PHI130 Contemporary Moral Issues (Corrigan)
PHI130 Contemporary Moral Issues (Corrigan) PHI130
Popular in Contemporary Moral Issues
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
Shoolman School of Graduate Studies
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
Popular in PHIL-Philosophy
This 33 page Study Guide was uploaded by Pelin Darendeliler on Sunday September 28, 2014. The Study Guide belongs to PHI130 at University of Miami taught by Daniel Patrick Corrigan in Spring2013. Since its upload, it has received 176 views. For similar materials see Contemporary Moral Issues in PHIL-Philosophy at University of Miami.
Reviews for PHI130 Contemporary Moral Issues (Corrigan)
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 09/28/14
Contemporary Moral Issues Exam 1 Shaw 2 types of relativism Subjectivism and Cultural Relativism o explain each 0 contrast CR with Descriptive Relativism 2 objections to Subjectivism 6 objections to Cultural Relativism Subjectivism radical subjective to individual makes morality relative to the individual holds that what is right or wrong is determined by what a person thinks is right or wrong 2 objections by Shaw on Subjectivism l Confuses the distinction between THINKING something is right and something ACTUALLY being right a Later you realize it may not have been right therefore change your mind mistaken originally BUT subjectivism would say that is was originally right and now it became wrong 2 Implies there is NO POINT debating ethics a Whatever a person thinks is right is automatically right for that person b We can never be wrong Cultural relativism Morality relative to culture less radically relative code of person s culture determines right or wrong more plausible o diversity of culture with re ections lead to assume morality shifts is a normative theory not descriptive theory holds that the only ethical standard for judging actions is the moral system of the society in which the act occurs 0 can be right in one place and wrong in another 0 its not Spanish think abortions are seen as immoral but it is immoral there moral code makes it wrong no absolute ethical standard independent of all cultures only various codes that exist Common Argument For CR 1 different societies have different moral codes 2 there is no nonethnocentric standard by which to judge actions only ethical standards exist for particular societies 3 therefore morality is relative to and determined by the standards of a parcutlar culture just as fashion beauty legality etc 6 objections by Shaw to Cultural Relativism 1 Cr is NOT required to explain WHY moral obligations may differ from society to society a When you need to explain the obligations based on consequences and expectations for certain actions these become objective notions which b Betty s society people live expecting sister s children take care of them when they are old obligations based on consequences c Sarah s society adults to not expect children tot tell the truth amused when they tell tales obligation based on expectations 2 We give REASONS to justify our moral judgments what a society THINKS is so is not enough a Impermissible to wear fur of a rare animal we may agree but there are reasons behind it 3 Implies that we cannot engage in moral CRITICISM a Slavery considered morally permissible in the South in thel800s according to CR it was right for them society said so but wrong for us society condemns it b It we attempted to morally criticize them CR says we are illegitimately attempting to extend our standards to their culture BUT we often believe we should criticize practices of other societies and we have justi cations and reason for doing so c Often criticize our own society but CR cannot make sense of this we can censure a person for not living up to society s moral code but cannot criticize the code itself reformers against injustices in own society encouraging people to be immoral until majority agrees 4 Its not clear what counts as the morality or MORAL CODE of a society a Presumably the majority makes the belief part of the moral code b BUT what percentage is required 51 90 if it is 51 something could be moral this year if 52 agree then next year at 49 no longer moral 5 Its not clear what counts as a SOCIETY a Do we count US as one society rural Iowa latino community etc not the same b Are there further moralitygenerating societies subcultures bikers stoners mafia 6 Implies we have no notion of moral PROGRESS a If all societies moral codes equally valid there is no standard that can judge one code better than another cannot speak of moral progress b Society s moral code may change but cannot judge it as better o worse simply different LN Principles of Utalitarianism amp Utalitarian Ethic 4 objections to Utalitarianism o Mill s response to each 2 step proof of Utalitarian ethics 0 explain each step and what it demonstrates Principles of Utalitarianism only thing desirable in itself is pleasure and freedom from pain something only desireable if its 0 O N inherently pleasurable it is a means to creating pleasure Actions are to be judged right or wrong solely by their CONSEQUENCES An action s consequences matter only so far as they involve HAPPINESS or UNHAPPINESS experienced by individuals 3 Each individual s happiness must be given EQUAL consideration impartiality from perspective of disinterested benevolent spectator Utalitarian Ethic Therefore morally right action the one that produces the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness with each persons happiness counted as equal Criticism of Utalitarianism 1 Holding pleasure to be the highest end in life makes Ut a theory worthy only of SWINE beneath human dignity a b Mill its not about quantity of pleasure but QUALITY different kinds of pleasure are more desirable than others Higher faculty intellects pleasures are more often chosen than physical pleasures decided by someone who has experiences both BUT few humans would choose to have all the pleasures of a pig compared to the pleasures of a human i No intelligent person would choose to be a fool even with a more satisfied life ii BUT person of higher faculties require more to be happy and capable of more acute suffering than someone with inferior faculties iii Central reason sense of dignity which all human have in one form or another 2 Promotes SELFISH pursuit of personal pleasures a b Mill often the case that the best way to bring about happiness of another is to absolutely sacrifice your own happiness Since Ut says that you should choose the action that promotes most overall happiness it is not about selfish pursuit of pleasure Sacrificing your happiness for another highest form of virtue Ut does not recognize your sacri ce itself as good only happiness is good sacrificing that does not increase overall happiness not good action 3 Ut is IRRELIGIOUS and godless doctrine a b Mill Held that God desires that happiness of his creatures above all else His purpose in creating them If Ut makes happiness the highest end then not only is it not a godless doctrine it is more profoundly religious than any other Follow that anything God has revealed regarding morality must fulfill the requirements of Ut reason for commandments is to make overall happiness that s what God wants If it was revealed morality were otherwise would be contrary to God s purpose 4 There is no enough TIME before an action to calculate the happinessunhappiness that will result a Mill we have the collective experiences of the entire human race we have learnt the likely results of most actions we do not need to take time to calculate these b So do not use Utalitarian Ethic to test each individual action rather develop rules of morality according to our past experiences offer rules of thumb to guide individual actions c We can always make new improvement to the rules of morality as our experience develops Proof of the Utalitarian Ethic Questions about what we should value question about what is desirebale Utalitariansim says happiness is only thing desirable as an end in itself all other things are desirable only as a means to that end Step1 1 Only proof that an object is visible is that people can see it Only proof that a sound is audible is that people can hear it 3 Similarly only proof that something is desirable is the fact that people actually desire it 4 Thus no reason can be given that happiness pleasure is the most desirable thing other