You are on page 1of 5

1.

How do moral obligations apply to business organizations? Can companies be held accountable for what they do, or are the individuals who make up the company the ones we must hold accountable? Discuss the major arguments concerning corporate responsibility? a. Group decision vs. individual decision -- is it a group decision or individual decision made as a group? b. If an individual acts alone but as a part of a group, the individual and each involved are morally responsible individually c. The more severe the act, the more responsibility is placed on the individual to not act as a group, even with peer pressures d. Subordinates can just be following orders, and it is the supervisor's fault, but it comes down to the severity of the incident 2. What are Marx's four forms of alienation? How does each form help to increase inequalities in wealth and power? Do you think these concepts apply to the capitalism practiced in 21st century America? a. Four forms of alienation: i. Of the worker from the work he produces 1. A worker's work is turned into investment capital, as opposed to the product he works 2. Worker's wages are as low as possible to keep them ii. Of the worker from working 1. Worker's skills are commoditized into an exchange value 2. Workers don't receive the full value of their product, they instead receive

the lowest wage possible to retain their services iii. Of the worker from himself 1. Developing as a human being 2. From his essence as a species -promoting mutual survival 3. Work does not allow people to grow as a person iv. Of the worker from other workers 1. Work does not bring a social relationship between workers; capitalism is ruthlessly efficient 2. Pits worker against worker in competition b. These concepts apply to 21st century America -- capitalism is successful because it is ruthlessly efficient, with little regard for the human element 3. With regard to business's responsibilities to consumers, we've witnessed a shift from caveat emptor to due care and finally to strict products liability (the legal doctrine based on the social costs view). Does the current climate place too much responsibility on businesses and too little on consumers? What do you think constitutes a fair division of responsibility between producers and consumers? a. Current climate does place too much responsibility on the business i. Ex/ McDonalds coffee cups ii. Consumers could use a product wrong and producers have to eat the cost b. Not economically efficient to have a 100% success rate -- too much is given up i. Law of diminishing returns ii. Diminishing returns applies to spending

on Q&A -- it would take too many resources in a finite amount of time to find every last single tiny defect duty to comply: duty of disclosure; duty not to misrepresent; dutynot to coerce; due care; caveat emptor=buyer, caveat vendor = seller take care, not to harm or injure, not clear how much is care, ; strict liability; doctrine mnfctr. Bear cost of injuries frm product regardless of fault., Social costs of a defect will be internalized i. Why should a consumer having a perfect product have to pay more for a defective one? ii. Due care is paternalism -- should the consumer have their own choice whether to pay for additional risk reduction? d. Social costs of compensation -- if the manufacturer is liable for everything, they bear the extra cost of being sued even if they took all possible steps to make sure the product is safe. i. Ex/ Americans suing everyone ii. Ex/ high costs on insurance companies that compensate consumers for mishaps e. Too little responsibility is placed on consumers -i. If the product itself is defective, then the manufacturer should be liable ii. If the customer is negligent in its use (suing for chopping his own arm off with a chainsaw), then he should be fully responsible 4. Since the end of 2008 we've seen the government pledge billions of dollars to rescue financial and business institutions. Some commentators have suggested that this c.

is not the proper role of government, while others have argued this intervention is necessary to maintain the stability of our society. With which side (Hayek/Keynes) do you agree? What moral principles would you appeal to in support of your answer? a. Hayek - free market i. Freedom of choice ii. Negative rights iii. Libertarian iv. Capitalist justice, economic equality b. Keynes - government intervention i. Appeals to rule utilitarianism -- rules give the greatest overall societal gain (rules = government intervention) ii. Positive rights iii. Rawls - fairness 5. In its 2003 ruling in Gratz v. Bollinger the Supreme Court stated that while diversity may be a worthwhile goal, the use of racial group preferences such as quotas or point systems, undermines the notion of equality "where race is irrelevant to personal opportunity and achievement." Do you agree? How should compensatory justice, in terms of making up for past discrimination suffered by certain groups, be weighed against the principle of equality in the job market and in accepting applicants for college? Discuss your answers in the context of Rawls' two principles of justice. a. First: each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others. b. Second: Social and economic inequalities are such that: i. They are to be the greatest advantage

1.

2.

to the least privileged members of society ii. Offices and positions must be open to all under fair equality of opportunity 6. Suppose someone said to you, "Business ethics is an oxymoron. The fact of the matter is that 'the bottom line,' 'cover your ass,' 'look out for number one,' and 'winning is the only thing' is the only 'philosophy' you'll ever really need or use at work." If that person is right, what sort of rules (if any) should govern your behavior in your business and professional activities? To the best of your knowledge and experience, to what extent are these the rules that in fact govern people's actions on the job? Provide evidence for your answer. What competing ethical models or ideals (if any) do you think also guide a significant portion of people's conduct? Care ethics -- conduct yourself in such a way that you can provide and protect the people you care about Ex/ staying employed for a family Ex/ working with friends at work Adhere to the bottom line while considering 'looking out for number one' People work for their family, friends, and career, and they care for those people -- the fact that they want to work for these people governs them Covering your ass, and winning furthers the goal of caring for those you care for Ex/ people working multiple jobs to support loved ones