Ethics in Business 02

Ethics in Business

Final Exam Prep Sheet

CHEAT SHEET RULES: ONE 3X5 INDEX CARD, BOTH SIDES OK, TYPING OK, SUBJECT TO MY INSPECTION

Objectives for the Final Exam: The objectives for this assignment will be for you to:

(1) recognize and identify philosophers we have read

(2) critically compare and/or contrast these philosophers’ arguments with your own

(3) offer original philosophical analysis of arguments.

Successful exams will be ones that fulfill these objectives entirely - with clear writing, detailed arguments, original analysis, and no factual errors. Average exams will be ones that meet these objectives in a merely satisfactory way - with ordinary writing, general or vague arguments, hackneyed analysis, and minor factual errors. Failing exams will be ones that do not meet these objectives at all - with muddled writing, few arguments, little analysis, and major factual errors.

Instructions for the Final Exam: This exam will have 3 parts corresponding to the 3 objectives; each part is worth 4 points (4 = A, 3 = B, etc.) The average of the 3 parts will be your final grade. Be sure to follow the instructions and hints for each part. I also suggest you compare the A, B-/C+ and F answers below to understand how individual answers will be scored. NOTE: The penalty for cheating is automatic failure of this course and disciplinary action by the College. Good luck!

FINAL EXAM FOR MINI SUMMER IS 6/16 AND FINAL EXAM FOR SUMMER I IS 6/29.

Part 1: Identify the authors of the following quotations, using the list below as your guide. Hint: Not all philosophers listed below may have quotes here, and some philosophers may be used more than once.

Bible, Aquinas, Kung, Huntington, Kant, UN, Robinson, Bowie, Mill, Singer, Locke, Smith, M. Freidman, Henderson, T. Friedman - NOT FOR MINI, Marx, Baudrillard - NOT FOR MINI, Lasn

“This article sets out important aspects of Islamic ethics. The focus is viewed as timely, for a) Islam now represents the second largest denominational grouping in the United States.” _________

“The picture of reality that CSR presents is at fault in several respects. For one thing, it

oversimplifies issues and choices.” ___________

Part 2: Choose only 1 statement from the 2 below and argue it, including both one philosopher’s point of view and your own. Hint: Say why the philosopher would agree or disagree with the statement, and then compare and/or contrast that philosopher’s argument with your own original one.

Sample:

Global capitalism is good for humankind.

Sample:

The inheritance of capital is unjust.

Part 3: Choose only 1 argument from the 2 below and analyze it. Hint: Analyze by saying what your reasons are for agreeing or disagreeing with each of the premises and then the conclusion.

Sample:

ARGUMENT A

Premise 1 Corporations exist to make money

Premise 2 Anything that does not make money for the corporation detracts from its purpose Premise 3: Charity is giving money away

Conclusion: Giving money to charity is contrary to the purpose of a corporation

ARGUMENT B

Premise 1 It is good to make as many people happy as you can

Premise 2 Spending $100 on a new pair of party shoes will make me happy

Premise 3 Giving $100 to famine relief will make more people happy

______________________________________________________________________

Conclusion I should spend $100 on famine relief instead of party shoes (if I don’t have the money to do both)

Part 1 Sample Answers: Pomeranz, Henderson

Part 2 Sample Answer for “The inheritance of capital is unjust”.

4.0 Answer: Good Marx details, lots of analysis and original reasons

Marx would insist the inheritance of capital is unjust because it perpetuates unjust class distinctions. Marx insisted that under capitalism, the world is divided into the haves and have-nots. The haves are the capitalist bourgeoisie, who own the means of production. The have nots are the proletariat, who work the means of production. Though under capitalist ideology opportunity to move from the proletariat to the capitalist class exists in theory, in fact this rarely happens. That is because of the inheritance of capital. When a rich man dies, for example, he leaves his children his capital, who then automatically enter the property holding class, without ever working for it. By contrast Marx says the proletariats are more likely to pass on debt to their children, assuring that they will never get ahead. Thus Marx calls for the abolition of inheritance, along with the abolition of private property more generally. He sees this as necessary to bring about a more just world that will not have these class divisions; this is his ultimate vision of communal ownership of the means of production under communism. By abolishing inheritance, we could more fairly redistribute capital to those who need it most and usher in the communist era.

I disagree with Marx’s position, although I am sympathetic to his reasoning. I agree that the rich stay rich by passing on their capital to their children, but I do not see a total confiscation of this property as the answer. Instead I propose that we have a graduated tax on inheritance. For example, when Bill Gates dies, the government could tax his estate at 95% but still leave plenty for his children to inherit. The money the government collects could be put to good use. But for more moderate incomes, perhaps a tax of only 10% would be appropriate. My reasoning here is that people will feel a disincentive to work hard if they know that none of their wealth will be passed on. But if there is a graduated tax, people still would be inspired to work hard, and we would have the benefit of giving benefits to the poor via taxes. In addition, Marx’s program is part of an agenda to undermine the family as we know it. I would say that the family has its uses, people enjoy forming family units, and as such it ought not to be attacked by attacking inheritance.

