Abubakar Binji Week 5 - Homework
Case 5.2: 3, 4 Case 5.3: 5, 7, 8 Case 5.4: 10, 11 Case 5.5: 14 Case 5.7: 17, 18, 22, 24 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3) The idea of acting by mistake is certainly different from that of a purposeful action (exercise 3 of chapter 4). It is totally understandable that a mistake is not a mistake when learned; it is like going to school and learning from that mistake. The only time a mistake is a mistake is when repeated. I used to work at one of the Wal-Mart stores here in Kansas City as a cashier and believe me; sometimes the lines get very long and crowded. As a cashier, you have a responsibility for yourself (as an employee) and for your customers (as a driving force of your employer). In addition to these responsibilities, a cashier has to be able to accurately ring up items and charge customers accurately. According to the generalization test, my presuppose reason for not bringing back the un-ring item (i.e. Sony DCR-HC46 MiniDV Digital camcorder with Optical Zoon) is ungeneralizable, therefore failed generalization test. If my reason for not returning the camcorder is generalized for all persons alike, then my purpose would not serve itself. The retail store would have to come up with a solution to make similar mistake not repeated. The issue of utilitarianism is that it supposed to maximize the overall satisfaction for both the customers and the company. A loss of $599.95 is certainly a great deal for a local
my wife’s airline ticket and accommodation fees may have to be deducted from my paycheck.electronic store who struggles to maximize profits. out of my spare time. I can draw scope narrowly by stating that I volunteer myself. 7) The ethical dilemma is whether or not it is my responsibility to sign off on risk reports and take care of the issue myself. Volunteering to reveal the lapses would embitter my manager and teammates and perhaps invite reprisals (exercise 7). As a result. Generalization test failed as previously discussed. a company can afford to lose 50 cents more than $599. Therefore. if the cashier forgot to ring up a 50 cents pack of gum.
. if I decided to keep the gum). and if whenever similar issues arise and no one else speak up.95. the ethical reasoning will appear to be different. There is an argument that if I refuse to speak out. Utilitarian test looks into the net satisfaction between volunteering and not volunteering. Although. because of the value difference and due to creating my own satisfaction (self-happiness). Failure to do so and to keep up with the related updates can result in many fines and difficulties leading to rating relegation. Therefore. This legal contract will allow me to bring along with my wife. 4) Well. utilitarian test pass (i. If I refuse to return the unpaid camcorder. I would reject the offer only until legal agreement is made in place. 5) If my boss invited me along with my wife at company’s expenses. New York Stock exchange and other stock exchange communities have regulations that companies have to abide by. Firstly. I have no obligation to do someone else’s job. then generalization is failed. I would say. I will have to fail the utilitarian test and virtue ethics.e. therefore pass utilitarian test. The reason being so is that the deceptive is unethical and failed generalization test. refusing to volunteer does not obligate me to speak up.
The timing of the purchase makes a difference in the sense that it allows for timely attendance of the game (so that we cannot miss the game). based on the company’s policies and contract) to purchase tickets for my wife and I. There is a problem of balancing the integrity. may need further study. then it is ethical for me to accept his offer. I would say utilitarian is inconclusive. Although. In this exercise. if I don’t speak up. To maximize my happiness of not missing the game. 10) I personally think it is up to the supplier representative to offer my wife and I the ticket benefit. I would say virtue ethics pass. and therefore pass the test for reporting or not reporting purpose. utilitarian test pass if I accept the offer. if that is the case. The question of whether is ethical or not depends on whether supplier representative is legally consented (i. Refusing to turn them during the exam failed generalization test as well.e. therefore failed the generalization test on the ground.There is an obligation as a human being and as team member of retail brokerage firm. and virtue ethics provided no clear judgment. Not turning them during the exam is considered a breach of loyalty: toward denying the virtue ethics.
. inner duty is to either report them during the exam or let it pass and talk to them about it later. In the case of honesty and inner obligation to ourselves and to our managers. the most important. Since this case does not have much to do with my own utility maximization. 8) The student’s conduct for cheating on an exam is ungeneralizable. Refusing to do any of the above is a ground for failing virtue ethics in its entirety. One of the rational obligations is to make sure the firm is not liable to paying hundreds of thousands of dollars of customer losses. there is a conflict of virtues.
My net utility is based on whether I and my wife can be able to attend the game or not. I would have to stick with that contract notwithstanding of the time factor. My obligation without using rational choice is to put back the note or place it back into my mailbox or drop it at the post office or inform the mailman. my reason for doing such and if all were to do the same. Hooker stated. so he cannot have an affair outside his marriage. If I was to break any contract regardless of the time when I sign it. My net utility
. utilitarian test pass if I was to break the contract and go along. As a result. I mistakenly opened a seal envelope and read the content before realizing who the owner was. it would be irrational and unethical. 14) Is making a mistake ethical or unethical? I personally think there are not enough explanations of ethicality in making mistakes. If the mailman remembers that he place an envelope on a wrong mailbox. Assuming to be the owner of a mailbox. In this situation. My argument is that breaking the contract will result in my net happiness. First of all. No one is above mistake. I will have to come up with my reason because in any action there is a reason behind it. and so that others can learn from his footsteps. pass the generalization test. I won’t go along with them according to the generalization test. so be as it may. the mailman mistakenly placed a sealed envelope on someone else’s mailbox. I say it is OK to tell his wife.11) A breach of contract is ungeneralizable on the ground. “An action is ethical only if no other available action creates greater total net utility” (16). The reason for telling his wife does have an end result.” If my reason was to be generalized and if everybody has the same reason whenever they mistakenly receive passionate message. or deliver it the recipient. based on generalization test. By using rational choice as a condition for explaining this exercise. As in the exercise. it will satisfy its purpose. My reason is that “cheating for your spouse is bad. his responsibility would be to go back and place it into the right mailbox.
