My Topic On Banking Lehman Brothers In This Written Assignme

My Topic Was On Banking Lehman Brothersin This Written Assignment Y

My topic was on banking (Lehman Brothers) In this written assignment, you will present your work on the case analysis using selected components of an argumentative essay as described in Sections 9.1 and 9.2 of With Good Reason: A Guide to Critical Thinking (Hardy, Foster, & Zàºà±iga y Postigo, 2015). This written assignment will include a revised and polished version of your discussion work, the presentation and support of two premises, and an analysis of how your chosen ethical theory offers the best moral solution to the business problem in your case analysis. Using the components of the argumentative essay located in Sections 9.1 and 9.2 of With Good Reason: A Guide to Critical Thinking (Hardy, Foster, & Zàºà±iga y Postigo (2015), your assignment should include the following: An introduction.

This is the “Problem†portion of the essay that is covered in Section 9.1: The Argumentative Essay (Hardy, Foster, & Zàºà±iga y Postigo, 2015). This should be an improved version of the introduction in your initial post, revised on the basis of your professor’s feedback and additional research. In this introduction you will need to (a) identify the specific issue or problem that you want to address and give an impartial presentation of the controversy, (b) articulate briefly the characteristics of the economic system that serves as the setting for the business, and (c) examine the laws that affect the operations of the business. The introduction should be one paragraph of around 200 words in length.

A thesis. Start a new paragraph with a precise and clear sentence in which you state your moral position with regard to the case that you presented in your first paragraph. This is known as stating your thesis. (See the “Thesis†passage in “The Argumentative Essay†in Hardy, Foster, & Zàºà±iga y Postigo, 2015). The thesis you state here should be an improved version of the thesis in your initial post in the discussion, revised on the basis of your professor’s feedback and your reading of “The Argumentative Essay†indicated above. A thesis is only one sentence, so do not write a series of sentences, or a complex sentence with explanatory clauses (e.g., “because…†or “since…†or “according to Dr.

Mary Expert, an economist with the Bureau of Labor statistics…â€, or “a law that was ratified with 80% votes in favor…â€. An example of a precise and clear thesis is this: “Factory farms are not morally justifiable†or, of course, the opposite point of view: “Factory farms are morally justifiable.â€. Keep in mind that your thesis in this assignment will be the basis for the argumentative essay of the Week 5 written assignment, so take your time when formulating this thesis. Ethical theory. In the same second paragraph as the thesis statement, identify the ethical theory that supports your moral position. You may choose from utilitarianism, duty ethics, or virtue ethics.

Present the characteristics of the ethical theory in a broad sketch, and include citations and references in APA form. Then, apply your chosen ethical theory by explaining how it lends itself to the moral position that you are defending. Two premises. Present at least two reasons in support of your thesis and these should be presented in the form of a claim. These are called premises.

Articulate each premise in one clear and grammatically correct sentence. Review Section 9.1 of With Good Reason: A Guide to Critical Thinking (Foster, Hardy, and Zàºà±iga y Postigo, 2015). Start a new paragraph for each. In the rest of the paragraph, support your premise by presenting an analysis of how the ethical theory lends itself to the best solution. This analysis includes articulating the characteristics(s) of the economic system at work that support the claims in your premises.

It also includes examining the effects of the law(s) at work that also support the claims in your premises. Comparative analysis. In the final paragraph, analyze how this application lends itself to a solution that is superior to that offered by one of the ethical theories that you did not select. To do this, provide a clear statement describing the moral solution offered by this other theory. For example, if you chose utilitarianism to apply to your case, then you can choose from either virtue ethics or deontology for your comparative analysis.

Explain in no more than three sentences what moral solution would result from the application of this other ethical theory. See the “ Sample Case Analysis †for an illustration of how this would look like. Finally, analyze the strengths of the moral solution presented by your chosen ethical theory in ways that demonstrate how it is superior to the moral solution offered by the other ethical theory. Once you receive your assignment back from your professor, start working on revisions based on your professor’s feedback. This is the first step in preparing your Final Project and the details are presented on the Final Project’s prompt.

You will benefit from starting your Final Project as soon as you receive your assignment back from your professor. Requirements for Your Assignment: Your assignment should be 1000 words in length, excluding the title page and reference page(s). Your examination should be both thorough and succinct. This is a combination that demands time and thought, so give yourself sufficient time to draft and revise. Your assignment should include citations, as well as a list of references.

Both must be in APA form. You should draw from the sources provided in your chosen case category in the discussion this week. Also refer to Section 9.1: The Argumentative Essay and the introduction to Section 9.2: Strengthening the Argumentative Essay (intro only for the latter) from Hardy, J., Foster, C., & Zàºà±iga y Postigo, G. (2015). Your references should include at least two scholarly sources from your own research in the Ashford University Library, Google Scholar (this is not the same as Google), or the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. No Wikipedia articles and the like should be included in the references, nor employed to inform your paper.

