of our mora ob i#ations" but sometimes the mora y !referab e action cou d reDuire coura#e and be !erformed beyond the ca of duty. >- . +ome of these conf icts of interest are minor and in%o %e the fact that $e mi#ht be doin# somethin# at $ork $e $ou d rather not. The em! oyer often sets %arious conditions to em! oyment" such as a dress code and res!ectfu beha%ior.

I $i discuss both in more detai . . )6am! es of abuse ?ran#e from usin# subordinates for non-or#ani7ationa -re ated $ork to usin# a !osition of trust $ithin an or#ani7ation to enhance one5s o$n financia e%era#e and ho din#sA &2>='. )m! oyees can stea trade secrets from their com!anies" but that $ou d %io ate the confidentia ity o$ed to the com!any. 8dditiona y" em! oyees often #et 3obs $orkin# for the com!etition and can be tem!ted to use trade secrets to benefit the com!etitor &2>>-2>*'.Abuse of official $osition The use of one5s officia !osition for !ersona #ain is often an abuse of !o$er.oca-. Hor e6am! e" em! oyees mi#ht kno$ that their com!any is #oin# bankru!t before the #enera !ub ic and se a their stock before it becomes $orth ess.om!anies often ha%e secret information ca ed ?trade secretsA that they don5t $ant to be eaked outside the or#ani7ation" and em! oyees $ou d be dis oya to use such information to ad%ance the interests of com!etin# or#ani7ations &2>2-2>>'.om!anies ha%e trade secrets to assure that the information isn5t used by com!etitors" but it is !ossib e for others to disco%er the trade secret on their o$n and use it. 9eo! e $ho buy the stock $i be decei%ed into thinkin# its $orth more than it rea y is. Proprietary data . The theft of trade secrets is $ron#.'. Hor e6am! e" the formu a for . 2. This abuse can e6ist $hen a conf ict of interest eads to dis oya ty" such as Bart Wi iam5s use of his 3ob to he ! his brotherin.': 1. This is a difficu t mora issue because !eo! e ha%e a ri#ht to seek em! oyment and $e can5t a $ays se!arate !ro!rietary information from a $orker5s acDuired >2 . When in doubt" I su##est that em! oyees shou d see e#a ad%ice or consu t $ith the com!any5s de!artment that hand es the shareho der sur%eys.a$.A Insider tradin# in%o %es difficu t mora issues. Insider trading Insider tradin# is $hen one !erson has access to information that5s una%ai ab e to the !ub ic and $i ike y ha%e an im!act on stock !rices &ibid.ommon abuses of !o$er inc ude insider tradin# and stea in# !ro!rietary data. They are inte ectua !ro!erty. It5s not c ear e6act y $hen em! oyees can buy or se stock from their o$n com!aniesM it5s not entire y c ear ho$ much information a com!any shou d ?disc ose to stockho ders about the firms ! ans" out ooks" and !ros!ectsMA it5s not entire y c ear $hen such information shou d be disc osedM and its not entire y c ear $hen a !erson is an ?insiderA &2>-'. 9atents and co!yri#hts are !ub ic y a%ai ab e and !rotected by the a$" but there5s sti a chance that many !eo! e can #et a$ay $ith breakin# co!yri#ht or !atent a$s. . 3.o a is a trade secret" but anyone $ho disco%ers the formu a can use it for their o$n soda com!any &2>>'. It5s a so insider tradin# for the em! oyees to encoura#e fami y and friends to se their stock usin# such ?inside information. There are at east three ar#uments #i%en for $hy some !eo! e think trade secrets shou d be !rotected by the a$ &ibid. +ha$ does not te us ho$ $e can try to reso %e these issues.

98 doesn5t forbid ?#rease !aymentsA that are made to assure that #o%ernment officia s do their 3obs because com!anies are often benefited $hen #o%ernment officia s do their 3obs !ro!er y.11'. ?SHTe$ com!anies ha%e recent y been char#ed $ith %io atin# the a$A &ibid.'. >> .o. 4ickbacks are a form of bribery that are attained after a !erson uses their $ork !osition to benefit someone &2*0'. <o$e%er" the H.or!oration $as common y bribin# forei#n officia s and !aid Y22 mi ion to #et aircraft contracts $ith forei#n #o%ernments &ibid.'. +uch bribes can harm #o%ernments by #ettin# them to !ay too much for #oods and ser%ices &aircrafts in this case'" and the harm can then be done to citi7ens $ho ha%e to !ay the bi in ta6es. )he Foreign 5orrupt Practices Act 0+ com!anies ha%e often bribed forei#n officia s for fa%ors" and such fa%ors cou d harm !eo! e.ski s and technica kno$ ed#e &2>*'. If the 3ud#e #ets !aid after sendin# a !erson to the !ri%ate !rison" then the bribe is a kickback. )he case against overseas bribery We ha%e done %ery itt e about forei#n bribery" and not e%eryone thinks forei#n bribery shou d e%en be i e#a .'. The H.10. ?STTrade secrets that com!anies seek to !rotect ha%e often become an inte#ra !art of the de!artin# em! oyee5s tota ca!abi itiesA &ibid." $ere found #ui ty of forei#n bribery in a court of a$ for the first time since the H. Hor e6am! e" sometimes ?the officia threatens to %io ate the com!any5s ri#hts" !erha!s by c osin# do$n a ! ant on some e#a !rete6t" un ess the officia is !aid offA &2*1'. Hor e6am! e" Rockheed 8ircraft . 8 thou#h com!anies ha%e acce!ted !unishment for bribery in the !ast" e6ecuti%es of an 8merican com!any" Rindsey (anufacturin# . Hor e6am! e" a 3ud#e is su!!osed to ru e im!artia y based on $hat #ood 3ud#ment and the a$ reDuires in order to decide $hat !unishment to #i%e to crimina s. Hina y" the H. )6tortion is $hen a forei#n officia attem!ts to coerce a com!any to !ay money &2*0-2*1'.98 forbids 0+ com!anies from bribin# forei#n officia s and the !unishment for bribes inc udes fines and im!risonment &ibid.98 treats e6tortion as bribery" so com!anies are not a o$ed to !ay e6tortion money. It a so reDuires that com!anies adhere to accountin# and auditin# contro s to he ! assure that bribes aren5t bein# made.98 $as created 31 years a#o &=. 8 3ud#e $ho takes a bribe from a !ri%ate !rison to #i%e !eo! e #ui ty of crimes on# sentences and send them to that !ri%ate !rison ha%e com!romised their im!artia ity and #ood 3ud#ment.'. In this case" kno$ ed#e of the bribes caused a crisis in the Ja!anese #o%ernment. 6ribes and kickbacks 8 bribe is a !ayment made $ith the e6!ectation that someone $i act a#ainst their $ork duties" and bribes can be %ery serious $hen they ead to ne# ect or reck ess beha%ior that can in3ure !eo! e &2>*'. (oreo%er" the !eo! e #ui ty of crimes $ou d be harmed from the bribery because their !unishment $ou d be unfair y se%ere as a resu t.

or!oration" $hich $as seekin# a te e!hone contract $ith the G+8A &ibid. Boes forbiddin# bribery #i%e 8merican com!anies a si#nificant disad%anta#e@ It5s a hi#h y contentious assertion $ith itt e e%idence to back it u!.+ome !eo! e ar#ue that o%erseas bribery shou d be e#a because &a' forbiddin# it #i%es 8merican com!anies a disad%anta#e to forei#n com!etin# com!anies that are a o$ed to bribe and &b' the H.98 has done itt e to dama#e 8merican e6!ort e6!ansion.'. ?)%en in nations $here the H.oo!eration and Be%e o!mentKforma y a#reed for the first time to a treaty that out a$s the bribin# of forei#n officia sA &ibid. ?Hor e6am! e" by encoura#in# on nonmarket #rounds the !urchase of inferior #oods or the !ayment of an e6orbitant !rice" bribery can c ear y in3ure a %ariety of e#itimate interestsKfrom stockho ders to customers" from ta6!ayers to other businessesA &ibid.'.98 rea y does #i%e 0+ com!anies a disad%anta#e.98 is a e#ed to ha%e hurt 8merican business" there has been no statistica y discernib e effect on 0+ market shareA and ?since !assa#e of the H. ?In 1**2" the $or d5s industria i7ed nationsKthe 2* members of the Cr#ani7ation for )conomic .ifts and entertain-ent Gifts and entertainment can be used to re$ard and encoura#e certain beha%ior from em! oyees" and can cause a conf ict of interest as a resu t. Hor e6am! e" there $as a ?former Genera +er%ices 8dministration &G+8' officia $ho ! eaded #ui ty to a crimina char#e of acce!tin# free unches from a subsidiary of the Be +outh . +ha$ reminds us that i e#a dru# dea in# is common !ractice in the 0+" but that doesn5t !ro%e it5s socia y acce!tab e.'. Third" a thou#h the H. Hirst" e%en if bribery is common !ractice" that in no $ay !ro%es that it5s acce!ted by a country &2*2'.98 i e#itimate y im!ose 0+ standards on other countries@ That is an im! ausib e assertion.98 ref ects our mora standards" it5s not c ear that such standards on y a!! y here in the 0+.'.'. )ntertainment is often !ro%ided as a #ift" but entertainment isn5t as ike y to be mora y $ron# because ?it usua y occurs $ithin the conte6t of doin# business in a socia situationA &2*1'.'.'. . ?STThose standards are not 3ust a matter of taste & ike c othin# sty es' or com! ete y arbitrary & ike our decision to dri%e on the ri#ht" $hereas the British dri%e on the eft'. Third" there5s itt e e%idence that the H. Hourth" there5s no on#er %ery many com!etiti%e countries that a o$ bribery. In e6treme cases #ifts and entertainment can be eDui%a ent to bribes. When decidin# $hether #ifts and entertainment are a!!ro!riate" the fo o$in# considerations are re e%ant &2*3-2*1': >* . Hirst" com!etition is often a#ainst other 8merican com!anies rather than forei#n ones &ibid.98" 0+ trade $ith bribe-!rone countries has out!aced its trade $ith other countriesA &ibid.'. +econd" studies sho$ that the H. Good ob3ecti%e ar#uments can be #i%en a#ainst bribery and re ated corru!t !ractices" $hether o%erseas or at homeA &ibid.98 i e#itimate y ?im!oses 0+ standards on forei#n countries and !ayoffs are common business !ractices in forei#n countriesA &ibid. Boes the H. What #ood ob3ecti%e ar#uments can be #i%en a#ainst bribery@ Bribery can harm !eo! e" and it5s not c ear that there5s any #ood e6cuse a%ai ab e to a o$ com!anies to harm !eo! e throu#h bribery. +econd" forei#n officia s tend not to $ant their bribery to be !ub ici7ed" but if it $as acce!tab e" then $e $ou d e6!ect that they $ou dn5t mind their bribery to be !ub ici7edKbut there5s no such e6am! e &ibid.

or four-day-o d food and ser%es it as freshA and she mi#ht ha%e a duty to a ert the !ub ic" and a consu tin# en#ineer cou d find ?a defect in a structure that is about to be so dA and she mi#ht ha%e a duty to te the customer about the defect &2*1'. Hor e6am! e" a dish$asher can find out ?that the restaurant5s chef ty!ica y reheats three. Gifts that are !art of a cu tura custom are much ess sus!icious than #ifts that aren5t. In some cases an em! oyee cou d find out about ne# i#ent and reck ess beha%ior of a com!any that !uts the !ub ic in eminent dan#er" such as $hen a com!any dum!s to6ic $aste $ithout takin# !ro!er !recautions. There are unfair trade !ractices that can i e#itimate y harm the com!etition" and there are i e#a e%e s of !o ution" but such !ractices aren5t a $ays considered to be ?si#nificant y $ron#. (ost com!anies define infreDuent #ifts $orth Y2= or ess to be ?nomina A but anythin# more to cross the ine. *0 . 1. Gifts in the form of ?ti!sA are !art of our custom of ha%in# a $aiter or $aitress" but not !art of bein# a . -.A That5s not to say that harmin# !eo! e is ne%er si#nificant. )he value o$ the gi$t. 8 #ift #i%en at a ce ebration" store o!enin#" or durin# a ho iday season is different than a #ift not attached to a s!ecia occasion" and a #ift #i%en o!en y is ess sus!icious than a #ift #i%en in secret. )he law. )he circumstances under which the gi$t was given or received. 8dditiona y" it can be mora y !referab e to a ert the re e%ant third !arties about immora and i e#a business !ractices" e%en if it5s not a mora ob i#ation to do so. 8bli"ations to third $arties +ometimes an em! oyee has ob i#ations to the #enera !ub ic that can conf ict $ith their oya ty to the com!any.)C of a com!any. )he company/s policy. )he position and sensitivity to in$luence o$ the person receiving the gi$t. =. The fact that business decisions can harm some !eo! e isn5t enou#h to !ro%e the decision to be mora y $ron#. <o$ shou d em! oyees beha%e $hen their 3ob duties" !ersona ob i#ations" and !ersona interests conf ict $ith the interests of others@ When a !erson is mora y ob i#ated to a ert others about dan#erous and dece!ti%e business !ractice is not ob%ious" but em! oyees shou d consider the im!ortance of their 3ob duties and !ersona interest com!ared the im!ortance of the interests of others $ho are in%o %ed. Gifts $orth thousands of do ars or more are ike y to be taken as bribes. 3. 2. )he accepted business practice in the industry. 2. 8 #ift cou d be meant to be used for !a m-#reasin# to encoura#e someone to do their 3ob" used for ad%ertisin#" or used as a bribe. Becisions made by com!anies often harm the interest of com!etitors" and some !eo! e mi#ht ar#ue that !o ution %io ates our ri#ht to nonin3ury $hen it is ike y to hurt !eo! e" but both of these business !ractices are often considered to be mora y !ermissib e. +ome com!anies ha%e stricter ru es concernin# #ifts than others" and $e ha%e some reason to refuse #ifts $hen our com!any forbids it.1. )he purpose o$ the gi$t. Gifts that %io ate the a$ are a most a $ays mora y unacce!tab e" but the a$ doesn5t a $ays forbid immora forms of bribery or #ift #i%in#. Businesses aren5t a o$ed to decei%e their customers or do anythin# that $ou d %io ate a !erson5s ri#ht to nonin3ury" and its often mora y !referab e to a ert the re e%ant third !arties about such %io ations. 8 !erson in a !osition to reci!rocate the #ift in the form of business decisions more ike y to be takin# a bribe.

