Philosophy 3338 Professional Ethics Midterm Exam Study Guide

Philosophy 3338 Professional Ethicsmidterm Exam Study Guide Types O

Philosophy 3338: Professional Ethics Midterm Exam Study Guide -- Types of actions considered business bluffing in Carr’s account; Carr’s argument why bluffing is necessary if a person is to succeed in business --The example of the butcher, brewer, and baker; Sen’s use of example to tease out common behavior patterns and show that ethics is at its base --Friedman’s description of socially responsible actions; why they are beyond executive’s authority as agent; the sole social responsibility of the corporate executive --Freeman: the dominant model; why is it inconsistent with the law? --primary and secondary stakeholders in Freeman’s stakeholder theory; the trade-off view; primary responsibility of the executive --Payne: “misguided assumption” about unethical behavior; Paine’s counter proposal about unethical behavior; prominent cases she references to illustrate --Brenkert: differences in the status of beneficiaries of social programs depending on whether those programs are administered by private corporations or public agencies --Donaldson’s middle-of-the-road ethical position in doing business internationally; basic principles; core values; how companies can realize core values --Rachels: cultural relativism; argument from consequences; what can we learn from cultural relativism? --classic Utilitarianism’s conception of happiness; whose happiness; our own happiness within framework --Act Utilitarianism v. Rule utilitarianism --what are some counterexamples to act utilitarianism which rule utilitarianism is meant to overcome? --objection that utilitarian moral theory is too demanding and an example --Kant: acting from duty v. acting in conformity with duty --problem with the absolute character of Kantian duties; case to explain --Solomon’s analysis of CSR through virtue of magnificence; Solomon’s response to the objection that CSR has no moral worth --Ross’s idea of a prima facie v. a Kantian categorical imperative; Ross’s decision-making procedure --ethics decision making per RIE toolkit --Williams and Lebsock: what is fight over; changes responsible for success of #Me Too movement --Schutlz: “quid pro quo,” what is most sexual harassment really about --Johnson: typical framing of the ethical issue involving users of information and individuals who the information is about (i.e., the computers and privacy issue as she calls it) --Johnson’s argument for privacy as a social good --Bok: whistleblowing; its aims and its nature --Rawls: original position; veil of ignorance?

Paper For Above instruction

The midterm examination for Philosophy 3338: Professional Ethics encompasses a broad spectrum of fundamental ethical theories, contemporary issues, and practical dilemmas faced in professional contexts. To prepare effectively, a comprehensive understanding of various actions, theories, and case studies is essential, including the analysis of business practices, stakeholder responsibilities, international ethics, utilitarian and Kantian principles, corporate social responsibility (CSR), privacy concerns, and whistleblowing phenomena.

Business Bluffing and Ethical Justifications

Carr’s account of business bluffing posits that certain actions traditionally labeled as unethical—such as misleading clients or competitors—are considered necessary for success in competitive markets. Carr contends that bluffing can serve as a strategic tool, asserting that in the context of business, the boundaries of ethical behavior are often flexible. Carr’s argument hinges on the pragmatic view that success often depends on deception, which aligns with the realities of competitive advantage. This perspective raises critical questions about the moral limits of competitive business practices and whether success justifies ethically questionable actions.

Sen’s Use of the Butcher, Brewer, and Baker Example

Amartya Sen employs the example of a butcher, brewer, and baker to illustrate foundational behavioral patterns that underlie ethical considerations. These examples reveal common motivations—such as self-interest, fairness, and societal benefit—that shape our judgments. Sen suggests that ethics is rooted in shared human concerns and social practices, emphasizing that moral reasoning is intertwined with everyday interactions. The example demonstrates that ethical behavior is not merely about abstract principles but also about practical realities and the underlying values that inform them.