2.5 Answer: Generally gets Marx right, but lacks detail. Promises reasons for own view, no delivery!

Marx would say that inheritance is unjust because it keeps people at the same level they were born into. So rich stay rich, and poor stay poor. Marx wants everyone to have the same amount of stuff. If we all had the same amount, then no one would feel class conflict. By taking away inheritance we take away the rich people and this will make everyone equal, which he called communism. There were two classes, the owners and workers; he is in favor of more power to the workers.

I disagree with Marx. He wants us all to be like robots, where we all look and act the same. If the government takes away inheritance the government would just waste that money on some useless program. I think those people who lived in the commune farm would be in favor of this plan, but I disagree because I expect to pass on what I make to my kids some day. I have many reasons for this. The government messing around with people’s inheritance will only cause more bureaucratic hassles.

0.0 Answer: Comically bad, simply bad!

Marx would say inheritance is cool because it lets the poor people inherit stuff from their parents, and that way they can get richer. He used the example of the 2 gray hounds to prove his point. He thinks that communism is the way to go, which we will get there by globalizing. Globalization is the world coming together, and Marx was in favor of stuff like that.

I disagree with Marx because he would want me to give up all my stuff. I don’t want to give it up! Marx lived in a time where the factories were really hard to work in, but I’ve had crappy jobs, too. Once I worked washing dishes and man, that was tough.

Part 3: ARGUMENT B

4.0 Answer: Real analysis, considers objections, defends a point of view with reasons

Premise 1 is a utilitarian principle, such as Mill or Singer would support. I agree that utilitarianism seem like a good idea, but I have worries about agreeing to this premise. This premise does not have any limits on it. For example I am worried that this premise would agree that making people happy at the price of doing some other people a grave injustice is “good”. In that case I would not agree with it. So in order for me to agree with this premise I would add on this clause : as long as no one suffers an injustice to create that happiness.

Premise 2 is debatable. The person who would agree to this premise is a kind of consumerist person, someone for whom purchases create happiness. Not everyone is made happy by buying things. For some people, buying sometime is a mere necessity and not a source of joy. So the “me” in this premise is a consumerist me. In my case, I am pretty consumer-oriented so I would agree with it.

Premise 3 I agree. One sometimes worries that the relief money may not get to the people who need it the most. Perhaps a better premise would build this guarantee into it. This premise also seems to assume that saving lives (by keeping people from starving to death) will make those people happy. One might object that people who are subject to famine, even if they are saved from it, will not lead happy lives no matter what. But I think the response to that objection, in order to defend the premise, is that life itself (even if it is an impoverished one) is a source of happiness.

The conclusion I agree with because it seems that no matter what kind of kick I get out of new shoes, the lives that $100 would save outweigh the happiness of new shoes. While I agree with the conclusion, I wonder if there is ever any end to the demands that utilitarian arguments such as this one put on us. For example, if I am to forego my new shoes, does that also mean I should never go out to dinner, on vacation, to the movies, etc.? That level of sacrifice might make me unhappy. But more important would be the practical economic consequences. It seems possible that our whole economy could slump if we sent all of our recreation money to famine relief. I don’t think this is an objection to the conclusion, but it is a worry if arguments such as this one became very persuasive to large numbers of rich Americans.

2.5 Answer: Some analysis, doesn’t consider objections, a few arguments (not defended wholly)

Premise 1 sounds like a good idea. But I wonder what counts as happy here. We read different philosophers who all had different ideas about happiness. Is happiness pleasure here, or is it satisfaction? I think it’s pleasure.

Premise 2 I agree with. For example, I bought a new pair of running shoes. Once I bought new shoes my knee stopped hurting. So I get more pleasure out of running now, that makes me happy.

Premise 3 I also agree with. Saving lives is important. If these people die they can not have any chance of happiness. Plus all their families will be unhappy at the deaths. So I agree but I wonder how pleasure as happiness works for these people. Does leading a hard life bring pleasure and therefore happiness even if it’s hard? Not sure.

Conclusion I agree with but only a bit. If I had to give all my money away I would be very unhappy. I would give up some pleasure but not all. If I did that then the balance of pleasure would stay the same - I would be unhappy but some one else would be happy because of my sacrifice. I think balance is important.

0.0 Answer: No reasons, no argument analysis, horrid!

Premise 1 is correct.

Premise 2 I agree with, but not if the shoes are cheaply made. I hate it when shoes fall apart.

Premise 3 sounds OK. I’m not sure why those people don’t get the flies out of their eyes on TV. That’s disgusting.

Conclusion I disagree with because new shoes make me really happy - when they don’t fall apart. Besides, if these famine people live, who knows if they will be happy? They’ve got no shoes!