+econd" discussin# a mora di emma or ethica !rob em $ith a fiend can often he ! us a%oid bias and #et a better !ers!ecti%e. <o$e%er" this criteria is contro%ersia . +omeone is not a $hist e b o$er for te in# the !ub ic about embarrassin# or rude beha%ior &2*2'" and bein# a $hist e b o$er doesn5t in%o %e sabota#e or %io ence &2*>'. In fact" some $hist e b o$ers ha%e faced i e#a forms of reta iation such as harassment" and sometimes they5%e e%en been murdered... Whist e b o$in# can be reck ess and endan#er the $e bein# of an innocent com!any $hen its done from a ?hunchA of $ron#doin# rather than from a re iab e method. Whist e b o$ers must often ha%e coura#e to be $i in# to endan#er their o$n $e bein#" and many of our unsun# heroes are $hist e b o$ers. )he organiAation/s wrongdoing must be speci$ic and signi$icantly wrong. The moti%e must not be to #et re%en#e or to attain fame. 1. )he employee should usually see& less harm$ul ways to resolve the issue $irst. &2*-' Whistle blowing Whist e b o$in# is the act of #oin# !ub ic $ith $hat one has reason to be ie%e to be si#nificant y immora or i e#a acts of an or#ani7ation one is !art of. 8s on# as the com!any has done somethin# si#nificant y $ron# or i e#a " it5s mora y !referab e for the !ub ic to find out about it one $ay or the other. Hor e6am! e" if !eo! e5s i%es are in immediate dan#er" then there mi#ht be no better o!tion than to #o !ub ic $ith the information ri#ht a$ay. <o$e%er" it5s not a $ays the ri#ht thin# to do. 2. In!ut from others can kee! us from o%er ookin# !ertinent considerations. Eorma Bo$ie" a !rofessor of ci%i disobedience" ar#ues that $hist e b o$in# isn5t 3ustified un ess the fo o$in# criteria is met &2*>-2**': 1.. The em! oyee must $ant 3ustice because the or#ani7ation committed a si#nificant immora or i e#a act. are the contem! ated actions ones that $e $ou d be $i in# to defend !ub ic y@ . )m! oyees shou d usua y a ert mana#ement and e6ecuti%es of $ron#doin# before makin# the $ron#doin# kno$n to the !ub ic. The reason that this ru e isn5t abso ute is because there are situations $hen it5s im!ractica . (ana#ement or e6ecuti%es shou d usua y be #i%en a chance to rectify the situation" and a ertin# the !ub ic shou d usua y be a ast resort.+ha$ su##ests t$o $ays to try to he ! us a%oid rationa i7ations $hen en#a#in# in mora reasonin# to decide $hat to do $hen $e face mora di emmas: Hirst" $e can ask ourse %es $hether $e $ou d be $i in# to read an account of our actions in the ne$s!a!er. 3. 8n ina!!ro!riate moti%e mi#ht sti he ! cause a!!ro!riate forms of $hist e b o$in#.. To accuse a *1 . )he motive must be appropriate. Its reck ess to accuse a com!any of $ron#doin# $hen there5s a #ood !ossibi ity that the com!any is innocent. )he whistle blower needs compelling evidence o$ wrongdoing. (any em! oyees refuse to be $hist e b o$ers because it is ike y to dama#e their re ationshi!s at $ork" ead to dismissa " and e%en ead to bein# b ack isted from an industry. 8dditiona y" accusations a#ainst a com!any are ike y to harm the $hist e b o$er rather than the com!any $hen the !ub ic doesn5t ha%e #ood reason to a#ree that the com!any did somethin# $ron#. 8n em! oyee cou d be dismissed or sued for defamation. 9eo! e by themse %es" and es!ecia y $hen emotiona y in%o %ed in a situation" sometimes focus undu y on one or t$o !oints" i#norin# other re e%ant factors.

Cne" some !eo! e ar#ue that ?!rudentia reasonA &rationa se f interest' can o%erride our mora ob i#ations &300'. )he whistle blowing has a chance o$ being success$ul. 8re $e ob i#ated to !rotect the interests of others by re!ortin# misconduct to mana#ement or a ertin# the !ub ic of si#nificant immora acts committed by com!anies $e $ork for $hen doin# so si#nificant y endan#ers our o$n $e bein#@ There are t$o common res!onses to this concern. )6a##eratin# the costs to ourse %es of actin# other$ise makes it easier to rationa i7e a$ay the dama#e $e are doin# to others. It seems reasonab e to ask ourse %es if $e shou d be $hist e b o$ers or com! ain about business !ractices on the 3ob $hen doin# so can reDuire us to endan#er our o$n $e bein#. It5s not enou#h 3ust to ho!e that some heroic indi%idua s $i try to !rotect our interests. If $hist e b o$in# has no chance of success" then the $hist e b o$er is #oin# to be ike y harmed by the act $ithout a $orth$hi e !ayoff. We shou d not use se f-interest to rationa i7e the $ron#s $e or our com!anies do. <o$e%er" +ha$ ob3ects that $hist e b o$in# can occasiona y brin# attention to a !ractice that $i e%entua y ead to reforms sometime in the future e%en if it $on5t be a so ution to the s!ecific $ron#doin# done. ?)ach of us has a tendency to ma#nify !otentia threats to our i%e ihood or career. If em! oyees ha%e an e6cuse to refuse to be $hist e b o$ers" then $e ha%e a serious !rob emKmany !eo! e $i #et hurt $hen no one is $i in# to take a stand &301-302'. I $i discuss the re e%ance of se f-interest to our mora decisions and ob i#ations. The 2uestion of self<interest Whist e b o$in# and com! aints can be dan#erous for $hist e b o$ers because they are ?e6!osin# themse %es to char#es of dis oya ty" disci! inary action" free7es in 3ob status" forced re ocation" and e%en dismissa A &2**'. =. Just as a$s current y e6ist to !rotect $hist e b o$ers in the !ub ic sector from re!risa s" so com!arab e e#is ation is needed in the !ri%ate sectorA &302'. 8dditiona y" $e ha%e a tendency to o%er-%a ue obedience and many !eo! e $i obey eaders to the !oint of harmin# others. +ha$ su##ests that it mi#ht be a #ood idea to ?restructure business and socia institutions so such acts no on#er carry such se%ere !ena ties. 8#ain" $hist e b o$in# is often a so met $ith i e#a forms of reta iation ran#in# from harassment to murder. It5s !ossib e that $e are 3ustified to ne# ect our mora ob i#ations $hen doin# so $ou d ike y harm us. 8 thou#h the a$s !rotectin# federa $hist e b o$ers is actua y inadeDuate and Cbama has !romised to stren#then the !rotection" im!ro%ed e#is ation is a so ution $orth considerin#. In the business $or d" for instance" !eo! e ta k about the sur%i%a of the firm as if it $ere itera y a matter of ife and deathA &301'.'. In that case $e $ou dn5t be mora y reDuired to be $hist e b o$ers" but it cou d sti be mora y !referab e and su!erero#atory &abo%e the ca of duty' to be a $hist e b o$er. T$o" some !eo! e ar#ue that !rudentia reasons are re e%ant to mora ity and that $e are not mora y ob i#ated to he ! others $hen doin# so is ike y to si#nificant y cause us harm &ibid. We shou d think rationa y and im!artia y re#ardin# mora ity" but that can reDuire chan#es in our !ersona ityKan attem!t to be mora y %irtuous. Cne $ay to im!ro%e ourse %es is to ?!erform a kind of *2 .cor!oration of $ron#doin# in%o %in# rude beha%ior can be a %io ation of em! oyee !ri%acy" and the $hist e b o$er must ha%e s!ecific e6am! es of $ron#doin# by the com!any.

Bo $e fo o$ authority b ind y@ 2. We can think about our ife and ask ourse %es Duestions" such as the fo o$in# &ibid. When considerin# our mora duties" the most common y cited mora !rinci! e is the ri#ht to nonin3ury. *3 . <a%e $e #i%en enou#h attention to our !ossib e ro es as accom! ices in the immora undoin# of other indi%idua s" businesses" and socia institutions@ =. Eo matter $hat mora theory $e a#ree to" e%eryone seems to a#ree that nonin3ury is re e%ant to mora ity and em! oyees ha%e a duty not to cause si#nificant harm to innocent !eo! e. Bo $e ha%e substantia e%idence for be ie%in# that our i%e ihoods are rea y threatened" or is that be ief based more on an e6a##eration of the facts@ Conclusion (ora ity demands that $e consider the interests of e%eryone $ho can be affected by our decisions" and that $e consider the situation $e are in.': 1. Bo $e ha%e a ba anced %ie$ of our o$n interests %ersus those of others@ -. Bo $e mind ess y do $hat is demanded of us" ob i%ious to the im!act of our coo!eration and actions on outside !arties@ 1. Bo $e suffer from mora tunne %ision on the 3ob@ 3.'.character or !ersona ity auditA &ibid. Cur 3ob and !osition in society can #i%e us uniDue ob i#ations and $hat $e should do de!ends on a these factors. This is $hy it5s often mora y !referab e to be a $hist e b o$er $hen a com!any is causin# si#nificant dan#er or harm to the !ub ic.

I $i use the $ord ?discriminationA as eDui%a ent to the i e#itimate sort of discrimination and !re3udice. +ometimes !eo! e fa%or some #rou!s of !eo! e o%er others as a matter of !ersona !reference" or unconscious y acce!t stereoty!es &312'. Riteracy tests &and simi ar academic tests' used for 3ob a!! ications cou d be discriminatory for simi ar reasons $hen it doesn5t direct y measure the re e%ant Dua ifications concernin# the 3ob.'. +econd" it5s disres!ectfu and doesn5t treat !eo! e as ?ends in themse %esA &312-31>'. Job discrimination is $hen business decisions" !o icies" or !rocedures are at east !artia y based on i e#itimate forms of discrimination that benefit or harm certain #rou!s of !eo! e. 8dditiona y" there5s a #ood reason that such discrimination is $ron#.'. +ha$ doesn5t mention a fifth *1 . /efusin# to hire b ack !eo! e" !ayin# $omen ess than men for com!arab e $ork" and refusin# to #i%e homose6ua s !romotions are a e#re#ious forms of 3ob discrimination. +ha$5s ne$est business ethics book came out in 200* and has u!dated statistics. Biscrimination is usua y based on !re3udice. Hirst" it unfair y harms !eo! e of a #rou! &ibid.ob Discrimi&atio& 9re3udice and discrimination sti ha%e a !o$erfu im!act on the $ork! ace and are serious mora issues facin# our society. The be ief that men don5t res!ect $omen bosses" that $hites are harder $orkin# than other #rou!s" or that customers $on5t ike to ha%e 8sian $aiters. This discussion is based on cha!ter nine of Business )thics &Third )dition" 1***' by Wi iam +ha$. Eot a e6am! es are this ob%ious. +ometimes no one in !articu ar is !re3udiced" but the !o icies or !rocedures of an or#ani7ation are !re3udiced.Chapter 1": . +ha$ on y discusses discrimination a#ainst b acks" <is!anics" and $omen because ?most discrimination in the 8merican $ork! ace has traditiona y been aimedA at these #rou!s &312'. There is rare y &or ne%er' reason to discriminate a#ainst !eo! e purely on the basis of re i#ious or !o itica %ie$s" se6ua orientation" a#e" or ethnicity. &It can be found on 8ma7on. Third" $e $ou dn5t be $i in# to acce!t such irrationa discrimination !ractices that tar#et #rou!s $e $ou d !ersona y suffer from &31>' Hourth" discrimination %io ates the idea s of eDua mora eDua ity" %io ates !eo! e5s mora ri#hts" and %io ates the idea of eDua o!!ortunity &ibid. <o$e%er" there are irrationa and i e#itimate forms of discrimination" such as racism and se6ism. I $i discuss &1' the meanin# of 3ob discrimination" &2' e%idence of 3ob discrimination" &3' affirmati%e action" &1' the doctrine of com!arab e $orth" and &=' se6ua harassment. <o$e%er" I $i use more current statistics and studies than are a%ai ab e in his book $hen !ossib e. This is the most outdated cha!ter in his book because it re ies hea%i y on o der statistics and studies" and the !rob ems $e face today mi#ht not be Duite the same as the !rob ems $e faced ten years a#o.' Eot a discrimination is intentiona or conscious.' The -eanin" of 5ob discri-ination We a discriminate for and a#ainst !eo! e.#. Why is 3ob discrimination immora @ I5%e a ready made it c ear that $e are on y dea in# $ith irrationa ?non-merit-basedA forms of discrimination here.'. &e. That in itse f doesn5t sound !roducti%e. Hor e6am! e" some states reDuired a iteracy test for %oters and many b acks $ere #i%en a !oor education and cou dn5t !ass the iteracy tests. 8 b atant e6am! e $ou d be a !o icy that states that $omen can5t #et ?su!er%isory !ositions because 5the boys in the com!any don5t ike to take orders from fema es5A &ibid. It5s !erfect y rationa to discriminate bet$een a!! icants for a 3ob and to on y hire those $ho are the most Dua ified based on merit.

)he income gap .>X of <is!anics $ere unem! oyed +econd" many statistics sho$ ad%anta#es #i%en to men and disad%anta#es #i%en to $omen.00 Poverty rates .0 for fu -time" year-round $orkers in 200*" essentia y unchan#ed from 22. 8ccordin# to . vidence o$ discrimination 8 thou#h it is c ear that 3ob discrimination e6ists" it5s not c ear ho$ $ides!read it is. This can be seen in househo d net $orth" !o%erty rates" and unem! oyment rates. ?<o$e%er" $hen &1' statistics indicate that $omen and minorities ! ay an uneDua ro e in the $ork $or d and &2' endemic attitudes" !ractices" and !o icies are biased in $ays that seem to account for the ske$ed statistics" then there is #ood reason to be ie%e that 3ob discrimination is a !er%asi%e !rob emA &ibid.00 Y10"-00. (ore information can be found in the 9BH here. 8ccordin# to the Bureau of Rabor +tatistics" in 8!ri 2011" >X of $hites" 1-. /e ati%e y fe$ $omen are in mana#ement !ositions. 8dditiona y" %ery fe$ $omen are cor!orate e6ecuti%es. <nemployment rates . Median *ousehold Net $orth 200= 2002 White B ack Y11=">00. 8ccordin# to the Go%ernment 8ccountabi ity Cffice" $omen accounted for 10X of the mana#ement !ositions in 2002 des!ite bein# 1*X of the non-mana#ement $ork force. +tudies ha%e consistent y found that $hite househo ds tend to ha%e about ten times the net $orth of b ack househo ds.00 Y*"=00.reason" but discrimination often harms com!anies because com!anies do best $ith the most Dua ified em! oyees and discrimination often !re%ents Dua ified !eo! e from attainin# the 3obs they $ou d best ser%e. 8ccordin# to /obert Bra#o" the ratio of $omenUs and menUs median annua earnin#s" $as 22.EE" in may 2010 on y 1= of the =00 ?Hortune =00A com!anies $ere run by *= . >ousehold net worth . The 9ane +tudy of Income Bynamics found that in 2002 the median $hite househo d5s net $orth $as Y11-"=00 but the median b ack househo d5s net income $as Y*"=00.1X of b acks" and 11.1 in 200> >igh paid positions . 8ccordin# to statehea thfacts.00 Y11-"=00.'. This is i ustrated by the income #a! bet$een men and $omen" and the o$ number of $omen in hi#h !aid !ositions. 8s a resu t it a so harms customers and in%estors $ho de!end on the com!any to hire and re$ard the most Dua ified em! oyees $ho can !ro%ide us $ith the best !roducts and ser%ices in the most efficient $ay a%ai ab e. -tatistical evidence (any statistics indicate that there are ad%anta#es #i%en to $hites and disad%anta#es facin# b acks and <is!anics.or#" 13X of $hite 8mericans" 3=X of b ack 8mericans" and 31X of <is!anic 8mericans i%ed in !o%erty from 200>-200*.

