New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here


by: Domenica Klocko II


Domenica Klocko II
GPA 3.53

D. Marin

Almost Ready


These notes were just uploaded, and will be ready to view shortly.

Purchase these notes here, or revisit this page.

Either way, we'll remind you when they're ready :)

Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

D. Marin
Class Notes
25 ?




Popular in Course

Popular in Business, management

This 13 page Class Notes was uploaded by Domenica Klocko II on Tuesday October 13, 2015. The Class Notes belongs to MGT 3211 at Louisiana State University taught by D. Marin in Fall. Since its upload, it has received 67 views. For similar materials see /class/223124/mgt-3211-louisiana-state-university in Business, management at Louisiana State University.




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: 10/13/15
TEST 1 2 ways of thinking Deductive ethical reasoning there s a basic premise of principle and if you want to defend the position like in the Jack Lacoste story about Julia s harassment you would begin with the principle that the right action to take in a situation is that action which given the alternatives results in the greatest amount of good or least amount of harm in all those concerned 0 It s the fundamental utilitarian premise o Premise of principle general statement that can be defended a premise is an assumption it s a generalization doesn t point particularly to a situation That premise of principle may be implicit but the argument must have some kind of grounding You 0 need to be able to say llhere s the general principle that we can all agree on 0 Then you must have one or more premise of fact in this case it may be whether or not in fact by reporting this occurrence the greatest amount of good will be produced for those individuals concerned I What s the impact going to be on all people concerned 0 Must be some way of concluding a greater way of good will be produced I This doesn t mean llif more people like this it s a matter of the net benefit If one individual is greatly benefited and many are harmed relatively little you may justify it if the great benefit outweighs the small harm on many 0 Premise of fact link the premise of principle to the conclusion If the premise of principle and premise of fact are true then the conclusion has got to be true Ex premise of principle all men are mortal Premise of fact Socrates is a man Conclusion Socrates is mortal Think of big circle with mortal and smaller circle within that is men then smaller circle that s S for Socrates Descriptive ethical theory concerns theories that have to do with the way in which people D0 in fact behave addresses a question not so much what ought we to do but what do we actually do it s the sociologist approach to ethics Psychological egoism egoist who says human beings will always behave in a manner that benefits themselves they always act according to self interest doesn t say that s how we ought to behave but how we do behave Normative ethical theory what we should do Ethical egoist says here that the way you should act is in the greatest benefit for yourself Utilitarian theory and panteon theory are both normative ethical theories This is where our main concern will be in this course Conceptual ethical theory concerned with the way that is fair and just what do we mean by fairness or justice lt s philosophical or theoretical Where do we get these principles premises and conclusions Normative Ethical Theory we get these from normative ethical theory The stuff above is what our first paper is It s the 3 elements in a situation in our own life Chapter 1 Ethic Morality vs Ethical Theory ethics Ethic morality concerned with social practices defining right and wrong 0 Social practices meaning what society thinks morality has to do with what is defined by right and wrong by social practice 0 So Rosa Parks was going against social practice people normally accepted that she sat in the back of the bus law and social practice dictated that the right thing for Rosa Parks to do would be to sit in the back of the bus 0 The ethic morality at LSU is that certain kinds of academic dishonesty is okay acceptable The university doesn t believe that but you won t be socially ostracized by your peers for cheating Ethical Theory ethics examine the social practice and determine if it is ethically acceptable or just morally acceptable 0 Ethical theory pronounces judgment of the social practices 0 Social practice is what do people expect 0 So ethics sees morality and sees if it is ethically right 0 For Rosa Park s example it was not moral consistent with the social practice but it was consistent with ethical justification What she did was ethically defensible but not consistent with ethic morality Morality vs Prudence Prudence prudent person acts in their own self interest o It wouldn t be prudent of you to injure another person that means it s not in YOUR interest to do that doesn t really matter about the other person 0 Psychological Egoist says come hell or high water you are always acting in your self interest lt s human nature and you cannot get around it Even Mother Theresa was acting in her own interest in accordance with the Descriptive theory of ethics psychological egoism because she liked to do this Psychological egoism is a descriptive theory that says humans ALWAYS act in