Paper For Above instruction

The case of Lehman Brothers' collapse exemplifies a critical intersection of banking practices, regulatory oversight, and ethical considerations stemming from the 2008 financial crisis. The controversy revolves around whether Lehman Brothers engaged in ethical or unethical behavior leading up to their bankruptcy, which was marked by risky financial strategies, inadequate risk management, and failure to uphold fiduciary duties. The broader economic system at play was characterized by a highly speculative financial environment driven by deregulation, complex financial instruments, and global interconnectedness. Laws such as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and deregulatory policies contributed to lax oversight, enabling risky behaviors. These elements created a setting wherein the pursuit of profit often conflicted with ethical standards, raising a fundamental question: was Lehman's conduct morally justifiable within this systemic context? The controversy persists regarding the moral implications of their actions and the role of regulatory frameworks in preventing such failures.

My moral stance asserts that Lehman Brothers' irresponsible financial practices and unethical decision-making were morally unjustifiable. This position aligns with duty ethics, which emphasizes adherence to moral duties and responsibilities, such as honesty, transparency, and fiduciary duty. From a duty ethics perspective, Lehman Brothers failed in their moral obligations by engaging in predatory lending, excessive risk-taking, and misrepresentation, which ultimately led to systemic harm and economic instability. Duty ethics, supported by Kantian principles, mandates that organizations and individuals must act according to moral duties, regardless of outcomes, emphasizing integrity and accountability (Rachels & Rachels, 2019). This ethical framework lends itself well to condemning the reckless behaviors of Lehman Brothers, as their actions violated fundamental duties to clients, shareholders, and society at large.

The first premise supporting my thesis is that Lehman Brothers had a moral duty to act honestly and transparently in all business dealings, which they consistently violated through deceptive risk disclosures and irresponsible leverage. From an ethical standpoint, acting truthfully upholds the moral obligation inherent in fiduciary duties and contractual honesty, which duty ethics emphasizes (Crane & Matten, 2019). The economic environment of the period, marked by aggressive pursuit of profits, fostered risky behaviors that prioritized short-term gains over moral responsibilities, thus undermining transparency. Laws at the time, including securities regulation standards, aimed to protect investors through disclosure requirements; however, regulatory gaps allowed Lehman to engage in opaque practices. Applying duty ethics clarifies that their moral duty to provide honest information was violated, causing widespread harm.

The second premise is that Lehman Brothers’ reckless actions, including excessive leveraging and risky investments, contributed directly to their collapse and the financial crisis, making their behavior morally indefensible. Under duty ethics, organizations must uphold responsibilities that prevent harm to the economy and stakeholders (Velasquez et al., 2015). The economic system’s characteristics—such as deregulation and complex financial derivatives—created a fertile environment for exploitative practices, which Lehman exploited. The laws, including the absence of adequate capital reserve requirements, facilitated this reckless conduct. Supporting this premise, duty ethics holds that moral action entails avoiding conduct that leads to systemic failure, which Lehman’s decisions clearly did (Mathews, 2019). The systemic harm caused by such irresponsibility emphasizes the moral failure inherent in Lehman’s practices.

Comparative Analysis

In comparison to virtue ethics, which emphasizes moral character and virtues such as honesty and responsibility, duty ethics offers a more systematic and obligation-based framework better suited for addressing corporate misconduct in financial crises. While virtue ethics would focus on cultivating moral character within Lehman’s leadership, duty ethics prescribes specific duties that should have been upheld regardless of personal virtue. For example, virtuous leaders should have demonstrated integrity, but duty ethics explicitly mandates acting according to moral laws and duties, regardless of personal virtues or circumstances (Hursthouse & Petalski, 2018). Conversely, utilitarianism might suggest that Lehman’s risky strategies could be justified if they resulted in greater overall economic efficiency, but duty ethics condemns actions that violate moral duties, such as honesty or non-maleficence, even if outcomes appear beneficial.

If applying utilitarianism, the moral solution would prioritize actions that maximize overall happiness and economic welfare, potentially excusing reckless risk-taking if it leads to economic growth. In contrast, duty ethics insists that the moral correctness of actions depends on adherence to moral principles like honesty and responsibility, making Lehman’s conduct morally unacceptable regardless of economic outcomes. Therefore, duty ethics provides a superior moral framework because it emphasizes moral duties over consequentialist calculations, deterring organizations from engaging in ethically questionable practices that could lead to systemic harm. The strength of duty ethics lies in its unwavering commitment to moral principles, providing clear standards for responsible corporate behavior, which is crucial in preventing future financial collapses of similar magnitude.

References

• Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2019). Business ethics: Managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Hursthouse, R., & Petalski, M. (2018). Virtue ethics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2018 Edition). Stanford University.
• Mathews, J. (2019). Corporate social responsibility and the financial crisis. Journal of Business Ethics, 154(2), 377-394.
• Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (2019). The elements of moral philosophy (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
• Velasquez, M., Andre, C., Shanks, T., & Meyer, M. J. (2015). Business ethics: Concepts and cases (7th ed.). Pearson.
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2018). Virtue ethics. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/
• Hardy, J., Foster, C., & Zàºà±iga y Postigo, G. (2015). With Good Reason: A Guide to Critical Thinking. Cengage Learning.
• Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2019). Business ethics: Managing corporate citizenship and sustainability. Oxford University Press.
• Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (2019). The elements of moral philosophy. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Hursthouse, R., & Petalski, M. (2018). Virtue ethics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University.