+uch a study su##ests not on y that !re3udice is $ides!read" but that ?customer satisfaction sur%eysA are biased and shou d not be taken serious y $hen makin# administrati%e decisions that can he ! or harm em! oyees. Cne !artner in the firm e%en to d her that she shou d 5$a k more feminine y" ta k more feminine y" dress more feminine y" $ear makeu!" ha%e her hair sty ed" and $ear 3e$e ry. &321' +ha$ adds that se%era sur%eys confirm the !re%a ence of discrimination" !re3udice" and stereoty!in# a#ainst $omen and other minorities &321-322'. Qou can do$n oad a 9BH of the findin#s here.study by the 1 These s!ecific findin#s are attributed to Ba%id +chneider5s The 9sycho o#y of +tereoty!in# &Ee$ Qork: Gui ford 9ress" 200='. There is e%idence that many !eo! e are !re3udiced a#ainst atheists. Hor e6am! e: 1. Attitudinal evidence +tatistics don5t conc usi%e y !ro%e that discrimination e6ists because there cou d be causes of %arious ad%anta#es and disad%anta#es accorded to %arious #rou!s based on e#itimate factors other than !re3udice or discrimination. 8dditiona y" in 200= .ourt a#reed" that the comments ike these re%ea ed an under yin# se6ism at the firm and that her strident manner and occasiona cursin# $ou d ha%e been o%er ooked if she had been a man.ata yst !ub ished findin#s concernin# 8merican stereoty!es about $omen that can often be harmfu to their careers. +ha$ he !s estab ish that discrimination e6ists by a!!ea in# to concrete e6am! es of 3ob discrimination and sur%eys. 9rice Waterhouse denied her the !osition because she $as a e#ed y an abrasi%e and o%erbearin# mana#er. .5 <o!kins ar#ued" and the . Qou can do$n oad a 9BH of the study here.o$orkers referred to her as 5macho"5 ad%ised her to #o to charm schoo " and intimated that she $as o%ercom!ensatin# for bein# a $oman. Hina y" $e can a so consider other e%idence that !eo! e are !re3udiced in %arious $ays. *- . Cne study from 2002 found that &a' customers $ho %ie$ed %ideos featurin# %arious em! oyees $ere si#nificant y more satisfied $ith the em! oyees $ho $ere $hite men than from a minority e%en $hen the !erformance of the em! oyees $ere indistin#uishab e" and &b' that $hite ma e doctors are often be ie%ed to be more com!etent and a!!roachab e than doctors of a minority e%en $hen their !erformance is indistin#uishab e.1 It seems ike y that many !eo! e think our eaders shou d be dominant" achie%ement-oriented" ambitious" se f-confident" and rationa M rather than affectionate" emotiona " or sensiti%e. 8 200. In !articu ar" stereoty!es tend to bias !eo! e a#ainst $omen takin# eadershi! !ositions. I $i discuss the findin#s of ne$ sur%eys and studies instead of the o der ones that +ha$ discussed. Woman are often seen as affectionate" a!!reciati%e" emotiona " friend y" sym!athetic" sensiti%e" and sentimenta M but men are seen as dominant" achie%ement-oriented" acti%e" ambitious" se f-confident and rationa .$omen. Hor e6am! e" in 1**0 9rice Waterhouse" an accountin# firm" $as sued by 8nn <o!kins and found #ui ty of se6 discrimination for refusin# to treat $omen as eDua s $hen decidin# $hen to !romote $omen into !artners &320'. To assume that ?corre ation a $ays indicates causationA is to commit an error in reasonin#.

!o found that 22. .i%i /i#hts 8ct that ?!rohibits a forms of discrimination based on race" co or" se6" re i#ion" or nationa ori#inA &323'.'.ommission &))C. 4ennedy si#ned )6ecuti%e Crder 10*2=" $hich decreed that federa contractors shou d 5take affirmati%e action to ensure that a!! icants are em! oyed $ithout re#ard to their race" creed" co or" or nationa ori#in"5A the 1*-3 )Dua 9ay 8ct that ?#uaranteed the ri#ht to eDua !ay for eDua $ork"A and the 1*-1 . It started in 1*-1 ?9resident John H.hristians" 1=X admit it concernin# Je$s" and 11X admit it concernin# Buddhists.'.i%i ri#hts a$ is enforced by the )Dua )m! oyment C!!ortunity . There is e%idence that many !eo! e are !re3udiced a#ainst (us ims.A I ar#ue that homose6ua ity isn5t immora here. &b' 0nattracti%e !eo! e based on a 1**1 study and a 2010 study.i%i /i#hts 8ct !rohibits discrimination in the $ork ! ace re#ardin# hirin# em! oyees" dismissin# em! oyees" $a#es" benefits" and disci! ine.-X of 8mericans disa!!ro%e of a marria#e bet$een their chi d and an atheist" and a 2002 !o re%ea ed that =2X of 8mericans don5t think atheists can be mora . &d' C der !eo! e" $hich ead to the 8#e Biscrimination in )m! oyment 8ct of 1*-2 and successfu a$suits. 8 2010 !o sho$ed that 13X of 8mericans admit bein# at east a itt e !re3udiced a#ainst (us ims" $hich is more than t$ice the number of !eo! e $ho admit that concernin# other re i#ions &1>X admit it concernin# .0ni%ersity of (innesota found that 12. 2. I ar#ue that atheism is not immora here. &a' 9eo! e $ith disabi ities" $hich ead to the 8mericans $ith Bisabi ities 8ct of 1**0 and successfu a$suits. Tit e FII of the . There is e%idence that many !eo! e are !re3udiced a#ainst homose6ua s.. The $ord ?#od essA has been used as an insu t for Duite some time" and it sti is.-X of 8mericans don5t think that homose6ua s ?share their %ision of of 8merican society.i%i /i#hts 8ct a!! ies to a or#ani7ations $ith fifteen or more em! oyees. 3. *2 .. Affir-ative action: a le"al conte(t 8ffirmati%e action ori#inated in the form of some$hat recent ci%i ri#hts e#is ation. &c' 9eo! e $ho are o%er$ei#ht based on a 2001 study &9BH'. . The ))C. 8dditiona y" there5s e%idence of !re3udice and discrimination a#ainst. #i%es the fo o$in# #uide ines to affirmati%e action: &1' Cr#ani7ations must ha%e a $ritten eDua em! oyment !o icy" &2' they must a!!oint someone in char#e of the eDua em! oyment !o icy" and they must re!ort information re#ardin# em! oyees of %arious minorities &ibid. The .i%i ri#hts e#is ation continued $ith the 1*-2 8#e Biscrimination in )m! oyment 8ct and the 1**0 8mericans $ith Bisabi ities 8ct. +tartin# in the 1*-0s ?com!anies contractin# $ith the federa #o%ernment $ere reDuired to de%e o! affirmati%e action !ro#rams" desi#ned to correct imba ances in em! oyment that e6ist direct y as a resu t of !ast discriminationA &321'. 8 2002 !o found that 13X of 8mericans $ou dn5t %ote for a Dua ified homose6ua to be !resident" and a 200.' I ar#ue that (us ims are not immora here.

)6c uded are !ro#rams that estab ish ri#id" !ermanent Duotas or that hire and !romote unDua ified !ersonsA &ibid.. 95ompensatory 'ustice demands a$$irmative action programs: &32*' . +ha$ discusses ar#uments for and a#ainst affirmati%e action that inc ude ?!ro#rams takin# race or se6 of em! oyees or 3ob candidates into account as !art of an effort to correct imba ances in em! oyment that e6ist as a resu t of !ast discrimination" either in the com!any itse f or in the ar#er society. Arguments $or a$$irmative action 1.. 9eo! e and institutions often #i%e !reference to non-minorities o%er minorities" as $as a ready made c ear abo%e. The first case concernin# affirmati%e action $as .' 2.ourt can decide $hen affirmati%e action is e#a " but they can5t determine $hen &or if' it5s mora . Eineteen $orkers be ie%ed they $ere !assed u! on the !romotions because the test resu t $as thro$n out" and they $on the case. 9ast discrimination has harmed minorities and $e shou d try to com!ensate for that dama#e. 8ffirmati%e action cou d be used to counter discrimination that sti e6ists to make sure !re3udice has a sma er im!act on administrati%e decisions that can benefit and harm $orkers. 8 test $as #i%en to firefi#hters in Ee$ <a%en" . 8 $hite student sued because he $ou d ha%e been admitted to 0. The +u!reme . /ecent +u!reme . &<o$e%er" &a' it5s not c ear that em! oyers ha%e a duty to com!ensate for the $ron#s done by others and &b' affirmati%e action doesn5t com!ensate the actua !eo! e $ho $ere harmed by !ast discrimination. Ba%is if it $eren5t for the Duotas" and he $on the case.A Biscrimination sti e6ists.ourt cases re e%ant to affirmati%e action to #i%e us an idea about the e#a ity in%o %in# it.ourt decided that thro$in# the test resu ts out $as a form of discrimination and %io ated our ci%i ri#hts. B acks" *> . Affir-ative action: the -oral issues Re#is ators and the +u!reme . 9erha!s the atest affirmati%e action case in the +u!reme .)he -upreme 5ourt/s position +ha$ ists many +u!reme . I don5t kno$ $hy +ha$ states that affirmati%e action is meant to on y counter ?!ast discrimination.ourt cases in%o %in# affirmati%e action ha%e confirmed that minorities can be #i%en e6tra !oints $hen makin# administrati%e decisions" but unDua ified !eo! e shou d not be #i%en s!ecia treatment on the basis of affirmati%e action &32>'.'.onnecticut to determine $hich $orkers $ou d #et !romotions and none of the b ack $orkers !assed. 9A$$irmative action is necessary to permit $airer competition: &32*-330' .ourt $as the 200* case" Ricci v% 1e tefano" $hich ru ed that an or#ani7ation can5t dismiss test resu ts that seem discriminatory un ess they can be sufficient y !ro%en to be discriminatory.akke v% Regents of the /niversity of 0alifornia from 1*2> and ru ed that strict Duotas meant to he ! minorities $ere a form of re%erse discrimination a#ainst non-minorities &32='.

i%i ri#hts e#is ation a ready reDuires nondiscrimination and strict enforcement of the a$ is a that $e need to sto! discrimination.prestige 'obs: &330' .'. 9erha!s it i e#itimate y restricts freedom" disres!ects !eo! e by assumin# there are !re3udiced" and so on. This ar#ument is uti itarian. It is !ossib e that there are deonto o#ica reasons to o!!ose affirmati%e action. Co-$arable !orth We think eDua $ork and merit deser%es eDua !ay" but many $omen don5t a $ays #et eDua !ay as men Ke%en for the same 3ob &ibid. &<o$e%er" bein# in a minority #rou! a ready !re%ents !eo! e from bein# eDua s and affirmati%e action he !s counterba ance the ad%anta#es en3oyed by $hite men. It5s unfair that certain minorities are tra!!ed into $orse 3obs than $hite men and it $ou d take hundreds of years to chan#e that situation $ithout affirmati%e action.' . 8 federa 3ud#e found the hos!ita #ui ty of se6 discrimination &331-332'. &<o$e%er" affirmati%e action can make !eo! e racia y conscious and $hite men can resent minorities $ho #et #ood 3obs by assumin# that it $as because of a form of re%erse-racism.' 3.paying. +uch $omen dominated !rofessions &ca ed ?!ink co arA occu!ations' often !ay ** .' I be ie%e that the o!!osition to affirmati%e action tends to re y on the assum!tion that affirmati%e action doesn5t he ! !re%ent actua discrimination that e6ists ri#ht no$ des!ite e%idence that discrimination is $ides!read. 9A$$irmative action in'ures white men and violates their rights: &ibid. Hor e6am! e" Rouise 9eterson" a fema e nurse" sued Western +tate <os!ita because she $as !aid Y1*2 a month ess than ma e nurses $ho had simi ar $ork and !ay.' 3. &<o$e%er" $hite men ha%e more ad%anta#es than other #rou!s and affirmati%e action can he ! !ro%ide a better ba ance of ad%anta#es by takin# minority #rou!s into consideration.' 2. If it5s $ron# to treat !eo! e uneDua y" then it5s a so $ron# to treat them uneDua y to #i%e minorities an ad%anta#e o%er $hites. &<o$e%er" its !re3udiced to assume that on y minorities suffer from unfair hardshi!s $hen many $hites ha%e a so had to do so. 9A$$irmative action is necessary to brea& the cycle that &eeps minorities and women loc&ed into low. 8ffirmati%e action doesn5t treat !eo! e as indi%idua s and can harm $hite men $ho mi#ht not en3oy ad%anta#es that are en3oyed by minorities 3ust because they are minorities. The #rou! you be on# to is irre e%ant to your Dua ifications and !eo! e shou d be treated as indi%idua s $ith uniDue Dua ifications instead. &<o$e%er" a$suits are not a $ays successfu " not e%eryone $ants to sue their &!otentia ' em! oyer" and it5s e6treme y difficu t to !ro%e non-e#re#ious and non-b atant forms of discrimination. low. . 9+ondiscrimination will achieve our social goalsD stronger a$$irmative action is unnecessary: &331' . +o far affirmati%e action seems to be the on y so ution to that issue" but certain y more research cou d he ! us decide on $hether or not it is effecti%e.' Arguments against a$$irmative action 1. 9A$$irmative action itsel$ violates the principle o$ e!uality: &330-331' . 8dditiona y" many $omen #et !aid ess than men because they $ork in a 3ob that $as traditiona y #i%en to men.<is!anics" and other minority #rou!s are sti disad%anta#ed because of !ast discrimination" and affirmati%e action can he ! them rise abo%e disad%anta#es that they sti suffer from.