their own self interest 0 Prudence is taken in one s self interest It doesn t say anything about humans ALWAYS being in self interest it simply says that it s a matter of acting in your own self interest to do or not do something I You should be prudent not do things against their own self interest 0 People may not be prudent but still admirable Morality doesn t always dictate someone who acts in their own practice Social practice may dictate that you act in the interest of other people 0 Like Michael Jackson s doctor that gave him the drugs He should have known that the drugs would kill him The guy was hired by Jackson as a personal MD If you re working for that much and the employer says get me these pills the prudent thing to do would be to get the drugs because if not he would lose his job Morally you shouldn t but you must act prudent o In the long run it was probably not prudent that he gave him the drugs because he would eventually get in trouble now he is Prudence is not the same thing as morality Prudence plays to an audience of 1 Ethics and morality plays to an audience greater than 1 0 Ethics and morality have to do with the effects of what you do on other people I Also utilitarian endorses this idea Ethics vs Law Law when you want to know whether something is right or wrong legally you look to the law You don t appeal or look to society Law is law 0 Religion is the same case it appeals to divine revelation Ethics appeals to reason There s a distinction between ethics and social practice religion Ethical Relativism Believes that there are no quotethical absolutes Moralityethics are a matter of what is right or wrong according to the particular culture It may be that in Sweden or Japan abortion is ethically permissible and therefore okay whereas abortion is not ethical in a place like Ireland where the dominating feeling is that it is ethically unacceptable o If you re in Ireland abortion is wrong but if you re in Sweden abortion is okay quotWhen in Rome do as the Romans do What is accepted generally by the population is therefore generally acceptable Story about friend who pressure washed and got paid 100 rental of machine 90 but he didn t rent the machine he only borrowed it This is a good topic for paper 1 Kant sees it as unethical because this guy takes the human factor out of it and uses the human as a means to an end Kant s principle of respect for persons one version of the categorical imperative never use another human being merely or only or exclusively as a means to your end 0 Doesn t mean you can t hire someone to do something You re still obligated to treat that individual as a human being and that that human has ends of his or her own You re obligated to treat employees as human beings 0 Another categorical imperative Act in a way that you couldwillwish that everyone in a similar way would obey the same maxim you act according to some kind of way according to a rule that you wish could be universalized So for the matter of keeping promises if I make a promise is it okay to break it A real Kantian would really say no Is it alright to lie Same thing you are breaking a promise Kantian reason that it is not okay is suppose we have a situation where make a promise and because it suits me not to keep it I break it Could I turn that into a kind of maxim that everyone in those circumstances would act according to that maxim What would happen to the concept of a promise It would be useless It wouldn t exist There s a moral obligation grounded in a Kantian categorical imperative The breaking effect of a 0 contract is impermissible in a Kantian world I Premise you have a moral obligation to stick to a contract big circle I Honor contracts promises is a smaller circle within that circle Renting the machine was part of the contract smaller circle within the smaller circle This is called syllogism a deductive argument You re a student and your number 1 company writes to you and offers you a job You accept the job 0 Then you get a second letter from your number 1 company that says sorry but we found a better candidate for that slot and we have to withdraw our offer If you regard a contract as a categorical imperative that you can break if necessary then the letter of O agreement is worthless Syllogism Premise of Principle derives from normative ethical theory 0 Normative Ethical Theory are theories about what one ought to do categories of normative ethical theory I Consequential teleological you re interested in the results consequences subsets of consequential theories 0 Here you judge in terms of consequences 0 Ethical egoism you re worried about the consequences for you what s going to happen for me o Utilitarianism sayjudge an action as right or wrong in terms of the consequences whether or not it produces the greatest amount of benefit or least amount of harm for all those concerned or affected by the action categories of utilitarian 0 Act utilitarian judges the individual action looks at the consequence of one single action 0 Rule utilitarian judges the consequence of the rule for the action I Nonconsequential denontological subsets of nonconsequential theories 0 Here you look at the act itself 0 Kantian is not concerned with the results they won t say how is that going to turn out for me or for all involved for the Kantian one has a duty to conform to the categorical imperative and there are