than the fact that people actually desire it 5 And in fact we do find that happiness is what people desire and the goal of their conduct Therefore happiness must be ONE criteria of morality has not yet proven it is the ONLY criterion of morality To show happiness is the ONLY criterion necessary to show not only that people desire happiness Step 1 but that they never desire anything else Step 2 critics says virtue honestly absence of vice lying Step 2 1 People desire many things for themselves so we should NOT look on music or health as merely a means to achieve something called happiness These things are desire and desirable in themselves But in addition to being a means these things can also become PART of the END a Eg Money commonly desire to possess in itself not simply to use desirable for its own sake not merely as a means to some other end it has now become part of an individuals conception of happiness b Music health money can be part of an individuals conception of happiness 2 Can conclude that even though these things are desired in themselves in reality nothing is desired except happiness because they are simply part of happiness 3 Anything that is desire is either a Desired as part of happiness b Not desire for itself until it becomes a part of happiness Utalitarian Ethic now proven human nature ultimately desire only happiness and those things that are part of happiness happiness should therefore be the SOLE and ONLY criterion of morality O Neill basis of Kant s ethics 1 amp 2nd Formulation of Categorical Imperative 0 using person as a means treating person as an end 0 Kantian moral duties 0 Moral duties and basis of Kant s ethics explain how they connect Basis of Kant s Ethics For Kant RATIONALITY has ultimate value provides basis for morality Rationality allows a being to have AUTHONOMY ability to choose make plans and formulate and act upon principles Human beings are the bearer of rationality human life is of ultimate value should never be sacri ced for something of lesser value Believes there is one supreme principle of morality from which all more speci c moral principles can be derived 0 Categorical Imperative CI I Has 4 formulations all of which are logically equivalent which is why they are all the same principle 1 Formulation of the Categorical Imperative Formula of Universal Law 0 Act only on that maxim principle which you can will to be a universal law every time we act kant believes that our action re ect some maxim upon which it is based o the morality is based on the maxim of this action NOT by examining the consequence of the action provides 2 step process 1 determine the maxim upon which the action is based 2 determine whether or not you could will that maxim to be a universal law Examples woman desperately needs to borrow money must promise to repay loan knowing she cannot repay it o maxim when I find myself fin need of money I will borrow it and primes to repay knowing I cannot lyingpromise 0 universal law Maxim is selfcontradictory as it undermines promising it would be impossible to make promises because no one would believe them rich prosperous man sees a person who is poor and desperately in need of help considers whether to ignore him and not be troubled with him o maxim if I see someone in need I will not trouble myself to assist or contribute to the welfare of that person 0 universal law Maxim is selfcontradictory there are likely occasions in life when I need help and this law would deprive me of any hope of aid from others 2nd Formulation of the Categorical Imperative Formula of the End in Itself 0 Act in such a way that you always treat humanity whether in your own person or in the person of any other never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end tells us that we should determine the morality of an action by examining whether its maxim involves using a person ONLY as a means or whether it ALSO involves treating the person as an end Using Person as a means is to involve that person in a scheme of action to which they could NOT in principle CONSENT Go to the bank to cash a check use bank teller bank teller uses me to eam a living 0 Use bank teller as a means and she does me as a means 0 Each part consents to transaction we are not using each other ONLY as a means because we each CONSENT 0 Each person assumes that the other 1 Has maxims of their own that are being acted on 2 Is NOT just a thing to be manipulated Go to bank for a loan use bank teller for loan promising to repay it I know I wont be able to o I use bank teller as means BUT I deceived bank teller with false promise 0 She is unaware of my TRUE maxim she is UNABLE to consent to my scheme of action therefore I have used her ONLY as a means 0 I have manipulated bank teller as a tool in order to get what I want 2 standards of ways of using a person ONLY as a means 0 Deceit misleading lying tricking dealing fraudulently unable to consent to course of action 0 Coercion threatening or forcing another person to do something unable to consent to what they are doing Treating persons as Ends in themselves Is to 0 Never treat the person ONLY as a means 0 Sometimes seek to promote the person s plans and maxims by sharing some of his goals When we treat someone as an end in himself we try to achieve wht at that person wants However we cannot seek to achieve everything that other person wants for 3 reasons 0 People have TOO MANY goals impossible for me to help achieve them all o People s goals TOO DIVERSE 1 am not in a position to help them achieve all of them 0 People s goals are INCOMPATIBLE they want things that con ict and cannot all be achieved Therefore we must be SELECTIVE about which goals we try to help others achieve Moral Duties Kant divides our moral duties into 2 types Duty of Justice requires that we do NOT act on maxims that treat others ONLY as a means Duty of Beneficence require that we act on SOME maxims that treat others as an end in themselves requires judgment and discretion Kant claims that in order to be a moral person 1 We must never act in a way that is unjust 2 We must sometimes act in ways that are bene cent Duties amp the Basis of Kant s Ethics Recall Kant rationality has ultimate value provides basis of morality Rationality is of such value should never be sacrificed for something of lesser value No one ration being should be treated only as a means for the enjoyment or happiness of another rational being This explains why it is wrong to deceive or coerce another person into a scheme of action to which they cannot consent Doing so fails to treat the other person as a rational being to possesses AUTONOMY capability to choose making plans formulate and act upon principles Contemporary Moral Issues Exam 2 Notes UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS UN Years after WWII human rights revolution Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 first major human rights doc O O O O UDHR is declaration its not legal binding under international law UDHR followed by a number of conventions legally binding under international law 2 most important International Convention on Civil and Political Rights ICCPR International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights ICESCR Adopted in 1966 Most countries in the world have signed these conventions Human Rights vs Civil Rights Human rights NOT civil rights 0 O 0 Almost everyone has rights as citizens Civil rights because they are held by a person in virtue of being a citizen of that country Civil rights vary from country to country depending of rights recognized by constitution or laws of that country Human rights rights possessed by all human beings 0 Based on what is valuable about human life thus requires special protection Constitute a moral minimum minimum of which no person should be deprived no matter where he she lives Civil rights political rights possessed by virtue of being a citizen of a country Human rights moral rights possess merely in virtue of being human I Iustifying Human Rights UDHR says that people possess human rights in virtue of their inherent dignity What is dignity 9 2 common approached 0 Both appeal to FACTS about human beings TRUE regardless of what culture a person is from 1 PERSONHOOD human beings unlike other animals are persons they have the capacity to re ect on and make choices about what constitutes a worthwhile life Claim makes no assumption about the contents of a worthwhile