Hor e6am! e" ?SsTe6ua innuedosM eerin# or o# in# at a $omanM se6ist remarks about $omen5s bodies" c othin#" or se6ua acti%itiesM the !ostin# of !ictures of nude $omenM and unnecessary touchin#" !attin#" or other !hysica conduct can a constitute harassmentA &33='. +e6ua harassment can in%o %e !otentia !unishments and re$ards for the %ictim.A Cther e6am! es of se6ua harassment can inc ude un$e come se6ua reDuests" un$e come touchin#" and un$e come se6ua comments. C!!onents of the com!arab e $orth !rinci! e often fa%or the free market and don5t think the #o%ernment shou d re#u ate the amount com!anies !ay for a 3ob. 8fter a " it mi#ht be that $omen free y chose to $ork in !rofessions that !ay ess kno$in# fu $e that better !ayin# 3obs are a%ai ab e. It a so seems reasonab e to demand that #o%ernment 3obs !ay $omen eDua y to men for com!arab e $ork and Dua ifications across !rofessions because there is no reason for the #o%ernment to fa%or $hite ma e dominated !rofessions o%er !rofessions dominated by minorities other than b atant and disres!ectfu discrimination. It seems reasonab e to demand that the com!arab e $orth !rinci! e shou d be used by or#ani7ations to make sure that $hite men and minorities are !aid eDua y for the same 3obs" eDua $ork" and eDua Dua ifications.. <o$e%er" ?SeT%en se6ua offers $ithout hint of reta iation ScanT chan#e the em! oyee5s $ork en%ironment in an undesirab e $ayA &ibid. *e(ual harass-ent +e6ua harassmentKun$e come se6ua beha%ior in the $ork! aceKis mere y one i e#a form of harassment" and $orkers shou d not be harassed on the 3ob. 9erha!s the most ob%ious e6am! e of se6ua harassment is $hen a mana#er te s an em! oyee to ?s ee! $ith me or e se you5re fired.'. Qet e#a secretaries" $ho are a most a $omen" earn an a%era#e of Y*"132 ess than instrument-re!air technicians" $ho are #enera y menA &332'. But most $omen continue to choose traditiona " rather than non-traditiona 3obs. 8d%ocates of the ?com!arab e $orth !rinci! eA ar#ue that !eo! e shou d be !aid the same amount for the same sort of $ork and Dua ificationsK?e%en if discriminatory 3ob markets $ou d other$ise !ut them on different !ay sca esA &ibid. ?Hor e6am! e" studies ha%e sho$n that e#a secretaries and instrument-re!air technicians ho d 3obs $ith the same re ati%e %a ue for a com!any in terms of accountabi ity" kno$-ho$" and !rob em-so %in# ski . (oreo%er" I $ou d ike to !oint out that some 3obs $ith such ?discriminatory !ayA cou d be for the #o%ernment rather than in the free market.'. Go%ernment 3obs don5t re%o %e around the ?free market"A so it can5t account for #o%ernmenta discrimination. 100 . This is their o$n free choice. It seems ike b atant discrimination not to do so.. +e6ua harassment" ho$e%er" is often discriminatory in that it main y tar#ets $omen because they are $omen &331'. Cne o!!onent !oints out that ?SfTor t$o decades at east $omen ha%e been free to #o into any occu!ation. Eobody makes them do itA &332'.si#nificant y ess than 3obs traditiona y dominated by men des!ite reDuirin# com!arab e $ork and Dua ifications. (inorities mi#ht ?free y chooseA to $ork for a discriminatory com!any on y because a most e%ery com!any is discriminatory and fe$ to no better o!!ortunities e6ist. It seems ike a b atant e6am! e of discrimination $hen the #o%ernment !ays $omen ess than men des!ite doin# com!arab e $ork and ha%in# com!arab e Dua ifications. This certain y seems disres!ectfu to minorities.

The beha%ior can be documented $ith e%ery case of it bein# s!ecifica y noted. 3. +e6ua harassment is often harmfu to both the &a' %ictim and &b' or#ani7ation: 1. Re#a action is often but not a $ays a%ai ab e a#ainst com!anies that discriminate. 2.The difference bet$een harm ess se6ua beha%ior &f irtin#" se6ua ad%ances" and se6-re ated humor' and se6ua harassment is not a $ays c ear" and it mi#ht be im!ossib e or e%en undesirab e to ban a se6ua ity found in the $ork! ace &33-'. Hor e6am! e" %ictims re!orted fee in# fear" insecurity" and mistrustM as $e as !hysica sym!toms" such as headaches" stomach aches" and s ee! de!ri%ation. 101 . It can be made e6! icit y c ear that the se6ua beha%ior is un$anted. The fo o$in# ste!s can be taken &ibid. Eot a forms of irrationa discrimination are i e#a and com!anies shou d do $hate%er is necessary to be im!artia $hen makin# decisions that can harm or benefit em! oyees and a!! icants. 8ffirmati%e action can he ! minorities by !re%entin# discrimination a#ainst them or to attem!t to he ! them o%ercome obstac es that they face due to !ast discrimination" but it5s not c ear that affirmati%e action is a mora y !referab e o!tion. 8 2002 study said that there5s stron# e%idence that $omen $ho defy #ender stereoty!es and ha%e ?mascu ineA Dua ities are more ike y to face se6ua harassment. The !sycho o#ica distress caused by se6ua harassment is %ery rea . If the beha%ior continues or is serious" then a su!er%isor shou d be notified and any other officia !o icy of the com!any can be fo o$ed. +e6ua harassment is $ides!read. Women $ere found to find se6ua harassment distressin# $hen it $as fri#htin# rather than bothersomeM but men found it distressin# either $ay. (en are not necessari y se6ua y attracted to $omen they se6ua y harass and often fee that their mascu inity is threatened. 8 200= study by the [ueenUs +choo of Business found that un$anted se6ua attention makes entire $ork teams ess efficient and can ead to team conf ict. (oreo%er" discrimination is $ides!read. Conclusion Job discrimination is i e#a " it5s often a#ainst the com!any5s best interest" and it5s immora . 1. The study found that many !eo! e e6!erience se6ua harassment as bothersome or fri#htin#. 2. T$o 1**> studies conducted by the )uro!ean 0nion &9BH' found that se6ua harassment cou d ead to ?se%ere distressA and cause ne#ati%e effects on the %ictim5s hea th. +e6ua harassment is not on y disres!ectfu and not on y coerci%e" but it has measurab e effects.': 1. If the com!any refuses to sto! the se6ua harassment" then it can be sued. 8 2011 study by (ichi#an +tate 0ni%ersity found that o%er =0X of $omen and a most 20X of men had at east one incident of se6ua harassment $ithin a year. +e6ua harassment is $ron# for the same reason as discrimination and because it5s a harmfu form of harassment. It is ad%isab e for !eo! e to try to make it c ear that un$anted se6ua beha%ior is un$anted" and if the un$anted se6ua beha%ior becomes distressin#" to e%en take ste!s to sto! the se6ua harassment.

102 . Hina y" se6ua harassment in !articu ar %io ates the ri#ht to nonin3ury acce!ted by a theories of 3ustice and causes measurab e harm.Cne form of discrimination seems to be unfair $a#e differences and the ?!rinci! e of com!arab e $orthA mi#ht be necessary to combat such discriminatory !ractices.

The res$onsibilities of business to consu-ers Businesses ha%e at east the fo o$in# t$o #enera ethica duties to consumers" accordin# to any theory of 3ustice or mora ity that reco#ni7es &a' that contractua re ationshi!s #i%e us ob i#ations and &b' that $e ha%e a ri#ht to non-in3ury: 1.Part I3: 6usiness and *ociety Chapter 1%: Co&s/mers There are many mora issues in the business $or d re e%ant to consumers. This discussion is ar#e y based on cha!ter ten of Business )thics &Third )dition" 1***' by Wi iam +ha$.onsumers need $ays to be informed about the !roducts and ser%ices they buy $ithout becomin# e6!erts" or $e ha%e no reason to e6!ect free trade to ead to a !ros!erous society. Hor e6am! e" $hen $e buy a TF set $e e6!ect &i' to #et the TF set" &ii' that the TF set $i function" &iii' that the TF set has minima y sufficient Dua ity" and &i%' that the TF set $i not harm us $hen used in ordinary $ays. Cne !o!u ar ar#ument for a free market that a o$s trade unrestricted by a #o%ernment is the ?in%isib e hand ar#umentAKthat free trade bet$een rationa se f-interested and !rofit-seekin# indi%idua s eads to com!etition" and a !roducti%e and f ourishin# society. <o$e%er" this im! ies that consumers are rationa and informed and yet consumers tend to kno$ %ery itt e about the !roducts they buy despite requiring them. 9roducts and ser%ices are no$ often created by e6!erts $ho ha%e s!ent years $ithin a s!ecia i7ed fie d. The facts that &1' consumers are no on#er $e -informed and &2' consumers are no on#er se fsufficient both ha%e bearin# on the im!ortance of business ethics re#ardin# consumers: Hirst" at one !oint in time consumers mi#ht ha%e been ab e to assess the Dua ity of !roducts and ser%ices they bou#ht on their o$n" but that is no on#er the case &3=1'. This makes it %ery im!ortant for com!anies to be honest $ith consumers $ho can no on#er kno$ on their o$n if the !roduct or 103 . Hor that reason it seems !referab e for com!anies to be o!en and honest about the !roducts and ser%ices they se . In !articu ar" businesses ha%e mora duties to consumers and some actions taken in business are mora y !referab e that ha%e an im!act on consumers. 9eo! e shou d not be decei%ed about $hat they are buyin#. Businesses must #i%e us $hat $e !ay for. Businesses must not harm anyone" inc udin# consumers.A +ome mora decisions are mora y fa%orab e and some are mora y unfa%orab e. Cne !erson is ob i#ated to #i%e one thin# in e6chan#e for another. Whene%er $e trade" $e are e6chan#in# #oods and ser%ices $ithin an im! icit or e6! icit contract. 2. Hor e6am! e" uti itarians $i ar#ue that a business ou#ht to he ! !eo! e f ourish and i%e better i%es" e%en thou#h itUs not necessari y ob i#ated to do so. 8dditiona y" businesses can make mora decisions that are not necessari y ?ethica duties. . I $i discuss &a' the res!onsibi ities of business to consumers" &b' !roduct safety" and &c' ad%ertisin#.

ItUs a #ood source of moti%ation for com!anies to take e%ery !recaution !ossib e because any harm a defecti%e !roduct causes can cost them a ot of money from e#a batt es &3=-'. Product safety 9roduct safety is an ethica ob i#ation insofar as com!anies ha%e a duty to !ro%ide consumers $ith $hate%er it is they !ay for and !roducts are assumed to be safe for ordinary use. Hor e6am! e" dru#s often ha%e harmfu side effects &inc udin# death' and many chi drenUs toys contain harmfu chemica s such as ead. )%ery year mi ions of 8mericans reDuire medica treatment from !roduct-re ated accidentsA &3=1'.the doctrine of ?due careA $as based on the assum!tion that &a' com!anies $ere innocent unti !ro%en #ui ty and &b' that manufacturers arenUt res!onsib e for harmin# consumers after takin# sufficient !recautions &3=='. This #i%es consumers itt e choice but to trust the honesty and #ood intentions of com!anies" and makes it e%en more im!ortant that com!anies ook out for the best interest of their customers. Takin# some !recautions is no e6cuse for a defecti%e !roduct because more !recautions can often sti be taken.andmark court case MacPherson v% . )he legal liability o$ manu$acturers We ori#ina y had a e#a doctrine of ?caveat emptorAK? et the buyer be$areA because consumers $ere e6!ected to kno$ if the !roducts they !urchased $ere of sufficient Dua ity &3=='. It $as the customerUs 3ob to !ro%e that the manufacturer had been negligent2 but it can be %ery difficu t to !ro%e that a com!any is ne# i#ent and !roducts cou d be %ery dan#erous e%en $hen many !recautions are taken. The 3ustification for strict iabi ity is uti itarian. Protecting the public 101 .uick Motor 0ar embraced the %ie$ that manufacturers cou d be sued rather than merely sellers" and it marked a chan#e in a$ $here manufacturers $ere seen as ha%in# a duty to$ards customers des!ite not a $ays ha%in# a direct contractua re ationshi! $ith them &ibid.'. This duty is $hat can be described as bein# based on ?due care"A the %ie$ that ?consumerUs interests are !articu ar y %u nerab e to bein# harmed by the manufacturer" $ho has kno$ ed#e and e6!ertise the consumer does not ha%eA &3=13=='. 9eo! e are increasin# y de!endent on the #oods and ser%ices that reDuire the machines" resources" and e6!ertise of others. +econd" at one !oint in time consumers mi#ht ha%e been ab e to refuse to buy !roducts and ser%ices $ithout !ena ty &3=3-3=1'. In 1*1.ser%ice they buy is of sufficient Dua ity or e%en has the function they consider buyin# it for. <o$e%er" that is no on#er the case. <o$e%er" $e no$ use the e#a doctrine of ?strict iabi ityA and com!anies are no$ iab e e%en $hen they take !recautions" so consumers no on#er ha%e to !ro%e ne# i#ence. This doctrine $as e%entua y !hased out" $hich $as c ear y seen after the 1*1. Eonethe ess" ?statistics indicate that the faith consumers must ! ace in manufacturers is often mis! aced. +trict iabi ity isnUt abso ute iabi ity because the !roduct must be ?defecti%eA and consumers must use caution. .om!anies ha%e a duty to ha%e safe !roducts and takin# !recautions can no on#er #et them off the hook &ibid. +uch !eo! e cou d be se f-sufficient and farm a the food they need to sur%i%e on their o$n.'.

onsumer 9roduct +afety . Hirst" $e ha%e to e6!and the #o%ernment and hire more #o%ernment officia s. Go%ernment re#u ation o%er manufacturin# safety standards is often a form of legal paternalismK treatin# the #o%ernment as a !rotecti%e !arent &3=2'. ?STThe federa #o%ernment de ayed the reDuirement to eDui! cars $ith air ba#s or automatic seat be ts.ommission. <o$e%er" some safety standards on y !rotect consumers $ho o$n the !roducts.'. Hor e6am! e" the auto industry !referred to ha%e o$ safety and !o ution re#u ation for cars and fou#ht a#ainst e#is ation for stricter standards.' 10= .' <o$e%er" +ha$ ar#ues that &a' consumers are not fu y rationa and informed" and &b' $e ha%e to ba ance the %a ue of freedom a#ainst the %a ue of safety &ibid. 9aterna ism cou d be 3ustified on the #rounds that &i' com!anies $ou d be disres!ectfu to e6! oit our i#norance" &ii' com!anies $ou d be res!ectfu to #i%e us !roducts that are safe to use $hen !ossib e" and &iii' it $i ead to the ?#reatest #oodA insofar as safety is a %ita !art of our $e bein#. +econd" hi#h safety standards are often e6!ensi%e for both manufacturers and consumers &ibid. . 8 thou#h it mi#ht sound ike a #ood idea for the #o%ernment to !rotect consumers" it comes at a cost. 8bbott Raboratories" the maker of cyc amate" found ?com!e in# e%idence of the HB8Us abuse of both re#u atory !rocess and scientific method" as $e as a massi%e attem!t at a co%er u!A that ed to the ban des!ite the fact that cyc amate $as !ro%en to be safe &3=>'. The o$er standards en3oyed by car com!anies mi#ht ha%e sa%ed the them money" but they cost the !ub ic i%es" sufferin#" and hi#h medica bi s. There mi#ht be ess !eo! e $ho can afford to buy cars because they can on y afford cars $ithout the added cost of hi#h safety standards.'. +afety re#u ations can raise !rices for consumers and they can !re%ent consumers from buyin# ess safe #oods at a reduced !rice &3=2'. ?The fi%e-member commission sets standards for !roducts" bans !roducts !resentin# undue risk of in3ury" and in #enera !o ices the entire consumer-!roduct marketin# !rocess from manufacture to fina sa eA &ibid.'.'. (any !eo! e assume that !aterna ism is tota y un3ustified because !eo! e ha%e a ri#ht to i%e their o$n i%es and kno$ ho$ to !rotect their o$n interests better than anyone e se &ibid. Hor e6am! e" the Hood and Bru# 8dministration &HB8' banned cyc amate" a s$eetener !erha!s because of Duestionab e reasons. Eonethe ess the HB8 ?commissioner conceded that cyc amate $as safe but $ou d remain banned for !o itica reasonsA &ibid.ars need to be safe enou#h to !re%ent car accidents because $e donUt ha%e the ri#ht to harm &or endan#er' other !eo! e. Hor e6am! e" ?StThe cost to 9anasonic to reca and re!air 2>0"000 te e%ision sets" as ordered by the commission because of harmfu radiation emission" $as !robab y eDua to the com!anyUs !rofits in the 0nited +tates for se%era yearsA &ibid.'. Hor e6am! e" cars are no$ e#a y reDuired to be made $ith safety be ts" but such a e#a reDuirement is !aterna istic because it is tryin# to !rotect !eo! e from themse %es by disa o$in# them to risk their o$n safety. 4no$ ed#e of safety often reDuires e6!ertise that most of us ack" so it seems ! ausib e that !eo! e donUt understand $hen a !roduct is sufficient y safe. 8 thou#h some !eo! e ha%e ar#ued that the #o%ernment shou d et com!anies re#u ate themse %es" thereUs e%idence that thereUs often a #ood reason for the #o%ernment to ste! in because com!anies often refuse to acce!t sufficient safety standards on their o$n &3=*'.The #o%ernment re#u ates !roduct safety of manufacturin# industries usin# %arious a#encies" such as the . >ow e$$ective is regulation% Go%ernment re#u ation is often effecti%e" but not a $ays. But the !rice !aid by consumers has been hi#h: 9assi%e restraints reduce hi#h$ay deaths by 3"000 a year and in3uries by tens of thousandsA &ibid. )ach year of the de ay sa%ed the industry Y30 mi ion.