not exceptions The Kantian would not take the better offer after having agreed to a second best offer Not interested in the benefits Kantian acts as duty alone Premise of Fact Conclusion Questions to turn in What is utilitarianism What is Kantianism What is the fundamental difference between utilitarianism and Kantianism o Utilitarianism is a consequentialist o Kantianism is nonconsequentialist Criterion by which the utilitarian judges the action is the results consequences The Kantian judges the action itself and whether it is an action performed out of sheer duty What s the diff between a rule utilitarian and a Kantian Some say they re the same But their reasons for sticking to the rules are different even though they both do The rule utilitarian stick to the rules because the consequences of that action is beneficial The Kantian sticks to the rule because of respect to that maxim out of duty to honor that categorical imperative It s the same kind of extension Both theories are prescriptive They are both theories about what we ought to do how we ought to act Descriptive theories are things like llthis is the way it is happens Everything we ve learned about is prescriptive What s the relationship between normative ethical theory and deductive ethical reasoning Premise we get them thru normative ethical reasoning The relationship between them is the matter of normative ethical theory supplies the premises for deductive ethical reasoning Thing about Kant Kant is thought by some to maybe be one of the most modern philosophers of modern time Someone who has that kind of reputation means you have to say quotis it Kant or is it me that s missing the boat John Stuart Mill is a lot more accessible to us in terms of his writing In Marin s other book Marin will send us a PDF of that other guy s interpretation of Kant Why do we compare both of these theories Kant amp utilitarian Utilitarian theory 0 Hard to measure to choose that action that results in the greatest amount of happiness the way Mill thinks about it the highly happy pig is not preferable to the moderately happy human There are higher and lower forms of happiness A happy pig is not worth as much on the scale of a utilitarian as a happy Aristotle Intellectual pleasures are greater than simply animal pleasures I Why does Mill spend several pages on the question of explaining why we re not talking about happy pigs 0 Hedonist indulges in sensual pleasures food drink etc 0 One of the charges against the utilitarian position was that it was a hedonistic theory because it put the final good good for and in and of itself as happiness The criticism against that was that it was hedonistic Mill was particular anxious to address that element of his theory Who s happiness are we talking about How do I measure these things Measurement problem if you are to make a list of benefits and harms how do you weigh those You must have some kind of agreement on what s benefit and harm Mills doesn t say anything about how you address that issue Someone who has experienced both pleasures high and low can make a ruling on which one is preferable So you take a vote The people who have experienced both come together to agree that one is the higher pleasure I So the measurement problem has been addressed somewhat o The matter ofjustice what is justice If we live in a just society you treat people in a just manner you mean you re being fair The people in the same situation are treated impartially I In a 2 person universe you have person X and person Y You have 4 units of happiness to distribute 0 You could give all of those units to person X 3 x and 1 y 2 to each of them 3 y and 1 x or all to y The utilitarian as long as all 4 units are distributed is indifferent It has no preference But is it fair to give all the units to X The fair distribution would be 2 for each one But the utilitarian doesn t consider this notion ofjustice or fairness o If you have a large farm and the government wants to build a thoroughfare thru the middle of the farm the benefit for the community would be greater than the benefit of the individual who owns the farm So the government gives the farmer fair market value for your house and they build a road straight thru the farm because they can do it by law 0 The social morality would say this would be acceptable You could produce a utilitarian argument that says that s okay because we re creating a greater amount of benefit that outweighs the amount of harm that we re imposing on the farmer I So the problem ofjustice is not really addressed by the utilitarian theory I Mill says the greater good but not greatest number I A kid who has a ton of toys if he gets one more toy for Christmas the value of that new toy isn t huge o A man with a million dollars gets 10 as a gift and the marginal value of that extra money is relatively small It s Christmas time and you say to your kid I got you a toy but I m not going to give it to you I m going to give it to a homeless kid I Diminishing marginal utility of wealth at what point does it become impossible to increase the net wealth by redistributing things that point where everyone has equal amount Kantian Theory 0 Kant was pretty adamant about lying Situation that was proposed in the Kantian context is this I Case of the murderer suppose you have a friend who tells you that he or she is going home because that friend is