life varies from culture to culture simply emphasizes that human beings have this capacity Once we acknowledge human beings have personhood then argued that this capacity requires special protection HR provide a list of a minimum requirements necessary for protecting this capacity 2 BASIC NEEDSINTERESTS human beings have basic things which they need in order to avoid serious harm This claim is about what a human being requires to avoid serious harm regardless of what culture a person happens to live in Some of these needs can be identified based on uncontroversial biological facts food water shelter etc basic needs distinguished from societal needs o societal refer to things that a person needs to live a minimally decent life in a particular society involves a more demanding list in a wealthier society than in a poorer society o basic needs HR are meant to protect are things that person needs to matter what society they live in Kantianism VS Utilitarianism personhood interpretation of dignity 9 fits Kantian justification of human rights o personhood interpretation claims that what makes people morally special is their capacity to re ect on and make choices about what constitutes a worthwhile life 0 should respect human rights which protect this special capacity of persons o Kant amp personhood interpretation pick out essentially same thing about people makes them deserving of moral respect and grants them human rights Basic needsinterests interpretation of dignity may fit with a Utilitarian justification of human rights o Utilitarianism 9 claims that morality requires us to maximize happiness or well being o Basic needsinterests interpretation 9 claims human beings have basic things which they need in order to avoid serious harm o Therefore could be argued that everyone s human rights should be met in order to avoid serious harm which helps us to maximize overall happiness or well being Notice that this justification is probably only compatible with RULE Utilitarianism which says that we should follow the set of rules that will maximize overall happiness or well being o In this case human rights can be viewed as part of the set of rules that Rule Utilitarianism will endorse o BUT ACT Utilitarianism says that on each occasion we should do the act that will maximize overall happiness or well being 0 Thus ACT Utilitarianism has no place for rights because we should violate them any time such a violation will maximize overall happiness or well being The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Profit MILTON FRIEDMAN 9 anti CSR Corporation Today Of the 100 largest economic entities in the world in 2011 44 are corporations and 56 are countries 8 of the top 50 economic entities are corporation 35 of the second tier of 50 are corporation and 44 of the third tier of 50 are corporation 0 87 of the top 150 economic entities are corporations Critique of Corporate Social Responsibility today we find business people who think they are defending free enterprise when the say business ins concerned not merely with profit but also with promoting desirable social ends providing employment eliminating discrimination and avoiding pollution promoting these desirable social ends is often referred to as the corporate social responsibility 0 in fact business people who promote the corporate social responsibility have unknowingly become the puppets of social forces that undermine free enterprise The Incoherence Argument the corporate social responsibility is NOT a coherent idea 0 only people can have responsibilities 0 a corporation is an artificial person so it may have artificial responsibilities 0 but it makes no sense to speak of business as a whole having responsibilities presumably the people who are supposed to be responsible are the ones in charge of running a business corporate executives but corporate executives are employees of the owners of a business this means corporate executives have direct responsibility to their employers 0 that responsibility is to conduct the business in accordance with the desires of their employers 0 the DESIRE of the owners employers is to make as much money as possible within the laws and ethics of society 0 thus the RESPONSIBILITY of corporate executives is to make as much money as possible within the laws and ethics of society a corporate executive is a person in her own right as a person she may view herself as having responsibilities that she recognizes or has voluntarily assumed such as responsibilities to family to church to donate to charity or to serve in the armed forces we can even refer to some of these responsibility as social responsibilities but in the case of these responsibilities she is acting as a PRINCIPAL on behalf of herself rather than as an AGENT on behalf of someone else 0 in carrying out these responsibilities she is expending her own money time and energy NOT the money of her employer nor the time or energy she has contracted to devote to their purposes thus if these are social responsibilities they are the responsibilities of an individual NOT the business The Taxation Argument if one claims that a corporate executive has social responsibilities in her capacity as a corporate executive then this means she has responsibilities to act in ways that are not in the interest of her employer 0 eg It might be claimed that a corporate executive has a responsibility to reduce pollution beyond the amount required by law to achieve the social objective of improving the environment 0 in carrying out this social responsibility the corporate executive would be spending someone else s money for a general social interest 0 if her actions reduce investor return then she is spending the stockholders owner s money 0 if her actions raise prices then she is spending customer s money 0 if her actions lower wages then she is spending employees money the corporate executive is exercising a social responsibility rather than acting as an agent whenever she spends the stockholder s the consumer s or the employee s money in a different way then they would have spent it this is equivalent to imposing a tax on these people and then deciding how the proceeds of that tax will be spent Political Issues Raised by CSR this raises 2 political issues 1 an issue of PROCESS a we have established governmental processes for the imposition and expenditure of taxes These democratic processes are set up to assure that taxes are imposed as far as possible in accordance with the preferences of the public no taxation without representation b if a corporate executive carries out social responsibilities then she alone is deciding whom to tax how much for what purposes and how the proceeds will be spent our legal system allows stockholders to select corporate executives because executives are supposed to be agent who serve the interest of the stockholders when the executives spends money on social purposes she becomes a public employee even though she remains an employee of the private corporation if corporate executives are to serve as a public employees who impose taxes and determine how the proceeds will be spend then it is intolerable that they be selected by stockholders instead they must be elected through a political process which ensures that taxes are imposed and spent according to public preference this allows us to see that the doctrine of social responsibility is a socialist view political mechanisms NOT market mechanisms determine the allocation of scarce resources 2 an issue of CONSEQUENCES 81 b Objections corporate executives have expertise in running corporations not solving social issues pollution in ation unemployment etc so corporate executives will generally not have the knowledge to solve social issues even if an executive did have the know how to solve issue how would she determine the appropriate share her corporation should contribute If a corporate executive does exercise social responsibility then the result will be either that i She is fired by stockholders because she has reduced the corporations profit and stock price ii She is deserted by customers because she has increased prices while competitors maintain lower prices iii She is deserted by employees because she has cut into their wages while competitor maintain higher wages OBIECTION 1 O O REPLY 1 0 Many social problems are too urgent to wait on the slow political process to solve them The exercise of social responsibility