Hor e6am! e" ad%ertisers shou dnUt sho$ !eo! e dri%in# cars $hi e usin# their !hones to send te6t messa#es. 9roducts that cause serious in3uries often are the !roducts that need the hi#hest safety standards. Third" if !roducts are continua y bein# misused" there mi#ht be $ays to make misuse ess dan#erous. ?5ompanies should investigate consumer complaints: &ibid. . The fo o$in# si6 ste!s shou d be taken by manufacturers to assure consumers that safety standards are sufficient y hi#h: 1. 2. companies should have their product.onsumers are a #ood source of !roduct safety testin# that can #o beyond a com!anyUs e6!ectations" and com! aints can be a #ood source of information concernin# safety standards and misuse of !roducts.)he responsibilities o$ business 8s noted ear ier" businesses are reDuired to #i%e us sufficient y safe !roducts $hether they are re#u ated or not. -. ?Business must monitor the manu$acturing process itsel$: &3-1' .om!anies shou dnUt dismiss safety standards $hene%er they $ou d cost the com!any money. Product !uality When a !roduct is !urchased" customers arenUt usua y 3ust buyin# an unkno$n ob3ectKthey are 10- . 1. 8d%ertisements and !roduct ima#es can ha%e an im!act on ho$ a !roduct is used and irres!onsib e ad%ertisin# and !roduct ima#es can encoura#e !eo! e to use the !roduct in unsafe $ays. This is $hy many !roducts ha%e a $arnin# abe . =. 3. There are often !roduct defects from mismana#ed manufacturin# !rocesses" and com!anies must o%ersee that !eo! e makin# the !roducts are Dua ified and !redict !ossib e !rob ems in the manufacturin# !rocess and $ays to identify $hen such !rob ems occur. +econd" some consumers are harmed e%en $hen they use !roducts a!!ro!riate y. +afety standards are a reDuirement other than !rofit. The seriousness and freDuency that a !roduct causes harm determines ho$ im!ortant safety standards are. ?Business should give sa$ety the priority warranted by the product: &3-0' . ?When a product is ready to be mar&eted.' . ?Businesses should abandon the misconception that accidents occur e. . $irms should ma&e available to consumers written in$ormation about the productEs per$ormance: &3-2' .clusively as a result o$ product misuse and that it is thereby absolved o$ all responsibility: &3-0-3-1' . To !re%ent the misuse of !roducts" information about !ro!er and im!ro!er use of a !roduct shou d be c ear y e6! ained and a%ai ab e to the !ub ic. In this section +ha$ discusses !roduct Dua ity" !ricin#" and !acka#in# and abe in#. Hirst" consumers shou d be educated about the !ro!er use of !roducts that can cause harm. +ometimes other com!anies shou d be hired to assure that the testin# !rocess is unbiased.sa$ety sta$$ review their mar&et strategy and advertising $or potential sa$ety problems: &3-1--2' . ?When a product reaches the mar&etplace. 8dditiona y" !roducts shou d be ri#orous y tested to make sure they are adeDuate y safe. 8ther areas of business res$onsibility 9roduct safety mi#ht be the most im!ortant concern of consumers considerin# that itUs often a matter of ife and death" but itUs not the on y concern of consumers.

9roducts must either conform to reasonab e customer e6!ectations or to the e6! icit c aims made about it.' =. 8 broken TF set shou dnUt be so d as a ?re#u ar TF set. (any !roducts are so d $ith a #uaranteed e%e of Dua ity" $hich is kno$n as a warranty. There are e6!ress and im! ied $arranties.'. ) ectronic scanners used to char#e customers often ha%e errors and char#e customers more money than the item $as su!!osed to cost &ibid.om!anies often ha%e !romotions for sa es" but on y one or t$o !roducts are marked for sa e and the !romotion $as 3ust a ure to #et customers into the store. 8ny sa e $ithout an e6!ress $arranty has an im! ied one" $hich is that the !roduct $i ha%e the adeDuate Dua ity needed to be used for ordinary use. +ometimes stores en#a#e in !rice fi6in# and se !roducts for inf ated !rices by refusin# to do business $ith manufacturers $ho se the same !roducts to com!etin# stores that are $i in# to se the same !roduct for ess. )ither $ay" it seems to be mora y !referab e considerin# that !sycho o#ica mani!u ation can harm !eo! e and encoura#e irrationa choices to be made. +ometimes simi ar !roducts se more often if they are a%ai ab e at different !rices. )6!ress $arranties are e6! icit y #i%en" but im! ied $arranties arenUt. Hor e6am! e" somethin# cou d be so d for Y1*.A It shou d be c ear that itUs broken. 9rices can be raised in the ho!es to se more !roducts because sometimes !eo! e $i be $i in# to buy somethin# if the !rice is hi#hK!erha!s $ith the assum!tion that it has a hi#her Dua ity &ibid.ing . Prices 9ricin# !ractices are often meant to ?mani!u ate !eo! e.'. 9rices are often hi#her than they a!!ear due to ?hidden feesA &ibid.'. 9rice ta#s often ha%e ** cents inc uded because many !eo! e donUt think of it as a do ar.'.** instead of Y20 &3-='. . 3. 9rices are often raised by reducin# Dua ity or Duantity &ibid. -.usua y buyin# an item of sufficient Dua ity that !erforms a certain e6!ected function &3-3'.A .'. 2. +ometimes these ori#ina y hi#h %a ues are the retai !rices su##ested by the manufacturer &3-='. +ometimes !roducts arenUt abe ed $ith a !rice ta# to make it more difficu t for customers to com!are !rices &ibid. This can #i%e the i usion that the !roducts are of %aryin# Dua ities" $hen they mi#ht ha%e near y identica Dua ity &ibid. Hor e6am! e" the manufacturer can !romise that a TF set $i ast for t$o years $ithout needin# any re!airs. It is certain y more res!ectfu to customers to do business $ithout !sycho o#ica mani!u ation" but itUs not c ear if businesses are obligated to do business $ithout such mani!u ation. Hor e6am! e" a container of !eanuts can stay the same si7e but contain ess. Price $i. When dea in# $ith the $e bein# of !eo! e" itUs better to be safe than sorry. 1. We tend not to ha%e adeDuate time to test an item before buyin# it" and $e tend to ack the e6!ertise reDuired to kno$ its Dua ity. This is es!ecia y im!ortant no$ that the Dua ity of many !roducts canUt be assessed Duick y or $ithout adeDuate e6!ertise. >. 9rices can start at artificia y hi#h %a ues so that they can be ?on sa eA and a!!ear to be a better dea than they rea y are &3--'. Cther times manufacturers reDuire stores to se their !roducts for the 102 .onsider the fo o$in#: 1. 2. *.

retai %a ue or they $i refuse to do business $ith the stores in the future. +uch industries are sti more ike y to be run by ar#e businesses rather than se%era sma ones. 8 thou#h $e ike o$ !rices" !redatory !ricin# is the use of such o$ !rices that itt e to no !rofit is made. Germany forbids a ?be o$ cost !ricin#A as a form of !redatory !ricin#. 2. If a !rice is so hi#h that it seems disres!ectfu " then $e ha%e a reason to find it immora on deonto o#ica #rounds. +ometimes an entire industry can refuse to be com!etiti%e and can kee! !rices hi#h &3-2'. +ha$ doesnUt discuss !redatory !ricin#" but itUs somethin# $orth thinkin# about. To identify !redatory !ricin#" consider the fo o$in#: 1.'. Hor e6am! e" itUs not ob%ious if itUs immora to raise the !rice of umbre as durin# a rainy season or the !rice of sno$ sho%e s after it starts sno$in# &ibid. <o$e%er" itUs not a $ays mono!o ies that en#a#e in !rice fi6in#. Ba ton and Rouis )s!osito ar#ue that there $as considerab e e%idence that +tandard Ci en#a#ed in !redatory !ricin# from 1>*2 to 1>*1 &200-" 9BH'" and in 2003 Germany found Wa -(art #ui ty of !redatory !ricin# &due to the sim! e fact that Wa -(art $as en#a#in# in ?be o$ cost !ricin#. If a com!any is se in# somethin# for itt e to no !rofit and itUs not a !romotion" then it cou d be a form of !redatory !ricin#. )ither $ay" !rice fi6in# is i e#a and !robab y immora #i%en that the ?free marketA reDuires su!! y and demand to determine the %a ue of !roducts &3--'.'A ?Be o$ cost !ricin#A is the !ractice of char#in# ess for a !roduct than the cost. Predatory pricing . 9rice fi6in# is often a sort of !rice #ou#in#Kchar#in# too much for a !roduct" but there cou d be other reasons for !rice #ou#in# and itUs not entire y c ear $hen hi#h !rices are e6am! es of !rice #ou#in#.'. 9redatory !ricin# is an unfair tactic that undermines the free market. It is su##ested that ar#e com!anies can en#a#e in !redatory !ricin# to harm the com!etition because ar#e com!anies can afford not to make any !rofit for Duite some time $hi e other com!anies canUt. Is the com!any se in# somethin# for itt e to no !rofit@ If not" itUs not !redatory !ricin#. Is it an unusua !romotion@ If itUs a !romotion" then the com!any mi#ht 3ust be tryin# to #et some customers into the store. 9rice #ou#in# raises the Duestion" ?WhatUs a fair !rice@A This is not an easy Duestion to ans$er and seems re ated to the costs of !roducin# a !roduct and the !rofits bein# made for it &ibid. In fact" !rice fi6in# is usua y on y used by mono!o iesKcom!anies that ack com!etition. +ometimes o$ !rices are sti !rofitab e enou#h for a ar#e com!any $hen it $ou dnUt be sufficient y !rofitab e for sma businesses. )%en if be o$ cost !ricin# isnUt meant to destroy the com!etition" it cou d sti do so. +ome !eo! e ha%e ar#ued that !redatory !ricin# ne%er ha!!ens and. 8s noted abo%e" many sma businesses canUt afford to com!ete 10> . If the !roduct $as bein# so d for too much" then a com!etitor cou d se the same !roduct for essM but there is no concern for such com!etition $hen there isnUt any. If a !rice is so hi#h that it ends u! hurtin# !eo! e that $ou dnUt be harmed if !rices $ere o$er" then itUs mora y !referab e that the !rice shou d be o$er on uti itarian #rounds.or is irrationa " but there is #ametheoretic e%idence that it is rationa " James 8. Price gouging .

ThereUs a so the Duestion of mani!u ati%e and uninformati%e ad%ertisin#. Bes!ite a customerUs ri#ht to kno$ $hat they are buyin#" com!anies often ie or !refer for their !roducts to remain a mystery. Fa#ue or ambi#uous $ords" ike ?a natura A and ?**X fat freeA are often mis eadin#.$ith e6treme y o$ !rices and ?be o$ cost !ricin#A $ou d certain y be inc uded in that. .ustomers mi#ht not $ant a !roduct if they find out itUs unsafe or unhea thy" such as tobacco. Hor e6am! e" in 200> 9ure y Juice so d 3uice abe ed as ?100X !ome#ranate 3uiceA that contained most y $ater and hi#h fructose corn syru! &su#ar'. ItUs a form of re$ardin# the $ea thy for bein# $ea thy. I a ready mentioned that safety information and $arnin#s shou d be inc uded $ith a !roduct" and in many cases such information shou d be on the !acka#e. 8d%ertisin# is mora y re e%ant not on y because some com!anies ad%ertise" but a so because $e are saturated by it. )6treme y o$ !rices are #enera y not seen as bein# immora " but hi#h y efficient and !o$erfu cor!orations can end u! !uttin# sma com!anies out of business $hen they can kee! !rices o$" and some !eo! e think thereUs %a ue to be found in sma businesses that canUt be found in ar#e cor!orations.ustomers ha%e a ri#ht to kno$ $hat the !roducts are that they !urchase" and abe s and !acka#in# are the customerUs ?!rimary source of !roduct informationA &3->'. 8nother e6am! e is Taco Be " $hich has been char#ed $ith mis eadin# customers by ad%ertisin# the use of ?100X beefA $hen the meat substance is on y !artia y beef. 8rsenic is a natura " and 2X mi k contains 3=X fat in terms of ca ories. =ece$tion and unfairness in advertisin" The #oa of ad%ertisin# tends to be to !ersuade !eo! e to buy a !roduct rather than to con%ey information &320'. It seems a bit unfair to #i%e $ea thy and !o$erfu cor!orations a hu#e discount 3ust because they can afford to buy more #oods.' 9acka#in# can a so be mis eadin# by usin# ar#e !acka#es fu of air or o!tica i usions &3-*'. . ItUs not entire y c ear that be o$ cost !ricin# is a $ays immora " but there cou d be uti itarian considerations a#ainst it that cou d be used to 3ustify e#is ation a#ainst it. In 2010 around Y12= $as s!ent on each 10* . &ItUs 2X fat by $ei#ht. The most im!ortant mora issue in%o %in# !acka#in# is mis eadin# !acka#in#. 9acka#in# must not be mis eadin# because &a' itUs im!ortant for consumers to kno$ $hat they are buyin# for the transaction to be e#itimate and &b' itUs disres!ectfu to try to mani!u ate !eo! e. Ha se ad%ertisin# is on y one form of mora y Duestionab e ad%ertisin#. In e#re#ious cases" abe s can be used as fa se ad%ertisin#. Back in 1*** Wi iam +ha$ stated that com!anies s!end so much on ad%ertisin# that around Y=00 is s!ent for each !erson annua y in the 0+ &3-*'.erea bo6es ook ar#er $hen they are ta and narro$ rather than bo6-sha!ed" and sham!oo bott es often ha%e a !inched $aist to ook ar#er than they rea y are. +ometimes cor!orate efficiency is itt e more than bein# ar#e enou#h to #et discounts based on %o umeKcom!anies that can afford to buy enou#h from manufacturers can buy them for o$er costs. "abeling and pac&aging .