being pursued by a murderer Let s say that you meet the murderer a little later casually asks you if you know where your friend is Would you tell the truth No you would be compelled to lie about it Kant says you should tell the truth Kant says you don t know how things will happen so the best thing is to tell the truth so you re never wrong even if things change That friend may go home then leave and if you tell the murderer that he is not at home you can be the cause of his death Management allocation of scare resources so as to effectively and efficiently accomplish the goals of the organization Efficiency maximum amount of output for the least amount of input aka productivity Theory of fairness opposes the utilitarian stance by Rauls Kant on PUNISHMENT Kant would not be in favor of our idea of prison amp treatment his idea is like an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth He feels that if you re going to treat a person as a rational human being adhere to the principle respect for persons then you make the punishment fit the crime because to treat the individual as a rational human being who has committed a crime you have to think they understood exactly what he or she was doing they were rational right and treat them accordingly That doesn t mean you d severely punish someone who committed a crime but who was mentally deficient You re in a row boat and you re in the ocean and your elderly parent is with you amp Albert Einstein with you You re capable of saving one person and the boat begins to sink If you re a utilitarian you d save Albert Einstein Looking at the benefits and losses in the matter Einstein will be more valuable and more benefit than your elderly parents But what about the obligations you ve got to your parents They fed you clothed you etc so there are obligations there What do you do about those 0 The utilitarian ethic act or rule is concerned with the outcomes benefits for all those concerned They would not take into consideration that relationship between mother and son That relationship won t alter the decision The Ethic of Care there are certain kinds of situations that may override a utilitarian conclusion 0 The kind of obligation that a young adult has to the community in an Amish community how does a child become an adult in that community I The women make quilts where do they learn to do that I The men are agricultural where do they learn that from 0 They learn that from the community The community gives them their identities so they have an obligation to that community So there s another problem besides measurements and justice to the utilitarian approach that obligation to refer relationships Relationship marketing the expectation from each meeting is not to get a sales contract at each visit it s a matter of maintaining that relationship Rights p 30 BBA When we talk about rights we mean natural rights inalienable rights like life liberty and pursuit of happiness We are not talking about legal rights rights given to us by government 0 Right to drive a car by right of a license not born with that right if you screw up violate one of the restrictions you take the license away But the rights of life liberty and pursuit of happiness natural rights no one including the government can take away those rights because they weren t conferred by the government or anyone else The reason Jefferson was so anxious to designate those rights in that way is that there was an issue that if the columnist held their land because it was granted to them by the British government then the Brits could tax them or take it away But if there were rights that were not conferred by the Brits then they could pursue them So these are declarations that you say we hold that were not given to us by you they are independent from you Human or Natural rights life liberty pursuit of happiness freedom of motion shelter amp food privacy 0 Education it is a legal right but we treat it like a human right Liberty 0 Positive right something that s coming from you from someone else I If education is a natural right it s a positive right because it s given to us by someone else 0 Negative right right not to be interfered with I Privacy is a negative right I Derived from our own selves I Right to privacy is to control information about yourselves 0 Can an employer tell you how to behave when you re not at work o Is drug testing at work okay Is it relevant to employment then the employer has a right but if it s not then it s not right I So privacy depends upon the relationship involved Virtue Ethics p 33 Honesty is a virtue Are you born honest o Virtues are something you absorb You have adults in your life that you get qualities from These are fixtures in your childhood people you admired o Virtues are a kind of habit Are we talking about the actions themselves or the people involved 0 When we re talking about Kantian ethics or utilitarian ethics we re talking about principles and outcomes of actions 0 But when we talk about virtues we talk about the character of the actor It becomes a matter of saying to yourself llwhat kind of a person do I want to be and acting in a way consistent with that Aristotle s take on virtue is that it is a kind of means between two extremes o Courage is a mean between timidness and fulheartedness You re not born with virtue you re born with the capacity to develop virtue the capacity