by corporate executives is a quicker and surer way to solve these problems This objection simply means that people who favour expenditure on certain social problems have failed to convince their fellow citizens to democratically support these expenditures through the political process They now seek to attain their favored expenditures through un democratic means OBIECTION 2 0 Some corporations do provide amenities to the community and other socially beneficial expenditures 0 This shows that there are examples of corporations meeting their social responsibilities REPLY 2 0 We may be strongly tempted to label such expenditures by corporate an exercise of social responsibility 0 However this is generally a way for corporations to generate good will and is entirely justified by their self interest ie A means for increasing profits Conclusion In an ideal market system no individual can coerce any other and all corporation is voluntary There is no social responsibilities other than the values and responsibilities of individuals or the voluntary groups they may form The only social responsibilities of business is to increase profits within the rules of the game in other worlds to engage in open and free competition without deception or fraud The Stakeholder theory of Modern Corporation EDWARD FREEMAN proCSR Managerial Capitalism The central question in the CSR debate is this in whose interest and for whose benefit should the corporation be managed Managerial Capitalism 9 answers by appealing to the assumption of stockholder primacy 0 This assumption holds that since stockholders own shares in the firm management has a duty to give precedence to the rights and interests of stockholders over the rights and interests of others Essentially Managerial Capitalism holds that in return for the right to control the firm management should vigorously pursue the interest of stockholders And the means management should pursue transactions with suppliers employees customers and others in an unconstrained manner with the only goal being pursuit of the stockholders interests Freeman will argue that Managerial Capitalism and its assumption of stockholder primary is wrong Instead he will argue for Stakeholder Theory which holds that corporate management has a duty to pursue the interests of all stakeholders in the firm stakeholders are those groups who have a stake in or claim on the firm 0 these groups suppliers customers employees managements stockholders and local community Arguments for Managerial Capitalism 1 The Legal Argument the law states that corporations are legal entities which exist as a legal person have limited liability for their actions and immortality since their existence transcends that of its members the law also states that management has a duty to conduct the affairs of the corporation in the best interest of the stockholders furthermore the law allows stockholders to sue management if they fail to carry out this duty therefore management should act to maximize stockholders profits Objection the problem with this argument is that it appeals to the law to justify Managerial Capitalism but overlooks contrary developments in the law which have occurred during the past century the law has developed in a way that requires the claims of customers employees and communities to be taken into consideration the interests of CUSTOMERS have been given some priority through the development of product liability law the law has essential changed from a policy of buyer beware to a policy of seller beware the Consumer Product Safety Commission CPSC has been created and given the power to enact product recalls o in 1980 the CPSC required one automobile manufacturer to recall more cars than it built the interests to EMPLOYEES have been give some priority through various pieces of legislation o the National Labor Relations Act 1935 gave employees the right to unionize and engage in collective bargaining o the Equal Pay act 1963 and Civil Rights Act 1964 prevents management from discriminating against women and minorities when it comes to pay and hiring practices 0 the Age Discrimination in Employment Act 1967 forbids management from discriminating in pay and hiring when it comes to age the interests of COMMUNITIES have also been given some priority through various pieces of legislation o the Clean Air Act 1963 and the Clean Water Act 1972 constrain the degree to which management can pollute the air and water 0 so the Legal Argument fails because it looks at only one aspect of law while ignoring other parts of the law which give priority to the rights and interests of other stakeholders besides the stockholders 2 The Economic Argument free markets create the greatest good through the invisible hand and thus governments should not intervene so governments should not interfere in the market by creating legislation that requires management to give priority to the rights and interests of other stakeholders therefore the greatest good will be realized in a free market economy where management acts to maximize stockholders profits Objections 1 the problem with this argument is that it claims free unregulated markets create the greatest good but historical experience has shown this false first free markets are plagued by the problem of EXTERNALITIES exemplify by the tragedy of the commons which occurs when economic transactions have a cost for non consenting bystanders o firms seek to internalize the benefits and externalize the costs of their actions I eg No one has an incentive to incur the cost of non pollution and since every firm reasons in that way the result is polluted air and water 2 Free markets are plagued by the problem of MORAL HAZARD which occurs when the purchaser of a good is willing to take a risk because the costs of that risk can be passed along to others o this means there is no incentive to economize on the part of either the producer of the consumer which results in excessive use of the resources involved I eg The recel wall street bail out or the Russia bail out in 1998 3 Free markets are played by the problem of MONOPOLIES which occur when a single entity is the only supplier of a particular commodity 0 occurs because each firm is seeking to monopolize a small portion of the market and not compete with one another 0 eg Monopolies result in reduced competitiveness and allow for abuses such as monopoly pricing in order to avoid these negative effects of the free market we have introduced government regulation in an attempt to create an economy that produces the greatest good and part of this legislation includes requirement that management give priority to the interests of other stakeholders over the interests of stockholders Stakeholder Theory stockholders are groups or individuals who benefit from or are harmed by corporate actions we can divide stakeholders into 2 categories 0 1 Narrow Stakeholders are those whose are vital to survival and success of the corporation I include suppliers customers employees management stockholders and local community 0 2 Broad Stakeholders include anyone who can affect or is affected by the corporation in order to avoid these negative effects of the free market we have introduced government regulation in an attempt to create an economy that produces the greatest good and part of this legislation includes requirements that management give priority to the interests of other stakeholders over the interests of stockholders Freeman39s Stakeholder Theory holds that each of the narrow Stakeholder Groups has a right not to be treated as a means to an ends and therefore must participate in determining the future direction of the firm in which they have a stake o Stockholders owners have financial stakes in the firm in the form of stocks bonds etc Therefore they have a right to expect some kind of financial return on this investment 0 Employees have their jobs and usually their livelihoods at stake Are expected to give their labor and loyalty to the firm Therefore they have a right to wages benefits and meaningful work in return Additionally the firm is expected to provide for them and carry them through difficult times 0 Customers depend on the firm to meet some of their needs and thus have a stake in continuing to have these needs met Customers buy the products and services of the firm which provides the lifeblood of the firm in the form of revenue Re investment of revenuer in RampD also means