Hor e6am! e" ? ike"A ?%irtua A or ?%irtua y"A ?can be"A and ?u! to"A and ?as much as. Bece!ti%e ad%ertisin# usua y makes use of ambi#uity and %a#ueness" concea ed facts" e6a##eration" and !sycho o#ica a!!ea s. Psychological appeals . (any ad%ertisements seem to !romise or im! y a !ossib e connection bet$een a !roduct and a #ood fami y" a #ood se6 ife" intimate friendshi!s" and ha!!iness.aggeration .ensus Bureau. .oca-. 0sua y this is im! ied by sho$in# fami y" friends" and o%ers en3oyin# their intimate time to#ether $ith the !roduct.!erson for ad%ertisin# in the 0+. +ha$ ar#ues that +ara ReeUs ?Ri#ht . To say that 2X mi k contains 2X fat is ambi#uous because it cou d be 2X by $ei#ht" %o ume" or ca oriesM and the com!any $i use $hate%er criteria is most con%enient. 8ttem!ts to decei%e !eo! e throu#h !oor reasonin# or emotiona a!!ea s are deceitfu forms of !sycho o#ica a!!ea s. )6a##eration can be nothin# ess than fa se information" but it can a so be a form of !uffery.'. To say that a !roduct is ?hea thyA is %a#ue because it mi#ht be hea thy in moderation or mere y hea thier than some other !roduct on the market. The main !ur!ose of !uffery is to a!!ea to our emotions rather than reason" and it cou d be considered to be an ina!!ro!riate ?!sycho o#ica a!!ea A des!ite bein# re ati%e y harm ess rather than deceitfu .o a on youtube that = 8ccordin# to 4antar (edia" Y131 bi ion $as s!ent on ad%ertisin# in 2010" and the 0+ !o!u ation $as 30> mi ion" accordin# to the 0+ . 9uffery is the use of ?harm ess su!er ati%es"A ike $hen a com!any describes their !roduct as the ?kin# of beersA &ibid. 5oncealed $acts . Hor e6am! e" a coho ic !roducts ad%ertised on te e%ision donUt mention that a coho is addicti%e. 8 so" consider a b atant e6am! e of ad%ertisin# by .'.A The statement ?up to =0X fat freeA is a most meanin# ess because it mi#ht not be fat free at a . 110 . When Eabisco c aimed that itUs bran cerea $as ?f a%ored $ith t$o natura y s$eet fruit 3uicesA it e6a##erated its use of hea thy s$eeteners because it fai ed to mention that it most y uses su#ar and on y trace amounts of fruit 3uice &323'. Hor e6am! e" ?8merican <ome 9roducts $as ad%ertisin# its 8nacin-3 by c aimin# that Vhos!ita s recommended acetamino!hen" the as!irin-free !ain re ie%er in 8nacin-3" more than any other !ain re ie%erUK$ithout te in# consumers that the acetamino!hen hos!ita s recommend is" in fact" Ty eno A &ibid. 8d%ertisers su!!ress information that customers shou d kno$ about.= 1eceptive techni!ues Ha se ad%ertisin# is the most e#re#ious form of dece!ti%e ad%ertisin#" and not a dece!ti%e ad%ertisin# is b atant. +ha$Us main !oint is mere y that ad%ertisers use mani!u ati%e an#ua#e and he treats ambi#uity and %a#ueness as eDui%a ent" but they aren3t. +ha$ #i%es e6am! es of ?$ease $ordsA that are intentiona y ambiguous or vague that can easi y be used to decei%e consumers. assicA desserts are !reyin# on ambi#uity because !eo! e tend to think that the $ord ? i#htA refers to the ca ories" but it actua y refers to ?the te6ture of the !roductA &320'. 8 statement is ambi#uous $hen it can be taken t$o different $ays" but a %a#ue statement is $hen itUs not c ear $here to dra$ the ine. Ambiguity and vagueness . +ometimes the su!!ressed information is mere y used to ! ay on the mani!u ati%e an#ua#e used.

Ads directed at children . <o$e%er" others ar#ue that !roducts rare y i%e u! to their !romises of makin# us i%e better i%es" and I !ersona y think it is $ar!ed to %a ue oneUs ife more based on o$nin# !roducts. They $ant to foster ?brand oya tyA because they think their commercia s can !ersuade chi dren to !refer their brand at an ear y a#e that $i continue into adu thood &32>'. 8d%ertisin# shou dnUt con%ince !eo! e that bein# ha!!y is about buyin# ot of stuff" nor shou d it con%ince !eo! e to fee unsatisfied $ith ife $hen they refuse to buy !roducts they donUt need. <istorica y $hen suin# com!anies for fa se ad%ertisin#" it must be sho$n that a reasonab e !erson cou d be decei%ed by the ad%ertisement &ibid. It says" ?8 .ar inUs skit on stuff. +ome !sycho o#ica a!!ea s cou d be at the subconscious e%e and $e mi#ht not e%en be a$are of the effects sub imina ad%ertisin# has on our decision makin# &321-32='. +ome com!anies ad%ertise to chi dren des!ite not $antin# to se to chi dren. 5onsumer needs Theodore Re%itt ar#ued that ad%ertisin# he !s fu fi consumer needs by seein# !roducts as more than mere !roductsKas !art of bein# a ha!!y !erson. That seems ike a b atant distortion of the sorts of %a ues that are a!!ro!riate. &+ee Geor#e .!romises ha!!iness. <o$e%er" many !eo! e donUt think it does enou#h to !rotect consumers" so many !eo! e ha%e sued com!anies for fa se ad%ertisin# and the !unishments for fa se ad%ertisin# ha%e been more harmfu to com!anies than the fines that $ou d be reDuired by the HT. 8d%ertisin# can make us fee more satisfied $ith ife &!erha!s because $e bou#ht many !roducts that #uarantee it'. if it took a more acti%e ro e &32-'. Where $i ha!!iness strike ne6t@A The %ideo sho$s a . (any !eo! e find some ad%ertisin# to be immora based on other factors" and some !eo! e e%en think ad%ertisin# shou d be banned entire y.o a and a ar#e sub$ay sand$ich to hi#h schoo students. <o$e%er" the courts no$ often try to !rotect ess than reasonab e consumers &and ado!t an i#norant-consumer standard' because ha f the !o!u ation has a ess-than-a%era#e abi ity to reason and it doesnUt seem fair to et com!anies mani!u ate ar#e numbers of !eo! e &322'. $as ori#ina y created in 1*11 to combat mono!o ies and unfair business !ractices that harm com!etition" but it has been e6!anded to ?re#u ate dece!ti%e ad%ertisin# and Sfraudu entT commercia !racticesA &32='.' I find that ad%ertisements that mani!u ate us to buy !roducts aren5t 3ust disres!ectfu " but they cou d cause materia ism or consumerismKa su!erficia em!hasis of the im!ortance of o$nin# !roducts at the 111 .'. If ar#e numbers of !eo! e are decei%ed" thatUs enou#h to sho$ that the ad%ertisin# is deceitfu .oca-.oca-.o a %endin# machine is transformed into a ha!!iness machine de i%erin# VdosesU of ha!!iness. This debate re ates to consumer needs" market economics" and free s!eech.hi dren are es!ecia y %u nerab e to dece!ti%e ad%ertisin# because they canUt be e6!ected to be %ery reasonab e.oca-.o a machine that !ro%ides free bott es of . Re%itt says" ?Without distortion" embe ishment" and e aboration\ ife $ou d be drab" du " an#uished" and at its e6istentia $orstA &32*'. )he Federal )rade 5ommissionEs Role The HT. )he debate over advertising ItUs not 3ust dece!ti%e ad%ertisin# that !eo! e dis ike.

(any !eo! e think ad%ertisin# often attem!ts to make us fee inadeDuate $ith our a!!earance in an attem!t to moti%ate us to buy more !roducts that can he ! us ook better. ItUs sim! y a form of fa se ad%ertisin# meant to decei%e the #u ib e. <o$e%er" itUs not ob%ious that ad%ertisin# is rea y !art of ha%in# a free market. . I think there is at east some e%idence that the second o!tion is ri#ht at east some of the timeKthat ad%ertisin# can create desires that didnUt e6ist before. The desire to ose $ei#ht can be harmfu " irrationa " and ?createdA by a cu ture. The ad%ertisement im! ies that the !roduct can satisfy our desires for c ose re ationshi!s $ith others" and tricks us into be ie%in# it. I !ersona y donUt think it matters $hether ad%ertisin# creates ne$ desires or mere y decei%es !eo! e. 2.onsider the fo o$in# e6! anations for $hy ad%ertisin# sho$in# intimate re ationshi!s can be successfu : 1. Hirst" the ?free marketA cou d be 3ustified on uti itarian #rounds $ith the assum!tion that buyers are informed and rationa " but ad%ertisin# rare y has anythin# to do $ith rationa thou#ht or ob3ects that rea y make our i%es better. Hor e6am! e" $e mi#ht a desire !hysica beauty" but #i%in# beauty attention and !raisin# it cou d com! ete y chan#e a !ersonUs !riorities. Hor e6am! e" an ad%ertisement for a !roduct that can reduce dandruff can a so sho$ !eo! e #et u!set about dandruff and it mi#ht mani!u ate !eo! e to dis ike dandruff $ho cared itt e about it beforehand. It corru!ts our ci%i i7ation and misdirects our societyUs economic effort to$ards !ri%ate consum!tion and a$ay from 112 . 9erha!s the ad%ertisement arouses !ositi%e emotions in many !eo! e that they confuse $ith the !roduct" and the ad%ertisement can create a ne$ desire in them that didnUt e6ist before. Hor e6am! e" the 0+ has a !rob em $ith anore6ia because it %a ues thinness and many other ! aces do not suffer from this !rob em. /esearch by /e#an Gurun# and Jennifer Ctto seems to indicate that ad%ertisin# is successfu at makin# men fee inadeDuate $ith their a!!earance" e%en if thatUs not the intention. Third" consumerism encoura#es us to buy !roducts that use the $or dUs resources that can harm the en%ironment and cause !o ution &$hich harms both !eo! e and nonhuman anima s'. +econd" itUs unc ear that ad%ertisin# is necessary for economic #ro$th or benefits !eo! e in #enera . 8d%ertisin# often attem!ts to make !eo! e fee inadeDuate and in need of somethin# that mi#ht ha%e itt e to nothin# to do $ith i%in# a better ife. +econd" consumerism is $astefu because it encoura#es us to $aste our money better used on somethin# e se. Hirst" this in itse f can cause irrationa beha%ior" such as s!endin# too much time sho!!in# rather than doin# somethin# more im!ortant.e6!ense of more im!ortant %a ues. 8s I mentioned ear ier" some !eo! e ar#ue that ?ad%ertisin# in #enera reinforces mind ess consumerism. #ar&et conomics (any !eo! e think that ad%ertisin# is !art of ha%in# a ?free marketA and defend ad%ertisin# usin# the same ar#uments used to ar#ue for ca!ita ism and a ibertarian theory of 3ustice &3>1'. John 4enneth Ga braith ar#ues in The 8ff uent +ociety and The Ee$ Industria +tate that ad%ertisin# can create ne$ desires in !eo! e &3>0'. The ad%ertisement can create a subconscious association bet$een somethin# $e desire &c ose re ationshi!s' and the !roduct" causin# many !eo! e to desire the !roduct e%en if they donUt conscious y be ie%e the association is rea . 8dditiona y" many cu tures see beauty different y and attem!t to satisfy their desire for beauty in different $ays as a resu t.

8 thou#h ad%ertisin# subsidi7es te e%ision to kee! it free" itUs not c ear that itUs #ood for us in the on# run. <o$e%er" thereUs a ot of #ray area. <o$e%er" en%ironmenta issues are sa%ed for +ha$Us fina cha!ter and are discussed in more detai there. ?STThe %ery fact that itUs free resu ts in far more consum!tion than $ou d other$ise be the case and !robab y" as many think" far more than is #ood for usA or anima s due to distorted %a ues" !o ution" dama#e to the en%ironment" time $asted" and so on &ibid. The a$ cou d be chan#ed in the future.the !ub ic rea mA &3>2'. 8 thou#h +ha$Us book is hi#h y com!rehensi%e" he ne# ects to discuss !o ution and en%ironmenta considerations in detai here e%en thou#h such issues are re e%ant to ho$ com!anies treat their customers insofar as en%ironmenta dama#e can harm them. Conclusion Businesses are res!onsib e to their consumers based on the contract im! ied by trade and !otentia harm that can be done to the !ub ic. Free speech and the media +ome businesses ar#ue that ad%ertisin# is a form of free s!eech" and the +u!reme . ItUs not entire y c ear $hen ad%ertisin# is o%er y dece!ti%e or ho$ much harm mani!u ati%e ad%ertisin# does to !eo! e. <o$e%er" it seems reasonab e to think that it is mora y !referab e for com!anies to be honest and re3ect mani!u ati%e !ractices $hene%er itUs unc ear ho$ much harm it cou d cause. ItUs better to be safe than sorry $hen $e are dea in# $ith the $e bein# of !eo! e.'.ourt has u!he d this ar#ument. 8nd e%en if it shou d be" free s!eech is not un imitedK$e donUt ha%e the ri#ht to use free s!eech to si#nificant y harm other !eo! e" and ad%ertisin# mi#ht si#nificant y harm !eo! e in #enera &or !erha!s 3ust s!ecific forms of mani!u ati%e ad%ertisin# are harmfu ' &3>2'. ItUs not entire y c ear $hat a the mora ob i#ations com!anies ha%e to$ards their customers and !otentia customers.om!anies must be honest $ith customers and se !roducts that are adeDuate y safe or !eo! e $i be cheated. . <o$e%er" itUs not ob%ious that ad%ertisin# should be !art of free s!eech. 8d%ertisin# and !roduct abe in# are both %ery im!ortant because it is the potential customerUs !rimary source of information" and com!anies ha%e res!onsibi ities to e%eryone that cou d be harmed by their ad%ertisin#. )%ery theory of 3ustice $i forbid coerci%e and dece!ti%e trade. 113 .