I don’t have an obligation. I can also decide to buy my own printer paper.is inconclusive. school books. and anything such as using school printer. you pay tuition. because as a human being. if I do not inform her. computer. is freely (because I paid for it in some ways) provided by the school. It is ungeneralizable to use school printer papers for my printer. It is the right thing for me to tell his wife. that is honesty and integrity. It also reduces ink cost by the school. Remember one thing though. An action of taking a pack of school printer papers must pass all the tests in order to satisfy the condition for rational choice. and therefore irrational and unethical---it will not serve its purpose after all. failed all the tests for rational decision. but is Ok for me to inform her even if Brad was my best friend (it turned out he is just a coworker). Failing one test. Virtue ethics is leaning to failing. The school has not specified in the student’s policy booklet that students are allowed to take home a pack of school printer papers. attend a funeral. I have a responsibility. or complete the sale of real estate. 17) It is a morally acceptable to think rationally when making decision. wear and tear on the school printer. Just as how I have decided to rationally use my ink and printer. Virtue ethics is slightly vague in this case. It is ungeneralization to use personal days for different purposes. It is nice thing that I am using my printer (with my ink) to help in reducing ink consumption. 18) It is not OK to use personal vacation days for leisure purposes when in fact their tenacities are for emergency occasions such as sick child care. School printer papers are designed for school printers only. etc. because I am not sure if my (only) reason can create a total net utility for myself. My reason to print electronic notes at home is rationally acceptable.
Teaching him how to use Excel has its ups and downs. Hence. If a company is not admitting its mistakes and correcting it. discontinuing your efforts pass generalization test. but leaning to failing. I am trying to help the Armenians. your analysis does not proof the fact that if you taught him enough to upgrade the poultry operation. And to maximize such utility I have to discontinue the effort of teaching him how to use Excel. there is already an argument in place since he had already learned little. The best compromise for your honesty and loyalty maybe to discontinue the efforts. one has to weigh the balance between discontinuation and continuation efforts. If you were to discontinue your efforts and generalized your reason. But I have to be able to discontinue any action. nevertheless I have to balance out the ethicality behind it. However. there is a problem of irrationality. He is the head of investor relations. Virtue ethics: the reason for my continuation efforts is inclusive. Utilitarian test for discontinuation is inconclusive and therefore pass the test. the question is whether you should teach him or not. he would use the same knowledge to commit fraud. upon realizing its negative effect. 24) Martin had risen steadily through the Verband Company due to his reliable judgment and sweet talks. My net utility is to disallow fraud in the society and the world at large. Teaching him a little could also allow him to self-upgrade leading to committing fraud. There is a conflict of virtue in this case. The company had a character of covering its mistakes which is unethical. it would disallow him from committing fraud). Verband had also lied to its stockholders about its overseas operations. Therefore.
. Even though I inspire to help increase Armenian employment by 300. Therefore.e. I also do not want my country (United States) to be defrauded. There is a chance that he can self-upgrade leading to committing fraud.22) Well. the action would serve it purpose (i.
Lying to his stockholders is considered unethical and ungeneralizable. It has also failed the virtue test because its action is considered a breach of loyalty and honor. According to utilitarian test. Anything that comes out of Martin is irrational since is professional ethics is unethical. Business Ethics as Rational Choice. therefore failed the utilitarian test. He lacks understanding of a purely. Martin in diverting any reality about the company is unethical and failed the generalization test. Martin’s acts have failed all the tests. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. therefore virtue ethics failed. his judgment should not have been infallible especially when looking into the root that Martin was just a meager businessperson. and the means is unethical on the ground. his action does not have an end result. As Hooker mentioned. Print. Martin does not have a moral lucidity to make rational decision. After all. There still a rational responsibility upon which Martin can follow to advance the financial interests of stockholders. there still remains the fact that rational decision is as crucial as any other decision making process. Martin should not have been hired by the EuroBank if they realized multiple violations committed at Varband. John.
. 2011. The action of Mr. It is falsely explained that a fiduciary duty to stockholders is any loyalty that will make stockholders happy. ethical professional ethics. therefore failed generalization test. From being the head of investor to becoming a head of insider was like transferring from bad to worse. even though business individuals have obligation of making sure profit margin is achieved.
Work cited: Hooker. “the generalization test plays a central role in analyzing professional obligation” (12).