that customers indirectly for the development of new products and services Therefore customers have a right to receive benefits form the products and services that they purchase and that the firm pay attention to customers needs 0 Local community benefits form tax base and economic and social contributions of the firm and thus has its prosperity at stake Gives the firm the right to build facilities and operate there and also provide the firm with local services fire police road crews Therefore local community has a right to expect the firm to be a good citizen and not to expose the community to hazards in the form of pollution toxic waste etc also If the form intends to leave it has an obligation to work with the local community to make the transition as easy as possible 0 Management has special position because I It is itself a stakeholder I Also has the role of looking after the other stakeholders I Like employees management have their jobs and perhaps livelihoods at stake I Management is expected to give their labor and loyalty to the firm therefore they have a right to wages benefits etc in return But management is also expected to look after the firm which involves balancing the multiple claims of con icting stakeholders Stakeholder Theory does NOT give primacy to any one group of stakeholders over others thus to Stakeholder theory management must keep the relationships among the various stakeholders in balance 3 principles of Stakeholder Theory 1 Stakeholder Enabling Principle a A corporation shall be managed in the interests of its stakeholders defined as employees owners stockholders and bondholders customers suppliers and community 2 Principle of Management Responsibility a Managers of the corporation shall have a duty of care to use reasonable judgment to define and direct the corporation in accordance with Stakeholder Enabling Principle 3 Principle of Stakeholder Recourse a Stakeholders may bring an action against the managers for failure to perform the required duty of care ETHICS AND VALUE CHAINS Phillips amp Craig Caldwell Value Chains A value chain a chain of activities that a firm performs or has performed for them in order to deliver something of value a product or service 0 Especially with the development of globalization business activity and thus value chains have become much more networked and extended It is now very common for firms to outsource all sorts of tasks to other firms 0 Eg Call centres for Nike warranty work on latops for HP packing cameras Nikon Traditional Conception of Value Chains Traditionally the various entities in the value chain were seen as independent of each other Each entities border were seen as rigid and it was believed that we could easily distinguish one entities from another Producers of raw materials manufacturers distributors retailers and finally consumers were seen as independent entities which had no relationship between them beyond the economic transactions they conducted with each other Since the traditional view sees each entity in the value chain as rigidly defined and independent of each other it also sees responsibility as rigidly defined and contained within in each entity In other worlds as far as responsibility goes each entity is responsible for its own internal conduct but cannot be held responsible for the internal conduct of other entities in the value chain Value chain responsibility In recent years however as globalization has led to more networked and extended business activity the view of value chains has begun to change May no reject the idea that firms are rigidly defined and independent islands which are incapable of in uencing their value chains And if firms can have in uence over other entities in their value chains then this raises the issue of responsibility of the internal conduct of these other entities The value chain responsibility VCR movement endorses the idea that a firm is responsible for the conduct of the other entities in its value chain because the firm chooses to do business with these other entities and thus has in uence over them In recent years the activities who endorse the VCR movement have waged a number of successful campaigns 0 Eg PETA successfully pressured McDonald39s to begin releasing social performance reports to stop using growth promoting antibiotics in their global meat supply and begin bringing meat suppliers in the US up to animal welfare standards maintained by European suppliers 0 Student activists and Michael Moore with his film The BIG ONE pressured Nike to stop subcontracting production to inexpensive sweatshops where workers included girls as young as 12 years old who toiled in slave like conditions The Future of VCR VCR typically takes the form of social responsibility reports outsourcing reports supplier codes of conduct etc In these statement firms describe their efforts to establish acceptable practices in their value chain or defend their existing practices However NGO s and activist groups are have often been highly critical of these reports They claim that firms white wash themselves in these reports by casting the firm in undeservedly favourable light a new marketing tool Little progress has been made on actual accountability for VCR because firms have been unwilling to subject themselves to a process that would allow more scrutiny of these reports Additionally there is a problem of little agreement about what the standards should be While pressure form NGOs activist s and the media have some effect on getting firms to embrace VCR substantial pressure to embrace VCR may only come from suppliers and customers When a high profile company like Nike lays out a policy on supplier use of underage labor this puts a new responsibility on its suppliers But this is turn has a cascade effect that tends to produce an increased sense of responsibility across the suppliers of may high profile companies Consumers are perhaps the most key group when it comes to pressuring firms to embrace VCR The positional in uence of consumers became quite visible in the case of Nikes relationship with universities Nike pays substantial sums to university athletic departments and in return universities agree to use Nike Clothing display overt forms of Nike advertising during sports events and allow Nike to sell apparel with the universities logos o Nike paid University of Michigan 7 million for this arrangements However students at Georgetown Duke Brown University of Michigan and University of Oregon among others began to protest the labor standards at Nike suppliers As a result Brown and the University of Michigan severed ties with Nike over issues of labor and human rights Ultimately Nike adopted a labor policy for all of its suppliers and began to monitor the working conditions in these entities Consumers can often apply the greatest pressure for a firm to embrace VCR because they can have the most effect on the firm s bottom line SAMESEX MARRIAGE A DEBATE Bennett amp Sullivan BENNETT There are two key issues of contention between opponents and proponents of same sex marriage 1 Will legally recognizing same sex unions strengthen or weaken the institution of marriage While the advocates of same sex marriage say they want to celebrate and strengthen marriage that will not be the result Same sex unions will a shatter the conventional definition of marriage b change the rules that govern behavior c endorse practices that con ict with tenets of the world39s major religions d send conflicting signals to the young about marriage and sexuality e obscure a primary function of marriage procreation and child rearing 2 How will same sex unions change the basic understanding of marriage The Improper Expansion of Marriage Argument P1 Proponents of same sex marriage want legal recognition and social acceptance of their sexuality P2 However if we endorse sexual relativism then we lose the capacity to draw lines and make moral distinctions between proper forms of sexuality and improper forms of sexuality P3 Thus if we recognize homosexual marriage we will have no principled way of excluding others who also want legal recognition and social acceptance of their sexuality for example incestuous couples polygamists etc C Therefore extending marriage to same sex couples will lead to further attempts to expand the definition of marriage Discussion Can39t we still endorse the principle that it is impermissible to marry someone in your