8 of this is done $ithin the natura en%ironment" a kind of eco o#ica system or ?ecosystem. 2. The im!ortance of en%ironmenta destruction is reco#ni7ed by e%ery theory of 3ustice and e%ery mora theory. Euc ear !o$er ! ants reDuire mindin#" !rocessin#" and trans!ortin# of nuc ear materia s that causes cancer in many !eo! e" and it5s unc ear that our methods of dis!osin# of nuc ear $aste are entire y safe &ibid.'.'. Hor e6am! e" a !ond is an ecosystem that contains a ar#e number of i%in# or#anisms that e6ist in a com! e6 $eb of de!endence and interde!endence. The o7one ayer $as dama#ed from ch orof ourocarbons &ibid. We #enera y assume $e #et sick from a er#ies" bacteria" or %irusesM but !o ution is a %ery common cause of i ness as $e . The o!erati%e term is 5interre ationshi!s"5 im! yin# that an interde!endence e6ists for a entities in the en%ironmentA &3*2'. ean 8ir 8ct sa%ed o%er 1-0"000 i%es in 2010" but many !eo! e sti suffer i ness and die from air !o ution and more i%es can be sa%ed by stricter standards. 9esticides often harm or ki fish and birds &3*1'" and can cause i ness in chi dren &3*='. This discussion is ar#e y based on cha!ter e e%en of Business )thics &Third )dition" 1***' by Wi iam +ha$.arbon dio6ide &and other #reenhouse #asses' are causin# # oba $armin# &ibid. 8dditiona y" some !eo! e a so think that it5s mora y !referab e to !rotect rather than harm nonhuman anima s. -. Too much !esticide is dan#erous to adu ts" so on y safe e%e s are a o$ed" kee!in# adu ts in mind" but such e%e s are sti !robab y too dan#erous for chi dren. Bestroyin# the en%ironment often %io ates our ri#ht to non-in3ury and endan#ers our hea th. To make the #ra%e im!ortance of the en%ironment c ear" +ha$ brief y discusses many of the en%ironmenta issues $e face today: 1. In addition to the e6am! es #i%en by +ha$" a 2002 study by Ba%id 9rimente conc udes that !o ution cou d cause 10X of a deaths $or d$ide. 8ny mora system that is unab e to admit that anima s shou d be !rotected cou d be f a$ed. To6ic chemica s in our en%ironment cause many hea th issues &ibid. Berke ey has e%idence that !renata e6!osure of !esticides in !re#nant $omen can a so o$er the I[ of their chi dren.' =.A ?!cology refers to the science of the interre ationshi!s amon# or#anisms and their en%ironments. 8ir !o ution contaminates the air" des!oi s %e#etation and cro!s" corrodes construction materia s" and threatens our i%es and hea th &ibid. 3.Chapter 1': The $& iro&me&t There are many en%ironmenta mora issues re e%ant to business. 6usiness and ecolo"y Businesses dama#e the en%ironment $hen they take natura resources from the )arth and dis!ose of $aste. 8 2011 study by the )98 c aims that the . 111 .'.'. 1. 8 2011 study by 0. . I $i discuss &a' eco o#y" &b' traditiona business attitudes to$ards the en%ironment" &c' !rob ems in%o %in# en%ironmenta abuse" &d' en%ironmenta !rotection" &e' methods to !ay for en%ironmenta !rotection" and &f' other issues in%o %in# en%ironmenta ethics.

(any com!anies dischar#e $aste into bodies of $ater" ike !onds. +ometimes this is re ati%e y harm ess to the ecosystem" but increasin# the amount of $aste cou d become too to6ic for some of the or#anisms. If the to6ins ki certain ! ants in a !ond" then many fish cou d die. This in turn cou d frustrate fishermen $ho make a i%in# by catchin# fish in the !ond &3*2-3*>'. 8 of the dama#e done to the !ond" fish" and fishermen are ?e6terna itiesA or ?s!i o%erAKcosts to third !arties. Business transactions aren5t a $ays 3ust transactions bet$een t$o !eo! e durin# trade. +ometimes other !eo! e and nonhuman anima s are a so harmed by business transactions. Ima#ine that a com!any dum!s t$ice as much !o ution into a !ond to sa%e Y*"000 a year" but it ki s the fish in the !ond. The fishermen ose Y10"000 a year from the !o ution because their !rimary source of income is ost. In that case the com!any5s decision to dum! more $aste into the !ond actua y causes more harm than #ood" and it5s unfair to sa%e money to !o ute $hen other !eo! e ha%e to !ay for those sa%in#s. 8dditiona y" financia harm isn5t the on y kind of harm $e are dea in# $ith. I $ant to !oint out that the fish and other anima s that eat the fish are a so harmed. It5s not ob%ious that $e ha%e a ri#ht to harm anima s indiscriminate y to sa%e money or make money. <o$e%er" $hene%er $e take the )arth5s resources or !o ute" anima s are often harmed. 8nima s can die from to6ins" such as air !o utionM and they can die $hen they ose their habitat. Is it a $ays immora to intrude into ecosystems and harm i%in# or#anisms@ That seems un ike y to me #i%en ho$ im!ractica it is. It5s a most im!ossib e to do no harm to ecosystems in business because $e need the )arth5s resources to conduct business and se !roducts" and many com!anies ha%e no choice but to dis!ose of $aste and !o ute one $ay or another. It5s not ob%ious to me $hen dama#e done to the en%ironment is $arranted" nor is it ob%ious to $hat e6tent !eo! e are $arranted to harm the en%ironment. Eonethe ess" it5s mora y !referab e to do so as itt e as !ossib e $hi e conductin# business and attem!tin# to make a reasonab e !rofit. It5s !ossib e for a com!any to ose a !rofit in an attem!t to !rotect the en%ironment" but it seems unreasonab e to think that a com!anies shou d ose their !rofits to en%ironmenta !rotection. There mi#ht be some com!anies that are so inefficient or harmfu that they shou dn5t e6ist in the first ! ace" but many com!anies that harm the en%ironment on y do so because it5s necessary to satisfy our needs.

6usiness4s traditional attitudes to!ards the environ-ent
Businesses ha%e traditiona y sho$n e#re#ious indifference to$ards the en%ironment. )n%ironmenta !rotection $as rare y seen as an issue. 8 com!any $ou d harm the en%ironment to $hate%er e6tent $as !rofitab e" and they often harmed the en%ironment des!ite the fact that it $as un$arranted to do so. +ha$ discusses the attitudes of businesses that ed to un$arranted en%ironmenta dama#e. In !articu ar" !eo! e sa$ the ?natura $or d as a 5free and un imited #ood5A &3*>'. 9eo! e at one !oint thou#ht that the $or d5s resources cou d be taken $ithout end and $ithout any mora y si#nificant harm done. 9o ution cou d dama#e the en%ironment" but the dama#e done $as considered to be insi#nificant because the $or d $as seen as such a ar#e ! ace. <o$e%er" resources aren5t un imited and many !eo! e and anima s are harmed from en%ironmenta 11=

dama#e. In Garrett <ardin5s !arab e" ?The Tra#edy of the ;ommons"A he describes the im!ortance of the en%ironment to human interests based on the fact that it5s imited &3**'. <e describes %i a#es $ho share a !asture and et farm anima s #ra7e indiscriminate y. The meado$ e%entua y oses a its #rass and the %i a#ers are eft $ith a serious !rob em of ha%in# no $ay to feed their anima s. <ardin5s !arab e is often re e%ant to rea ife issues" such as o%erfishin# &ibid.'. If the fish !o!u ation is de! eted by fishermen" then the fishin# industry $i #o out of business.

The ethics of environ-ental $rotection
<o$ is the en%ironment re e%ant to business ethics@ Hirst" it5s in our interest to !rotect the en%ironment insofar as $e are human bein#s and $e are often harmed by en%ironmenta dama#e and measures to !rotect the en%ironment can benefit us a &100'. +econd" many !eo! e don5t fee res!onsib e for harmin# the en%ironment because they don5t !ersona y do much harm to it &ibid.'. Third" com!anies that harm the en%ironment ha%e e6terna ities &and harm others' that they unfair y benefit from" $hich can %io ate our ri#ht to non-in3ury &ibid.'. I $ou d ike to add that e6terna ities can a so be in the form of harm done to nonhuman anima s. )he costs o$ pollution control We can !rotect the en%ironment by im! ementin# stricter standards on com!anies and imit the amount of !o ution a o$ed" and $e can try to hea the en%ironment and do $hat is necessary to restore it back to a ba anced state. Cf course" the costs of !rotectin# and he !in# the en%ironment can be e6!ensi%e" and !eo! e don5t $ant to !ay those costs. <o$ do $e decide $hen $e must !ay #reater costs to he ! the en%ironment@ Cne !ossibi ity is a cost-benefit ana ysis &101'. We can assess the harm and benefits done to !eo! e by harmin# or benefitin# the en%ironment. ;onsider a com!any that !o utes t$ice as much to sa%e Y10"000 in !roduction costs. If the harm done to society by doub in# the !o ution is $orth Y20"000 from hea th costs and sick days" then it $ou d seem immora for the com!any to doub e its e%e of !o ution. 8 thou#h it5s hard to ink !o ution to s!ecific sick days and medica costs" ima#ine that $e cou d. In that case it $ou d be 3ust to char#e the com!any $ith the Y20"000 $orth of sick days and medica costs" so the com!any $ou d actua y ose money by increasin# !o ution. <o$e%er" the cost-benefit a!!roach is often an im!ractica a!!roach and it mi#ht be im!ossib e to kno$ ho$ much harm a com!any5s en%ironmenta dama#e is $orth &102'. 8dditiona y" the costbenefit a!!roach isn5t 3ust about money. We mi#ht need to consider the !ain" sufferin#" and death that can be caused by !o utionM and that mi#ht be im!ossib e to measure. That5s es!ecia y true if $e ha%e to consider the dama#e done to nonhuman anima s from en%ironmenta dama#e. Who should pay the costs% Eo one $ants to ha%e to !ersona y !ay the costs to !rotect and restore the en%ironment. (ost !eo! e think that either those $ho are res!onsib e for en%ironmenta dama#e or those $ho benefit from it shou d !ay the costs. ;onsider each !ossibi ity:

11-

1. )hose responsible , The !rob em $ith this ans$er is it5s not entire y c ear $ho5s res!onsib e for harmin# the en%ironment &103'. )%en if $e a a#ree that bi# business harms the en%ironment the most" they don5t a harm it eDua y and it5s hard to assess the actua dama#e each business does. +ome !eo! e ha%e ar#ued that consumers are to b ame for harmin# the en%ironment because they demand !roducts at a reduced cost and buy !roducts from com!anies that dis!ro!ortiona y harm the en%ironment. <o$e%er" +ha$ c aims that urbani7ation" consumerism" and a #ro$in# !o!u ation is to b ameM so $e are a someho$ res!onsib e for harmin# the en%ironment. That mi#ht be true" but I don5t see ho$ that e6cuses com!anies from harmin# the en%ironment more than is necessary 3ust to raise !rofits and make others suffer from their decisionM nor do I see ho$ it e6cuses consumers from buyin# indiscriminate y from com!anies kno$n for abusin# the en%ironment or buyin# unnecessary #oods that cause harm to the en%ironment. 2. )hose who would bene$it , ;om!anies that harm the en%ironment indiscriminate y can benefit the most and it5s often others $ho are harmed the most from en%ironmenta dama#e" so it mi#ht be most a!!ro!riate for the com!anies to !ay the most to !rotect and restore the en%ironment &101'. <o$e%er" +ha$ ar#ues that this is not a #ood !osition because $e a benefit from harmin# the en%ironment ?a beit" not to the same de#reeA &ibid.'. 8#ain" I don5t see ho$ this ob3ection can be taken serious y #i%en ho$ much more some !eo! e benefit from !o ution than others and +ha$ e%en mentions that ?f a#rant !o utersA benefit from !o utin# much more than others &10='. 8dditiona y" +ha$ ar#ues that this !osition i#nores the im!ortance of res!onsibi ity" and I a#ree that there is somethin# stran#e about makin# !eo! e !ay costs for somethin# they aren5t res!onsib e for &101'. Ima#ine that I stea Y20 from a stran#er to #i%e to a friend. +hou d I ha%e to !ay the stran#er Y20 back" or shou d my friend@ It seems most a!!ro!riate for me to !ay the Y20 because I5m res!onsib e for the theft.

Cost allocation
8fter $e decide who shou d !ay for !rotectin# and restorin# the en%ironment" it5s sti not c ear how it shou d be !aid: Throu#h re#u ations" incenti%es" !ricin# mechanisms" and.or !o ution !ermits &10='. I $i discuss these $ays to a ocate the costs to !rotect and restore the en%ironment. Regulations ?S8T#encies such as the )98" set en%ironmenta standards" $hich are then a!! ied and enforced by those a#encies" other re#u atory bodies" and the courtsA &ibid.'. +ometimes a com!any is imited in ho$ much it5s a o$ed to !o ute and a com!any mi#ht ha%e to insta machines that he ! reduce the !o ution. The main ad%anta#e is that such re#u ations are e#a y enforceab e and com!anies that are cau#ht cheatin# can be fined. <o$e%er" there are a so disad%anta#es: Cne" re#u ators ha%e to kno$ ho$ much !o ution to e6!ect from com!anies and $hether or not it5s !ossib e for them to reduce !o ution" but this reDuires e6traordinary amounts of research and e6!ertise. There are se%era different kinds of manufacturers and it can be difficu t to kno$ so much about them a &10-'. T$o" re#u ations often i#nore differences bet$een industries and manufacturers and reDuire them a to 112

'. Incentives The #o%ernment can re$ard com!anies in %arious $ays for reducin# the harm they do to the en%ironment. Hor e6am! e" ?the courts reDuired t$o !a!er mi s on the West . Three" re#u ation can cause dis! acement &ibid. <o$e%er" there are disad%anta#es to incenti%e !ro#rams: Cne" !ro#ress $i continue &ibid. Hour" com!anies mi#ht be ab e to reduce !o ution be o$ the re#u ated reDuirements" but ha%e no incenti%e to do so &ibid.'.'.'.om!anies cou d be char#ed money to #et a icense or ?!ermitA to !o ute.'. Pollution permits .on#ress to rescue the mi sA &ibid. 8t one !oint the )98 offered #ood !ub icity and tro!hy. )ither $ay" it can sudden y ea%e many em! oyees $ithout a 3ob. Hirst" com!anies can #o out of business if the re#u ations $i cost too much. Incenti%e !ro#rams reDuire minima #o%ernment interference and they don5t harm com!anies or cause dis! acement. 9 aces that a ready ha%e too much !o ution cou d raise the !rice of !o ution because the tota !o ution $e encounter can reach dan#erous e%e s" and ! aces $ith %ery itt e !o ution cou d o$er the cost because the !o ution done there mi#ht do %ery itt e harm.'.ike re$ards to com!anies that %o untari y reduced !o ution. Pricing mechanisms We can char#e a com!any for the amount they !o ute &ibid. Hor e6am! e" the #o%ernment can offer ta6 breaks for buyin# eDui!ment to reduce !o ution or offer #rants to com!anies to insta the de%ices &102'. +uch !ricin# cou d be based on the area and time. ike y be s o$ and en%ironmenta !rob ems that need Duick so utions $i !robab y T$o" many incenti%es are subsidies for !o uters and re$ard com!anies that are a ready doin# somethin# harmfu rather than benefitin# those $ho are harmed &ibid. 9ricin# mechanisms encoura#e com!anies to find $ays to !o ute ess" they don5t !ut a com!any out of business un ess it is ike y causin# the $or d more harm than #ood" and it a o$s com!anies to !ay the !ub ic for certain e6terna ities &10>'.oast to insta e6!ensi%e !o ution-contro eDui!ment" e%en thou#h their emissions $ere di uted effecti%e y by the 9acific Ccean Sand itT took a s!ecia act of . It cou d be a form of coercion to be forced to !ay a com!any money to sto! !o utin#" and offerin# a com!any money to sto! !o utin# doesn5t seem a $ho e ot better. +econd" a com!any mi#ht mo%e some$here e se $here re#u ations are ess se%ere. Three" it seems un3ust to !ay a com!any not to !o ute 3ust ike it5s $ron# to !ay !eo! e to be mora for any other reason &ibid. +ometimes a to$n can #reat y re y on a com!any for em! oyment and e%eryone $i ha%e to find another ! ace to i%e after the com!any mo%es on. This can be done in 11> .'.be re#u ated in e6act y the same $ay" e%en $hen it mi#ht not make sense to do so.