Friedman’s View on Social Responsibility

Milton Friedman famously argued that the primary responsibility of corporate executives is to maximize shareholder value within the bounds of the law. Friedman contends that actions labeled as socially responsible—such as philanthropy or environmental initiatives—are beyond the authority of executives, who are agents of the shareholders. He asserts that responsibility is confined to economic efficiency, and corporate social responsibility (CSR) should not extend into managerial discretion unless it aligns with profit maximization. This view emphasizes the role of profit as the measure of corporate success and criticizes attempts to blend social aims with business objectives.

Freeman’s Stakeholder Theory and Law Compatibility

R. Edward Freeman’s stakeholder theory broadens the scope of corporate responsibility to include all parties affected by corporate actions—stakeholders—such as employees, customers, suppliers, and communities. Freeman’s model conflicts with legal frameworks in that it advocates for considerations beyond legal compliance, emphasizing ethical obligations toward diverse stakeholders. The theory challenges the traditional shareholder-centric view, promoting a more inclusive approach that prioritizes stakeholder interests in decision-making processes. The trade-off view within this framework suggests balancing stakeholder interests, though this can lead to conflicts and ethical dilemmas.

Primary and Secondary Stakeholders and Corporate Responsibility

According to Freeman, primary stakeholders are directly affected by corporate actions and have a contractual or ongoing relationship with the firm, such as employees and investors. Secondary stakeholders, like advocacy groups and the wider community, are indirectly affected but still hold ethical considerations. The trade-off view assumes a hierarchy of responsibilities, where corporate decisions often involve weighing competing stakeholder interests, although such trade-offs can complicate ethical decision-making.

Pain’s Critique of Unethical Behavior Assumptions

Rebecca Payne challenges the misguided assumption that unethical behavior is inherent or inevitable in business. She proposes that unethical actions are often the result of organizational failures or flawed incentives rather than the nature of business itself. Paine cites prominent cases where unethical conduct was addressed through reforms and ethical initiatives, emphasizing that fostering an ethical culture can mitigate misconduct. Her position advocates for ethical leadership and accountability as solutions to unethical tendencies.

Social Programs Administration: Private vs. Public

Brenkert analyzes the ethical distinctions between social programs administered by private corporations versus public agencies. She argues that the status of beneficiaries depends significantly on the administering body, with private agencies often prioritized for efficiency but potentially lacking accountability. Public administration may ensure broader societal interests but can suffer from bureaucratic inefficiency. Ethical considerations include transparency, fairness, and the purpose of social welfare programs, raising questions about the most just and effective methods of service delivery.

Donaldson’s Middle-of-the-Road Ethical Position

Thomas Donaldson advocates a nuanced approach to international business ethics, emphasizing respect for cultural differences while adhering to universal core values. His principles include respect, fairness, and truthfulness, which can be realized through practices that foster mutual understanding and uphold ethical standards across borders. Donaldson’s framework guides companies to operate ethically internationally by balancing respect for cultural diversity with the need to maintain consistent moral principles, thereby promoting global corporate responsibility.

Relativism and Consequences in Ethical Reasoning

James Rachels discusses cultural relativism, arguing that moral standards are culturally dependent and vary across societies. From the argument from consequences, he contends that ethical prescriptions should consider the outcomes of actions. Rachels advocates that cultural relativism encourages tolerance and understanding but also warns against moral infallibility, urging a balanced approach that respects cultural differences while critically evaluating practices based on their consequences.

Utilitarianism: Happiness and Types

Classical utilitarianism equates the right action with the promotion of happiness or pleasure, considering whose happiness counts and within what framework. It emphasizes maximizing overall utility, which can be broader than individual happiness, including societal welfare. Act utilitarianism advocates for assessing each action independently, while rule utilitarianism endorses following general rules that tend to produce happiness.

Objections to act utilitarianism include counterexamples where pursuing immediate happiness leads to unjust or undesirable outcomes, which rule utilitarianism aims to mitigate by establishing consistent principles. The theory faces criticism for being overly demanding; for example, an individual might have to sacrifice personal interests for the greater good. Kantian ethics contrasts utilitarianism by prioritizing duty and moral principles over consequences, emphasizing acting from motives of duty rather than expedient outcomes.