immediate family Is it arbitrary to say that you cannot marry your first cousin but you can marry your second cousin The Non Monogamous Argument P1 An essential ideal of marriage is monogamy even if this ideal is not always honored in practice P2 Many advocates of same sex marriage do not share this ideal promiscuity among homosexual males is well known P3 The monogamous model of marriage has served society very well C Therefore the burden of proof to change this ideal should be on those who propose untested marriage arrangements Discussion What do proponents need to do to prove their arrangements should be acceptable How can they prove this without being allowed to marry Discussion Heterosexual couples who believe in an open marriage do not share this ideal Does this mean they should not be allowed to marry The Religious Foundations Argument P1 Marriage is not an arbitrary construction that can be redefined by anyone who wants to get married P2 This is because marriage is instituted by God and is built on moral religious sexual and human realities which include the complementary nature of men and women P3 Furthermore marriage is the institution that allows us to reproduce nurture educate and sustain our species P4 Same sex marriage violates these realities C Therefore we should not allow same sex marriage Discussion Is traditional marriage the only way we can achieve these things Do we want to be governed by a theocracy or the US Constitution right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness SULLIVAN 1 Response to the Improper Expansion of Marriage Argument Bennett claims that same sex marriage proponents engage in a sexual relativism which renders us unable to oppose polygamous marriage on principled grounds This argument rests the assumption that polygamous impulses are morally and psychologically equivalent to homosexual impulses However Bennett assumes these two are equivalent simply because they are both diversions from the heterosexual norm But everyone seems to agree even those who find homosexuality morally troubling that it occupies a deeper level of human consciousness than a polygamous impulse o For example The Catholic Church which believes homosexuality is a disorder nevertheless acknowledges that it is a profound element of human nature Here is a principled distinction Polygamy is an activity which can be desired by heterosexuals or homosexuals whereas homosexuality and heterosexuality are states If this principled distinction can be drawn then there is no logical connection between accepting same sex marriage and accepting polygamous marriage This means the question of o a whether the government should extend marriage to more than one spouse 0 b whether the government should extend marriage to same sex partners are completely separate questions Thus rather than same sex marriage opening up the possibility of multiple partners for homosexuals it actually closes this possibility down Discussion My objection to Bennett about banning marriage for heterosexual couples who believe in open marriages still applies But of course it equally applies to both homosexual and heterosexual marriages Does Sullivan39s distinction provide a principled line that allows us to ban polygamous marriage while allowing same sex marriage Does bi sexuality create a problem for this distinction What about someone who practices bestiality Objection Any change in marriage opens up the possibility of any conceivable change in marriage ie necrophilia bestiality etc Sullivan39s Reply This is not an argument it39s panic The same sort of panic occurred when interracial marriage was declared constitutional forty years ago and when women were no longer considered the legal property of their husbands Historically marriage has changed many times Therefore we must judge each change on its own terms rather than as a seamless process of supposed disintegration 3 Responses to the Non Monogamous Argument Bennett argues that homosexuals understand the institution of marriage so differently than heterosexuals that they would change the institution entirely Bennett39s argument rests on the assumption that gay men are so naturally promiscuous they would be unable to sustain the monogamous requirements of marriage But actually we can point to cultural differences between gay men and heterosexual relationships as explaining any differences in sexual practice This actually supports the need for same sex marriage which would provide a cultural institution that encourages monogamy among same sex partners Bennett39s specific claim is that men are naturally more promiscuous than women and thus male male marriages will legitimize promiscuity But if this is true then it implies a Lesbian marriages will be more monogamous than heterosexual marriages and thus lesbian marriages will provide a good example that counters the alleged damage done by male male marriages b Male male couples are the ones most in need of marriage rights which are supposed to reward and encourage monogamy Applied Ethics Duties Toward the Body in Respect to Sexual Impulse Immanuel Kant Among our inclinations is one directed toward other human beings an appetite to enjoy another human being sexually In such cases the person him or herself is the object of enjoyment and not that person39s work or services We are capable of using another person as an instrument of service For example you can employ someone to mow your yard In such cases we use another person39s services or abilities with that person39s consent to achieve our ends But it is only through the sexual impulse that we make the person him or herself the object of indulgence Human love is good will affection and promoting the happiness of another person along with finding joy in that person39s happiness When a person loves another person purely from sexual impulse none of the elements of love are involved Therefore a love that springs merely from sexual impulse is not love at all but only an appetite Sexuality poses the threat of degrading humanity and reducing human beings to animals This is because sexuality is not an inclination for another person as a person but only an inclination for the other person as an object Thus human nature rationality is sacrificed to sex the sex of the other person becomes the object of one s appetites and inclinations not the person him or herself Therefore in matters of sexuality we are always at risk of acting according to desire rather than according to reason Reason requires that we treat others always as an end and never merely as a means 2nd Formulation of the Categorical Imperative If sexuality threatens to degrade humanity and reduce us to animals then under what circumstances can we morally satisfy our sexual desires The sole condition under which we have the right to make free use of our sexual desire is one in which we have the right to dispose of another person as a whole This is because if you have the right to dispose of the whole of another person then you also have the right to dispose of the parts of that person including that person39s sex The only way you can gain the right to dispose of the whole of another person is to give the other person the same right over yourself This only occurs in marriage which is an agreement between two people to grant each other reciprocal rights over the whole of each other s person Thus marriage makes it possible for us to engage in a sexual relationship with another person without degrading humanity and violating morality Applied Ethics Plain Sex Alvin Goldman Plain Sex oPlain sex Sexual desire is the desire for contact with another person39s body and for the pleasure that such contact brings sexual activity is activity that tends to fulfill these desires oThis definition defines sex in terms of the general goal of sexual desire and activity rather than something else which this contact might express Means Ends Definitions oThis definition of sex contrasts with means ends definitions which define sex as a means to certain extraneous ends 1 Reproductive Definition This is the most common means ends definition which identifies the purpose of sex as reproduction sex is a means for reproductive ends Problems A Reproduction may be nature39s purpose for sex but it need not be our purpose oFor example nature39s purpose for eating is nutrition and sustenance but my purpose for eating may be pleasure B This definition brands oral sex