to recognize and develop the habit of honesty and integrity Common Morality Theory It has to do with norms The premise it has is that there are some norms that we all more or less accept 0 Ex it s just wrong to kill innocent people There s now way you could go out and kill people 0 Whatever the frustration anger deprivation that Charlie Manson experienced and Vincent his prosecutor in 1969 the prosecutor talked to Larry King and said he had a really bad childhood Does that justify his actions He didn t form this cult with the intention of murdering people his attorney said But he exploited their vulnerability to their personality There s no justification for his having done that There s debate about torturing people 0 Common morality says this is just simply wrong 0 Across cultures it s a set of givens that we all more or less observe 0 Common morality says it s wrong to kill innocent people or torture innocent people Deductive Ethical Reasoning on syllabus Distinguish between validity and soundness Overall argument series of statements or syllogism o All men or mortal o Socrates is a man 0 Therefore Socrates is mortal The idea is that this conclusion falls necessarily from those 2 premises If the two premises are true the conclusion must be true If the premises are true it s impossible for the conclusion to be false Validity a matter of having the correct form o If A is true and if B is true then a rational person cannot deny C being true o If C follows A amp B the argument is valid I All females are mothers I Fran is a female I Then Fran is a mother 0 This is a valid argument I If you can prevent bad things from occurring then you are obligated to do so I Starvation is a bad thing I Sending food will help starving people I Sending food to starving people is your moral obligation o P 686 in BBA Sound the premises must be true o If the premises are not true even though the argument is valid it is not true 0 So for an argument to be sound the premises must be true and the argument must be valid Greatest principle by Mills is altruism The utilitarian ethic presupposes altruism Mill raises the question of where do we get altruism Where does it arise We want to be part of groups we want to be liked by other people One of the sanctions is in human nature our emotional attachment to other people Stakeholder vs Stockholder models of purpose for corporation Stockholder model traditional view Model that underlies 80 of the business education we offer here at LSU It says that the business person s task is to maximize shareholder wealth The business man s only social responsibility is to increase profits You could argue that the manager is the agent owner principle and as such has a duty regardless of the consequences to serve that owner That would mean that even though the consequences may not be entirely favorable for other stakeholders in Friedman s view he thinks you have a fiduciary duty that if you depart from it you re taking someone else s money and using it for your own interest not the company s For each article Boatright BBA 69 amp Cascio BBA 80 what is the issue What position is taken by the authors on the issue Walmart vs Costco Cascio O O O O 0 Issue Is it necessary to squeeze your employees to pay them as little as possible in order to maximize shareholder wealth Wall Street is upset with Costco because they re paying them more than they need to with more benefits Their idea is that if you can get someone to do a job for 10 why pay them 17 Why not pay as little as you can and still retain them Walmart incurs extra costs I turnover that are 152x the salary of the employee Costco doesn t incur these costs I shrinkage where the inventory shrinks because of employee theft greater at Sams or WM than it is at Costco Cascio doesn t think that you need to squeeze the employees He takes a look at Walmart vs Costco in I The way they pay employees I The overall cost of operating in each way I The outcomes He says it s only a matter of decency but a matter of good business Good ethics is good business Treat people fairly and decently and it s good business If that was the only argument he made there would be implications if the reason you treat people fairly is because it s good business are there any problems with that What happens when it does cost you money when you want to treat them differently then you ll stop treating them well So basically he argues the matter of fact whether you do come out better if you treat people like WM does and his answer is NO Boatright s What s right and wrong with stakeholder management 0 0 His notion of stakeholder management is the concept that is advanced by Edward Friedman in the article about stakeholders The idea is that there is a fiduciary duty for shareholders to act in their interests Friedman is saying you have a similar duty to act in that same fiduciary duty to all of your stakeholders ee s suppliers customers community owners government just like you shareholders and the manager s task is to manage that balance among the conflicting claims of those stakeholders Stakeholder model says lets not give priority to one constituency We should try to achieve one type of balance among the conflicting claims and not give priority to the owners It s a matter of saying think about the employees They want as much paid vacation as possible Paid vacation is a cost for the owners