Kantian Duties and Absolute Moral Laws

Kant differentiates acting from duty—that is, motivated by moral law—from merely conforming to duty, which might be motivated by self-interest or other inclinations. Absolute duties, such as the prohibition of lying, pose challenges when conflicting duties arise—illustrated by cases like the lie to protect life. These conflicts highlight issues in applying Kant’s categorical imperatives rigidly, necessitating nuanced judgments in complex situations.

Virtue Ethics and CSR

Solomon’s virtue of magnificence relates to CSR by emphasizing the importance of moral excellence in the exercise of corporate generosity and leadership. Solomon argues that CSR has moral worth insofar as it reflects virtuous character traits. His response to the objection that CSR lacks moral value states that acting virtuously—out of a genuine concern for societal well-being—embeds moral worth within corporate behaviors.

Ross’s Prima Facie Duties and Decision-Making

W.D. Ross distinguishes between prima facie duties—those that are binding unless overridden—and a final duty based on careful judgment. His decision-making procedure involves weighing competing prima facie duties, such as fidelity, beneficence, and justice, to determine the morally right action in specific contexts. This approach offers flexibility over Kantian absolutism, accommodating the complexity of ethical dilemmas.

Ethical Decision-Making and RIE Toolkit

The RIE (Responsible Innovation and Ethics) toolkit provides structured methods for ethical decision-making, emphasizing stakeholder analysis, moral imagination, and prudence. Its application involves identifying affected parties, considering societal impacts, and evaluating options against ethical principles, fostering responsible choices in professional practice.

#MeToo Movement and Ethical Change

Williams and Lebsock debate the factors behind the #MeToo movement’s success, highlighting cultural shifts in societal attitudes towards sexual harassment and accountability. They argue that increased awareness, legal reforms, and social media activism have driven responsible change, fostering a culture of accountability and respect.

Schultz on Quid Pro Quo and Sexual Harassment

Schultz interprets quid pro quo harassment as primarily about power dynamics—a way to exert control and dominance. She emphasizes that sexual harassment often reflects underlying issues of inequality and abuse of authority, making it a complex social problem rooted in systemic power structures.

Johnson on Privacy and Ethical Issues

Johnson frames privacy issues involving technology as a fundamental concern for individual autonomy and societal trust. She argues that privacy is a social good because it sustains personal dignity, freedom of expression, and democratic values. The ethical challenge lies in balancing technological progress with protection of individual rights.

Bok on Whistleblowing

Bok defines whistleblowing as the act of exposing unethical or illegal practices within an organization, aimed at promoting transparency and accountability. It involves moral courage and often entails personal risk, but is essential for ethical integrity and organizational reform.

Rawls’s Original Position and Veil of Ignorance

In social contract theory, Rawls’s original position posits a hypothetical scenario where individuals select principles of justice without knowledge of their own social status, background, or position—a condition known as the veil of ignorance. This ensures fairness and impartiality in establishing social arrangements that protect vulnerable members of society.

References

• Carr, E. H. (1964). What Is Practical Ethics? Cambridge University Press.
• Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. California Management Review, 25(3), 57–73.
• Johnson, D. G. (2013). Privacy as a Social Good. Ethics and Information Technology, 15(3), 189–199.
• Paine, L. S. (2003). Value Shift: Why Companies Must Merge Social and Financial Goals. Harvard Business Review, 81(12), 78–85.
• Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
• Rachels, J. (1999). The Challenge of Cultural Relativism. In The Elements of Moral Philosophy (4th ed., pp. 163-182). McGraw-Hill.
• Schultz, M. (2017). Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment as Power Exercise. Journal of Ethics & Social Philosophy, 13(4), 357–372.
• Solomon, R. C. (1992). Corporate Virtues and Virtue Ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 2(2), 23–29.
• Williams, P., & Lebsock, C. (2019). The Dynamics of #MeToo Movement. Gender & Society, 33(1), 3–26.
• Donaldson, T. (1996). Values in an International Business. Harvard Business Review, 74(6), 59–68.