and other non reproductive sexual behaviors as deviations C While it may have been rational to link sex and reproduction at one time the invention of contraceptives has rendered this connection very weak oFor example we are now capable of engage in sex in such a way that there is no reason to associate reproduction with this activity 2 Sex Love Definition This means ends definition identifies sex as an expression of love or affection between partners sex is a means for the expression of love oProblems A The connection between love and sex is weak oThere are types of love that it is not appropriate to express sexually ie parent39s love for a child oFurthermore romantic love can be expressed in many other ways besides sex oWhile sex can take on a heightened value and meaning when it is a vehicle for the expression of love so can others things such as making someone breakfast B Sex can be used to communicate love but is can also communicate nothing in particular and still be good sex C Sex and love are different in nature oLove involves a long term deep emotional relationship between two individuals oA normal person cannot deeply love more than a few individuals in a lifetime oHowever sexual desire can arise in relation to many individuals that a person finds sexually attractive oMonogamous sex almost always requires sacrifice and self control on the part of spouses whereas monogamous love generally does not oD This definition makes most sexual desire seem degrading or base olnstead we might think of sexual desire as a natural human emotion not as something degrading or base Platonic Christian Morality oThese means ends definitions of sexuality derive from the Platonic Christian tradition according to which the animal or physical elements of human beings are the source of immorality oAccording to this conception of morality yielding to our animal nature is considered subhuman or vulgar oThis morality views plain sex as an expression of our animal nature and thus it is morally condemned Sex and Morality oIt s true that sex can be used to harm deceive or manipulate a person oBut the fact that an act is sexual has NO bearing on its moral character its sexual nature does not render it wrong or add to its wrongness For example rape is wrong because 0A It is an extreme violation of a person39s body 0B It violates a person39s right not to be humiliated 0C It violates the moral prohibition against using people against their will oHowever rape is NOT wrong because it is sexual in nature But while it is true that the sexual nature of an act does not make it wrong it is also true that an act which is otherwise immoral is not excused because it is sexual in nature Applied Ethics Torture The Case For Dirty Harry Uwe Steinhoff An Argument for the justification of Torture oP1 Killing is sometimes justified ie in war oP2 Killing harms a person more than torture oP3 If killing is sometimes justified then torture must also be sometimes justified C Therefore torture is sometimes justified CounterArguments Against the Justification of Torture Shue s Argument Against Torture oP1 Even if we grant killing does more harm to a person than torture this does not mean the justification for the greater harm killing is applicable to the lesser harm torture oP2 The Principle of Defenselessness PD says we must not assault the defenseless oP3 Killing in war does not violate this principle whereas torture does 0C Therefore we should not engage in torture Critique of Shue s Argument oSteinhoff claims that the validity of the PD is doubtful oShue s justification for the PD is based on another principle which comes from ust War Theory oThe Prohibition of Violence Against Non Combatants PVANC distinguishes between combatants and non combatants and requires that insofar as possible violence should not be directed toward non combatants oThe problem is that the PVANC does not justify the PD oConsider this example We come upon a group of enemy soldiers who have limited weapons ie guns and we are able to strike them at a distance with superior weapons ie shells oTwo things are true of the enemy soldiers 1 they are combatants 2 they are defenseless relative to our weapons oThe PVANC would hold that it is morally permissible to attack these enemy soldiers because they are combatants oHowever the PD would hold that it is morally impermissible to attack these enemy soldiers because they are defenseless oThus the PVANC does not justify the PD Sussman s Argument Against Torture oP1 Torture has a higher burden of justification than even killing oP2 Torture is an extreme form of cruelty and the pre eminent type of forced self betrayal more akin to rape than other forms of violence 0P3 The torturer takes the victim39s pain and through it the victim39s body and makes it express the torturer s will 0P4 Thus torture turns the victim39s agency will against himself powerless complicit in his own violation 0C Therefore we should not engage in torture Critique of Sussman s Argument oConsider the following thought experiment oDictator tells Prisoner A that he must either kill one of ten prisoners or torture one of them for two hours If Prisoner A refuses then all ten prisoners will be killed oFirst it seems that Prisoner A is justified in choosing one of the options and thus preventing the death of all ten prisoners oFurthermore it seems that Prisoner A ought to choose to torture one of the prisoners for two hours rather than kill one of them 2nd person perspective oFinally it seems clear that the each of the ten prisoners would prefer to be tortured for two hours rather than killed 1St person perspective oTherefore it seems that torture is easier to justify than killing oThe features which Sussman believes make torture so bad are not in fact unique to torture oAn armed robber threatens a victim with a gun and orders the victim to hand over money oThe robber uses the victim39s fear to make the victim express the robber s will oThe victim is both helpless complicit in his own violation oThus Sussman is unable to show that torture has a higher burden of justification than killing oFurthermore the thought experiment suggests the opposite killing has a higher burden of justification than torture The Emotional Reaction Argument Against Torture oP1 People have a much stronger emotional reaction to displays of torture than to displays of killing ie in movies 0C Therefore torture is worse than killing Critique of the Emotional Reaction Argument oPeople also have a stronger emotional reaction to displays of cockroaches and feces than to displays of killing 0 But this doesn39t mean we should assume it is worse to push someone into a tub of cockroaches and feces than to kill that person oThus there is nothing morally relevant that follows from the emotional reaction oPeople have stronger emotional reactions to displays of prolonged killing than to quick killing oThis is because we cannot empathize with the dead we don39t know what it is to be dead oHowever we do know what it is to feel pain and suffering and thus we can feel compassion for others who are experiencing pain suffering oSo our emotional reactions to displays are distorted by the limits of our empathy oBut our emotional reactions are not limited when it comes to our own prospects oThus we should measure things according to this non limited perspective oEach of us would prefer torture for a limited period over death oTherefore when our emotional reactions are not limited we believe death to be worse than torture Modified Argument for the justification of Torture oP1 Killing is sometimes justified ie in war oP2 Killing harms a person more than torture oP3 If killing a defenseless enemy combatant to avoid our own casualties is justified then torturing a defenseless terrorist to avoid our own casualties is justified 0C Therefore torturing terrorists is sometimes justified Objection to the Modified Argument oEnemy soldiers may be defenseless relative to our weapons but they still pose a threat to our advancing soldiers oBut a detained terrorist no longer poses a threat oThis is because withholding information does not constitute a present threat Reply The Ticking Bomb Argument oP1 Terrorism is analogous to a self defense situation involving an aggressor and defender 0P2 A terrorist that has hidden a ticking bomb is an aggressor who has created a harmful situation 0P3 The people who will potentially be harmed by the ticking