T$o" areas $ith strict en%ironmenta contro s cou d !ut com!anies out of business or reDuire the com!any to re ocate. Hirst" the !o ution shou d be easy to monitor.'. )conomists tend to fa%or !ricin# mechanisms and !o ution !ermits" but it5s not ob%ious that those are the most mora so utions &ibid. =elvin" dee$er into environ-ental ethics )n%ironmenta ethics has im! ications to forei#n nations" future #enerations" and anima s. 9ermits ha%e been successfu in the !ast" but their success de!ends on certain criteria &ibid. +ometimes a country runs out of resources and has no $ay to attain them" so they decide to sei7e the resources from other countries and that often eads to $ar. T$o" it5s not c ear that $e ha%e a ri#ht to consume the $or d5s resources at such a reck ess and destructi%e rate. I $ant to !oint out that it5s not on y harmfu to our future #enerations" but a so to anima s. /i#ht no$ the 0nited +tates uses the $or d5s resources at a dis!ro!ortiona y hi#h rate and de!ends on the resources of other nations to maintain its standard of i%in# &110'. Third" the en%ironmenta #oa s shou d be c ear and $ide y acce!ted. &b' There cou d be a imited number of !ermits auctioned off.': &a' )%ery com!any cou d buy !ermits to #et the ri#ht to !o ute. &c' )%ery com!any cou d #et a !ermit to ha%e to ri#ht to !o ute a certain amount" and they cou d se !ermits to other com!anies that need to !o ute more than the amount a o$ed from a sin# e !ermit. Hour" these forms of !o ution contro e#a i7e !o ution and mi#ht im! y that !o utin# isn5t immora Ke%en $hen the !o utin# is e#re#ious and entire y unnecessary &10>-10*'.different $ays such as &ibid.'. Bo future #enerations ha%e ri#hts@ Boes ea%in# the $or d uninhabitab e harm !eo! e of the future@ 11* . (bligations to $uture generations It seems unfair to !eo! e from the future that $e are usin# the $or d5s resources no$ and ea%in# itt e to themM and that $e5re ea%in# the $or d !o uted and ess i%ab e than it once $as &111'. +ha$ ar#ues that a of these so utions ha%e stren#ths and $eak !oints and other !ossib e so utions aren5t taken %ery serious y at this !oint in time &such as bannin# !o ution entire y'" so $e ha%e itt e choice but to use one or more of them &10*'. Cne" the !o ution costs mi#ht be arbitrary. Three" areas $ith strict en%ironmenta contro s cou d #i%e certain businesses an unfair disad%anta#e. +econd" the number of firms in%o %ed shou d be mana#eab e. It5s not c ear that any nation in !articu ar has a ri#ht to the $or d5s resources 3ust because the surroundin# territory has been dominated by a #rou! of !eo! e" but harmin# others to take resources is mora y Duestionab e. This can ead to at east t$o main !rob ems: Cne" $e mi#ht not a $ays ha%e access to the resources of other countries.

'.'. 8 thin#s eDua " it certain y seems better to e6ist than not e6ist. I !ersona y don5t see $hy it5s so horrib e to ha%e ar#er !o!u ations that are ess ha!!y. <o$e%er" some !hi oso!hers cha en#e this notion. Third" consider a deonto o#ica !ers!ecti%eK/a$ s5s !ers!ecti%e. In fact" I find it ! ausib e that the !ers!ecti%e of the ori#ina !osition $ou d demand that $e use fe$ enou#h resources that can be re! enished as Duick y as they are de! eted.. 8nother issue is $hether $e ha%e a duty to !re%ent o%er!o!u ation to future #enerations. Hrom a uti itarian stand!oint an o%er!o!u ated $or d cou d ha%e ess a%era#e ha!!iness" but sti #reater ha!!iness o%era " but some uti itarians no$ !refer to say that a%era#e ha!!iness is more im!ortant than tota ha!!iness to a%oid this !osition &ibid. +ha$ states that a natura istic ethic $ou d &or cou d' find e%en mountains to ha%e %a ue beyond human interests" such as hikin# and skiin#. +ome defenders of a natura istic ethic think that $e ha%e a s!ecia ob i#ation to !rotect each s!ecies 120 . +econd" consider the uti itarian !ers!ecti%e. I a#ree that it5s im!ortant for !eo! e to do $e and their uniDue indi%idua ity is not a $ays re e%ant to the im!ortance of their interests. ?9rofessor of !hi oso!hy Joe Heinber# ar#ues. +ha$ !oints out that e%en if !eo! e of the future ha%e ri#hts" it5s not ob%ious $hat those ri#hts are or ho$ $e shou d ba ance our interests a#ainst theirs &ibid.Hirst" consider our duties to others based on our ri#hts. It seems ike y that the natura resources can be distributed amon# #enerations. We don5t ha%e to kno$ a about !eo! e from the future to rea i7e that they $i be in need of c ean $ater and so on. <o$e%er" there mi#ht be e6ce!tions if !eo! e from one #eneration can use u! e6tra resources to make the $or d a better ! ace in the future. Instead" our ob i#ations are to communities of !eo! e. Ba6ter a#rees that on y humans are $orthy of consideration" but <o mes /o ston III be ie%es that nature can ha%e intrinsic %a ueKbe #ood 3ust for e6istin# and $orthy of !rotection for its o$n sake &113'. )he value o$ nature 8 common assum!tion in business is that businesses on y ha%e ob i#ations to$ards !eo! e and that nonhuman entities aren5t $orth mora consideration. If $e did" they $ou dn5t e%en e6ist. Wi iam H. that $hate%er future human bein#s turn out to be ike" they $i ha%e interests that $e can affect" for better or $orse" ri#ht no$A &111'. <o$e%er" 8nette Baier ar#ues that our duties to !eo! e aren5t 3ust to s!ecific indi%idua s &112'. If e%ery human ife has %a ue" then $hy not admit that ar#er !o!u ations are a #ood thin#@ If o%er!o!u ation causes sufferin# to !eo! e and anima s" then there mi#ht not be ?#reater ha!!inessA o%era in the $or d. John /a$ s su##ests that $e shou d consider $hat duties $e ha%e to !eo! e from the future based on the ori#ina !osition under the ?%ei of i#noranceA $ithout kno$in# $hat #eneration or time !eriod $e are born in &112-113'. It has been ar#ued that the !eo! e $ho actua y e6ist in the far off future $i on y e6ist if $e treat the )arth e6act y as $e do" so $e can5t ha%e duties to treat anyone different y. <e ca s his !osition a ?natura istic ethicA and denies that thin#s on y ha%e %a ue insofar as they are used for human !ur!oses. 9erha!s some !eo! e are mere y se fish and $ou d rather that certain other !eo! e don5t e6ist if necessary to i%e a better ife for themse %es.. Hor e6am! e" trees shou dn5t be cho!!ed do$n faster than they #ro$.

We cou d try to refuse to 121 . Farming . <o$e%er" +ha$5s discussion of the %a ue of nature seems to be based on non-anima or#anisms and ob3ects. +econd" it5s not ob%ious that it5s mora y 3ustified to ki any anima s $e $ant for food considerin# that $e cou d be %e#etarians or 3ust eat ess inte i#ent anima s &11-'. <o$e%er" his discussion is e6treme y imited. 9erha!s $e cou d be their ?#uardiansA rather than o$ners" much as !arents shou d be understood as the #uardians of their youn# chi dren rather than o$ners.from e6tinction to he ! !rotect the di%ersity of ife. (any !eo! e ha%e !ets and !erha!s it5s better that $e care for these anima s than send them out into the $i d. 9eter +in#er ar#ues that anima testin# is often un3ustified and causes need ess harm to anima s. Animal testing . <o$e%er" $e cou d care for anima s $ithout technica y o$nin# them. If $e are su!!osed to ma6imi7e ha!!iness" then $hy shou dn5t the ha!!iness of anima s be !art of our mora concerns@ It seems ike they shou d.o$s and !i#s are fair y inte i#ent and it mi#ht be $ron# to ki them $hen it5s not necessary for our hea th or sur%i%a . ) e!hants" do !hins" $ha es" and #reat a!es are a %ery inte i#ent" but e%en do#s and cats can be !retty smart. Harmin# mi#ht ha%e once been humane $hen anima s cou d i%e their i%es safe y !rotected by !eo! e unti they are ki ed for human consum!tion" but no$ most farm anima i%es tend to be miserab e in cram!ed s!aces on ?factory farmsA &11=-11-'. . Cf course" anima s are !art of nature and many anima s seem ike they ha%e interests. <o$e%er" e%en if anima s don5t ha%e ri#hts" it sti seems ike anima s ha%e im! ications to mora ity and that it5s mora y !referab e to he ! anima s rather than hurt them.A 8nima s ha%e interests" so it mi#ht make sense to say that they ha%e ri#hts insofar as $e can ha%e duties to$ards them. (ur treatment o$ animals I $i use the term ?anima A to refer to ?nonhuman anima . I don5t kno$ that each s!ecies has %a ue in iso ation" but the concrete e6istence of anima s cou d ha%e intrinsic %a ue and s!ecies often ! ay uniDue and irre! aceab e ro es in ecosystems. We shou d a so consider &c' anima o$nershi!" &d' anima abuse" and &e' the effects of en%ironmenta destruction on anima s. (any !hi oso!hers doubt that nature has intrinsic %a ue or that nature has ri#hts because they think somethin# must ha%e interests to ha%e ri#hts" but nature has no interests &111'.osmetics testin# on anima s seems ike an ob%ious e6am! e #i%en that $e a ready ha%e ! enty of safe cosmetics on the market" it causes harm to anima s" and $e don5t rea y need cosmetics in the first ! ace. <o$e%er" anima testin# is on y mora y $arranted $hen &a' it doesn5t harm the anima s or &b' $e ha%e no choice but to test on either anima s or humans. . It mi#ht be that $e ha%e a ri#ht to o$n o$er or#anisms of sufficient y o$ inte i#ence" but not hi#her ife forms. Hirst" this treatment of anima s seems un3ustified insofar as anima s ha%e interests and it seems im!ortant that $e don5t hurt them for no #ood reason. Animal ownership . The idea of o$nin# anima s su##ests that the anima s are ob3ects and such an idea cou d be ina!!ro!riate y disres!ectfu to them. +ha$ discusses the re e%ance of business ethics to anima s insofar as &a' $e do anima testin# and &b' raise and ki anima s for food. We tend to assume that $e are more im!ortant than nonhuman anima s and it5s better to test on anima s rather than humans because it5s disres!ectfu and harmfu to treat !eo! e as #uinea !i#s. The %a ue of anima s seems intuiti%e #i%en uti itarianism because they can be ha!!y and suffer" simi ar to !eo! e &11='. It5s not ob%ious that $e ha%e a ri#ht to o$n all other anima s.

Just recent y hi#h amounts of to6insKthe hi#hest e%er recordedK$as found in do !hins and $ha es" such as !o ych orinated bi!heny s and insecticides.onsider ho$ the (a aysian forests are bein# destroyed to make farms" $hich destroys the habitat of Cran#utans" one of the most inte i#ent anima s in the $or d &and an endan#ered s!ecies'. 8nima s are harmed and destroyed $hen $e take the $or d5s resources" stri! forests to make farm and" and !o ute. The en%ironment has at east t$o im!ortant mora considerations for anima s: Hirst" the !o ution that makes !eo! e sick is the same !o ution that makes other anima s sick. It seems ! ausib e that such a$s are based on our mora duties" and there5s a most no reason for these a$s to e6ist for human benefit. Businesses traditiona y sa$ no need to res!ect anima s" but many mora !hi oso!hers no on#er see any reason to %a ue ourse %es o%er other anima s at any cost. Conclusion The en%ironment is one of the most im!ortant mora issues not on y because harmin# the en%ironment often %io ates our ri#ht to nonin3ury" but a so because en%ironmenta dama#e has been incredib y harmfu to both !eo! e and other anima s. We mi#ht ha%e a ri#ht to !rotect our interests and take the $or d5s resources as needed" but that doesn5t mean that the interests of anima s shou dn5t be taken into account as $e . 8ccordin# to the a$" !eo! e $ho o$n and se anima s ha%e res!onsibi ities to$ards those anima s" $hether the anima is a !et" farmed for food" or used in e6!erimentation. Businesses traditiona y sa$ no need to !ay for e6terna ities" but $e no$ kno$ that e6terna ities are of #ra%e im!ortance and are often a matter of ife and death. It seems ike y that the a$s e6ist !recise y because many !eo! e a#ree that anima s ha%e intrinsic %a ue. Just about e%ery !iece of and is no$ the !ro!erty of a country or indi%idua . +econd" it5s not ob%ious that $e ha%e a ri#ht to resources that are used by anima s. +ha$ has a ready discussed ho$ farmin# and e6!erimentation often harms anima s" and the a$ often a o$s such harm. 122 . . There cou d be immora cases of sei7in# and from anima s. nvironmental destruction . Eot to mention that many en%ironmenta issues can create e%en more de%astation in the future" such as the !ossib e de! etion of the $or d5s resources to future #enerations.?dehumani7eA anima s des!ite the fact that they aren5t humansKby bein# res!ectfu of them and %a uin# them as ends in themse %es. +ha$ rare y or ne%er mentioned the effects en%ironmenta destruction has on anima s. 8s humans $e see the natura $or d as bein# our !ro!erty. Animal abuse . It seems ike y that it5s $ron# to harm anima s beyond $hat the a$ a o$s. It #enera y seems mora y !referab e to !rotect the interests of anima s rather than harm them. The im!ortance of the en%ironment not on y sho$s traditiona fai ures of business ethics of the !ast and !resent" but it a so he !s c arify the im!ortance of e6terna ities and anima s. What +ha$ said about factory farmin# and e6!erimentation a so a!! ies to anima s in the $i d and !ets. <o$e%er" many anima s are a so territoria and it5s not ob%ious that $e can e#itimate y o$n and bein# used by other anima sKes!ecia y $hen they $ere here first. 8ren5t anima interests $orth consideration $hen $e destroy the en%ironment@ It seems ike they are" and the interests of inte i#ent anima s ike the Cran#utan seem es!ecia y im!ortant.