There s a conflict there so the manager has to find an area where there s balance for both stakeholders Briefly Merck The issue for Boatright is that shareholder management model is a much better governance than stakeholder management stakeholder isn t a viable governance policy Boatright opposes FREEMAN he values the shareholder FRIEDMAN s view But he agrees that the company would do well to take care of their employees Thesis on p 69 Highlighted and starred Coase includes the theory of a firms purpose 0000 Why do firms exist Because it s more economical Suppose we didn t have any corporations Suppose we lived in a world where everything was fragmented You had the raw material and someone took it and manufactured it then the wholesaler guy came get it then you had someone who was a sales person So each person is a different entity The transaction costs are high If you have a firm you can eliminate transaction costs The firm can do all of the same things each entity does but more cheaply That means each of the stakeholders are better off get more benefits But there s no guarantee that the price of the shares will go up so the shareholder aren t guaranteed Boatright says that the owners are the one group of stakeholders that don t have a contract that they will get paid they assume risks you need them maybe most importantly the shareholders need some form of protection and the managers job is to see that the shareholders interests are served He argues that the existence of the firm is such that the firm as a whole if it does well all of the constituencies are served And the firm will do well if the shareholders are served He says that it s not the managers job to watch out for stakeholders except for shareholders summarize each article s argument ie how is the position supported Case BBA 101 The issue in this case is whether the employees of Merck should spend company resources on helping the people along rivers in Africa and in South America 0 Whether Merck is obligated to supply this Mectizan to cure and prevent River Blindness in African and South America 0 It s expensive to produce the drug 0 Merck knows there will be no market in the sense of paying customers 0 No other organization is willing to pay for it They have 47 billion in revenue it cost 150 a pill to produce they ve distributed 700 million tablets They could afford to do it but it doesn t assume that they should do it You could make a utilitarian argument where you think that if you can stop something bad from happening without a comparable sacrifice then one is obligated to do it if the sacrifice is not greater than the thing we want to eliminate then we re decreasing the amount of bad in the world 0 But how are you going to weigh the value of stopping this disease Is it measurable from a utilitarian 0 Prof would say that they are obligated to do it on utilitarian grounds but it s a subjective argument 0 What is Merck going to get out of this Smaller returns If the good will generated by this payoff then Milton Friedman would be okay with it On utilitarian grounds or on his grounds of fiduciary grounds to the shareholders he would be okay with it The assumption is that if the drug has been approved and been tested and has been shown that it will cu re and prevent this illness we will prevent a great deal of harm and common morality says that stopping harm of 18 million people is worth 1 million All thus far is a utilitarian approach As for a Kantian argument in this case they would do it out of duty The moral obligation llThe company s business is grounded in its core values llOur business is preserving and improving human life 0000 There is a categorical imperative that says they have to keep promises and they ve made a promise to preserve and improve human life it s an obligation o The reason for doing it is not so much the outcome but for the promise Kids in Honduras case BBA 102 What canshould HB Fuller do 0 They talked about putting mustard oil in the glue to make it impossible to sniff But that would be harmful to people 0 They tried sell it in large qualities unsuccessful HB Fuller s approach was to do education about getting high You have a socioeconomic problem poverty that s putting people like these kids on the street they ve found a way of escaping their situation by using this glue to sniff the conditions under which they live isn t so horrible Education may not stop it being obligated to educate them doesn t mean they ll make a difference A utilitarian would say that HB Fuller shouldn t withdraw the product because that wouldn t help competitors would just come in an sell it One approach that s possible in this case the harm has passed no option to blow the whistle what the whistle blower is doing is to avoid complicity HB Fuller may not be able to prevent this harm but they can refuse to be complicit in it the only way they can do that is by withdrawing the product It doesn t remove the harm but it removes them from being a part of the harm A utilitarian argument will fail about HB Fuller because there is no compelling solution education will not work things they ve tried will not work Prof doesn t think that if the utilitarian removes the product it will not prevent harm Kantian argument says good corporate citizenship won t be complicit is the only argument Begin review before Thursday Quality of the review will depend on