bomb are defenders oP4 If we have the option of harm falling on the aggressor or defender it is only fair and just that harm should fall on the aggressor responsible for creating the situation 0C Therefore we are justified in torturing a terrorist who is withholding information in a potentially harmful situation Objections to the Ticking Bomb Argument 1 Interrogative torture is not reliable oReply Even if the odds are extremely long 1 in a million this objection does not provide any reason why we should not try to get information from the terrorist oThe terrorist is still the aggressor and the people who would get hurt defenders oThe harm should fall on the aggressor even if we are unlikely to get reliable information 2 We might torture an innocent person ie one who does not know where the bomb is oReply We can never know for certain oln criminal trials we rarely know with absolute certainty that a convicted person committed the crime oBut we still punish a person who is convicted oFurthermore we are justified in torturing this person even if we are not certain olf a person jokingly pulled out a water gun and feigned shooting a candidate at a presidential rally the secret service would be justified in shooting that person oSimilarly even if a supposed terrorist has not planted a bomb the fact that he associates with people who intend to attack us is equivalent to feigning an attack oThus we are justified in torturing a supposed terrorist even if he turns out not to have info about the bomb Steinhoff s Conclusion oTherefore the torture of terrorists is sometimes justified Applied Ethics Training Torturers A Critique of the Ticking Bomb Argument Iessica Wolfendale oSince 911 many have claimed that we are in a new kind of war and ordinary moral constraints cannot apply oMore specifically they argue that terrorism poses such an extreme threat that the moral prohibitions against torture no longer apply oUsually these people offer a variation of the ticking bomb argument with a discussion of the conditions under which the torture of terrorism suspects would be justified oBut the issue missed by all of these arguments is that permitting torture means the training of torturers Ticking Bomb Arguments o Ticking Bomb arguments provide a scenario in which a suspect has been caught who possesses information that must be obtained quickly to avoid huge civilian casualties oThe suspect is described as a fanatical terrorist who is willing to die for his cause oln such a situation the torturer must be able to extract the required information in the shortest time possible because the bomb is ticking without killing the suspect olt is generally agreed that it is morally impermissible to torture for the purposes of punishment dehumanization or deterrence oGiven these moral constraints what kind of training would the ticking bomb torturer require oWhile it39s true that ordinary people are capable of committing horrendous acts of violence without having any particular training they do not possess the skills needed to engage in interrogative torture oEven ordinary police and soldiers lack the skills necessary to carry out interrogative torture oFor example The soldiers guards at Abu Ghraib Prison show how amateurish the attempts of ordinary soldiers can be when ordered to keep prisoners awake around the clock A good interrogative torturer needs a number of skills Practical Skills oAbility to control the entire torture process oAbility to torture whoever is brought in front of him ie women children etc oThe discipline to in ict pain without begin overly brutal so the captive does not die Mental Skills oAbility to manage the psychological stress associated with torturing The Training of Torturers oMost trained torturers are soldiers or military police who have received torture training in elite military units oBasic Training in Elite Military Units olnterrogation training usually takes place in the context of survival training oTrainees hear lectures and receive lessons from former POW s who have undergone torture oTrainees are also required to undergo realistic re creations of interrogations in resistance training labs oThis training is very effective in desensitizing trainees to the in iction and endurance of suffering oFirst trainees are desensitized to their own suffering through the training labs oTrainees later play the torturer and become desensitized to the in iction of pain and the suffering of others oThis reduces the trainees empathetic reactions to suffering and makes it psychologically easier to inflict pain and humiliation on other human beings Torture as a Profession olt is not enough for the torturer to feel nothing when in icting suffering he must also adopt an attitude of professionalism toward his work oProfessionalization is used to legitimize torture in a number of ways 1 The professional goals of the military are used to help justify torture oTorturers are encouraged to see themselves as professional soldiers who are carrying out their duty to protect the nation 2 Professional language is used to discuss torture oTorture is reconfigured from a brutal act of violence into a specialized knowledge and skill set through the use of professional language oFor example Torture is referred to as interrogation torture centers are referred to as safe houses etc 3 Routinization ie to make something routine oTorture is made into a routine job that is subject to professional standards and justification oMaking torture routine also leads to professional detachment Le a doctor becomes detached from death Nazi doctors became detached from the affairs of the concentration camps Dehumanization oThe torture process involves dehumanizing the victims oTorture victims are often humiliated terrified filthy and naked denied toilet facilities sleep deprived hooded etc so that the victim looks and feels less than human oThis makes it easier for the torturer to treat the victim as less than human ie easier to torture the victim oThis can even lead the torturer to believe that the victim deserves the torture oAll of these elements are necessary for the ticking bomb torturer who must act within the time constraints imposed by the situation oDesensitization ensures the torturer will not be concerned about the victim39s guilt or innocence worry about the moral justification of torture or become distressed or experience revulsion during the torture process oProfessionalization ensures that the torture follows orders believes the burden of responsibility to lie with the authorities and views the process as a professional duty Torture in the Real World oAmnesty International has identified over 150 countries that use torture including the US oAlmost none of these cases meet the justification of the ticking bomb argument olnstead these acts of torture can be called crimes of obedience an individual performs an act of torture simply because it was ordered by an authority Argument Against Training Torturers oP1 Torturers are trained not to concern themselves with the moral justification of torture oP2 Torturers will not question whether a particular order to torture is justified 0P3 This means torturers are unlikely to restrict themselves to the stringent criteria of ticking bomb scenarios and will engage in immoral and illegal acts of torture 0C Therefore we should not train torturers Objection 1 The fact that torturers are used for immoral purposes in the real world does not show there is anything theoretically wrong with training torturers for ticking bomb scenarios Wolfendale s Reply oThe use of torture for illegal and immoral purposes in the real world is NOT an accident and it is NOT a matter of a few bad torturers olt is the direct result of the way in which torturers are trained oAn interrogative torturer who is capable of meeting the demands of a ticking bomb scenario must be someone willing and able to obey orders without question oSince the critic cannot guarantee that illegal or immoral orders will never be given this means the training of torturers is certain to lead to crimes of obedience oTherefore it is impossible to confine the use of torture to ticking bomb scenarios Conclusion oTorture causes far more suffering than it has ever prevented oTherefore the mere possibility of a ticking bomb scenario is NOT sufficient to justify the mass suffering which is actually produced by torture
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'