First Article (200 Words): Select An Article That Touches ✓ Solved

First article (200 words): Select an article that touches

First article (200 words): Select an article that touches on the ethical concepts you learned this week. Post a 200-word summary and answer: What ethical dilemmas did you notice in the article? Provide examples and incorporate concepts from the textbook (include reference). This week we are learning about Ethics from Antiquity to Present, including assessing the role of ethics in a business environment, distinguishing between ethical and legal responsibilities, and critiquing various ethical theories.

Second article (300 words): Consider the classic utilitarian streetcar (trolley) thought experiment. Watch the video and answer: How would you make the decision? Is there a right or wrong answer? What values and criteria would you use to decide whom to save?

Paper For Above Instructions

Introduction

This paper responds to the assignment by (1) summarizing and analyzing a contemporary article that raises business-ethics dilemmas (approx. 200 words), and (2) addressing the trolley/streetcar thought experiment from a utilitarian and broader ethical-theory perspective (approx. 300 words). The discussion integrates concepts from business ethics literature including the role of ethics in business, distinctions between legal and ethical responsibility, and competing moral theories (Ferrell, Fraedrich, & Ferrell, 2019).

First Article — 200-word Summary and Ethical Analysis

Article summary (200 words): I selected a New York Times piece on the Volkswagen emissions scandal (Hotten, 2015). The article recounts how Volkswagen installed “defeat-device” software to misrepresent diesel emissions during regulatory testing, enabling higher real-world pollutant output while passing laboratory tests. Executives and engineers knew of discrepancies but prioritized market share and emissions targets over transparency. The scandal triggered regulatory fines, criminal investigations, and reputational collapse, while externalities included increased air pollution and diminished public trust. Ethical dilemmas identified include conflict between profit motives and public health, obedience to corporate directives versus moral responsibility of engineers, and whether legal compliance suffices for ethical behavior when law is circumvented technologically (Hotten, 2015).

Analysis: From a business-ethics perspective, VW’s case illustrates divergence between legal liability and ethical responsibility: actions were illegal and unethical, but corporate culture and incentives enabled rationalizations (Ferrell et al., 2019). Using virtue ethics, engineers failed practical wisdom and integrity (Hursthouse, 2013). A utilitarian calculus (greatest good) would condemn the deception due to harmful population-level impacts (Mill, 1863). Deontological ethics would emphasize duty to truth and safety regardless of outcomes (Kant, 1785). The case underscores the need for ethical leadership, whistleblower protections, and institutional design to align legal rules and moral norms (Boatright, 2012).

Second Article — 300-word Trolley/Streetcar Thought Experiment

Scenario and decision method (300 words): The trolley (streetcar) thought experiment requires choosing whether to take action that sacrifices one to save many or refrain from direct intervention. My decision approach combines normative assessment and procedural clarity. First, identify stakeholders and outcomes: number of lives at stake, intentionality (is harm caused as a side-effect or as a means?), relationships (are the people on the track strangers or dependents?), and available alternatives. Second, apply competing moral frameworks to test intuitions: utilitarianism (aggregate welfare), deontology (duty and rights), and virtue ethics (character and motives).

Utilitarian viewpoint often supports diverting the trolley to minimize total harm (Singer, 1979). However, distinctions matter: if diverting requires actively killing an innocent as a means (as opposed to allowing harm as a side-effect), deontological constraints (Kant, Thomson) may forbid action even if utility argues otherwise. Judith Jarvis Thomson’s distinctions about intended means versus foreseen side-effects clarify that pulling a lever producing foreseen harm where harm is not the means to the good may be more permissible than actively using someone as a means (Thomson, 1985). Psychological research shows emotional responses differ between direct harm (pushing) and indirect harm (switching) (Greene et al., 2001).

Is there a right answer? Philosophically, no universally accepted single answer exists; ethical pluralism recognizes competing valid reasons. Practically, I would favor the action that minimizes total foreseeable harm while avoiding treating persons merely as means and ensuring decision rules are impartial and transparent. Values used: respect for persons, minimization of harm, impartiality, and moral integrity. Criteria: number of lives affected, intentionality, consent/relationship factors, and feasibility of alternatives (Kamm, 2007).

Integrated Reflection: Business Implications and Ethical Theory

Bringing these two parts together shows how abstract dilemmas inform corporate ethics. The VW case resembles a collective trolley-like choice: executives chose a path that maximized short-term corporate utility at the expense of broader harm and moral duties. Corporate decision-making needs clear ethical criteria and institutional safeguards so utilitarian calculations do not ignore rights or duties (Ferrell et al., 2019). Ethical training, clear rules about intentional harm, and governance structures that reward long-term public welfare align corporate practice with ethical theory.

Conclusion

Both the article analysis and the trolley thought experiment underscore that ethical decision-making requires explicit reflection on outcomes (utilitarian), duties and rights (deontological), and character (virtue ethics). Effective business ethics must integrate these lenses to guide real-world choices, balancing legal compliance with ethical responsibility and institutional design to prevent harmful rationalizations.

References

• Boatright, J. R. (2012). Ethics and the conduct of business. Pearson.
• Ferrell, O. C., Fraedrich, J., & Ferrell, L. (2019). Business ethics: Ethical decision making & cases. Cengage Learning.
• Foot, P. (1967). The problem of abortion and the doctrine of the double effect. Oxford Review.
• Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293(5537), 2105–2108.
• Hotten, R. (2015). Volkswagen: The scandal explained. BBC News. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/business-34324772
• Kamm, F. M. (2007). Intricate ethics: Rights, responsibilities, and permissible harm. Oxford University Press.
• Kant, I. (1785/1993). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals (M. J. Gregor, Trans.). Cambridge University Press.
• Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Parker, Son, and Bourn.
• Singer, P. (1979). Practical ethics. Cambridge University Press.
• Thomson, J. J. (1985). The trolley problem. Yale Law Journal, 94(6), 1395–1415.