the questions we re able to ask Look for past exam Organize content into blocks of info 0 Normative ethical theory including util kant common morality rights based theories ethic of care virtue ethics I Then be able to distinguish amongst those theories Within that block there are traditional theories other theories Know how those theories are similar and how they re different some stand out in certain ways beyond the others Exam review day August 25today 5 P U Fquot Briefly explain how an argument the premises and conclusions of which are true can be unsound You can have true premises but the argument lacks validity conclusion doesn t follow from the premises and therefore it is unsound What distinction do Beauchamp Bowie and Arnold make between morality and prudence Prudence plays to an audience of one and morality plays to many Prudence 11 What s the difference between prudence and ethical egoism There may not be a difference Ethical egoist does his own interest Prudence does in his own interest Some people maintain that ethical egoism is not really an ethical theory because it only plays to an audience of 1 b What s the distinction between ethics and law or religion They often overlap Religion appeals to divine revelation Law appeals to the courts Ethics appeals to reason deductive ethical reasoning c What is the difference between morality and ethics Morality would be the right or wrong as determined by society social element Ethics would be concerned with figuring out how to justify or not justify the social morality Rosa Parks morality is violated when she refuses to go to the back because society says they will sit in the back ethics would judge that what she did was ethical because she s a human they go thru deductive reasoning What is the role of normative ethical theory in deductive ethical reasoning Normative ethical theory provides the premise of principle in which deductive ethical principle is grounded a Could we make any ethical argument without referring to principles By definition you ve got to have a principle Some arguments don t have principles but they do have premise like quotall men are mortal What view of ethical relativism would the utilitarian take Explain Utilitarian thinks there s no ethical absolutes Utilitarian likes the most good amp the least harm It depends on the outcome They will pick whatever path will create the most good a Kantian would reject ethical relativism there are no moral absolutes in ethical relativism and Kantian thinks that there are rules How would a Kantian defense of Merck s distribution of Mectizan to the victims of river blindness differ from a utilitarian defense In this case Kantian thinks it s a duty of the org to distrubite it stated in their mission but Utiltiaian would say that it would produce the greatest amount of good What is the fundamental difference between virtue ethics on the one hand and traditional Kantian and utilitarian ethical theories on the other Virtue is concerned with the character of the actor character consists of the habits of acting and thinking that a person has The focus is on the actor and his character what would a good person do But with K amp U it focuses on the action itself more According to Milton Friedman quotThe Social Responsibility of Business to Increase its Profits why is it socially responsible of business to increase its profits If the manager goes out and donates money to their favorite charity this is not acceptable because the manager is spending someone else s money Friedman says that the manager is the agent of the principle owner stockholder the agent has a duty to pursue the interest of the owner so it s a matter of a Kantian fiduciary duty 9 According to Boatright quotWhat s Wrong and What s Right with Stakeholder Management what s right with stakeholder management He doesn t think that stakeholder management would be a good governance he thinks stockholder view is good But he does accept some of the stakeholder management factors the stake holder is important What the stakeholder view fails to realize is that if the shareholder is given priority by the managers that will entail benefits for the stakeholders as well He doesn t believe that it s the managers job to worry about the stakeholders Essay The benefits of distributing will greatly outweigh the harms for all those concerned How do we measure benefits You can quantify the harms cost but you can t quantify the benefit


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

25 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


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'

Why people love StudySoup

Bentley McCaw University of Florida

"I was shooting for a perfect 4.0 GPA this semester. Having StudySoup as a study aid was critical to helping me achieve my goal...and I nailed it!"

Kyle Maynard Purdue

"When you're taking detailed notes and trying to help everyone else out in the class, it really helps you learn and understand the I made $280 on my first study guide!"

Steve Martinelli UC Los Angeles

"There's no way I would have passed my Organic Chemistry class this semester without the notes and study guides I got from StudySoup."


"Their 'Elite Notetakers' are making over $1,200/month in sales by creating high quality content that helps their classmates in a time of need."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.