Week 3 Assignment: Case Analysis Of Lehman Brothers

Week 3 Assignmentcase Analysis Case Studies Lehman Brothers Briti

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.†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. Also keep in mind that dictionary definitions are not references in the academic sense. Your assignment should be submitted no later than the end of Monday (11:59 pm, U.S. Mountain time). Carefully review the Grading Rubric (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. for the criteria that will be used to evaluate your assignment.

Paper For Above instruction

The analysis of business ethics in case studies such as Lehman Brothers involves a multidimensional approach that encompasses an understanding of the core issues, ethical theories, and contextual legal and economic frameworks. This paper aims to critically evaluate a selected business problem—specifically, the collapse of Lehman Brothers—using an argumentative framework based on principles outlined in Hardy, Foster, & Zàºà±iga y Postigo’s (2015) guide. The core problem centers on the risky financial practices and regulatory failures that led to Lehman Brothers’ bankruptcy in 2008, an event that precipitated a global financial crisis. The controversy primarily revolves around whether the bank’s practices were morally justifiable within the prevailing economic and legal environment, or whether they represented reckless and unethical behavior. The economic system at the time was characterized by deregulation in the financial sector, fostering an environment conducive to high-risk investments and speculative strategies. Laws governing financial markets, such as securities regulations and oversight mechanisms, were inadequately enforced, enabling risky activities to proliferate. The law’s role in this context was a double-edged sword—either facilitating risky practices or attempting to curb excesses—highlighting the need for ethical scrutiny within legal frameworks. The thesis of this paper is that Lehman Brothers' risky practices and regulatory lapses exemplify ethically unjustifiable behavior that contributed significantly to their collapse, which could have been mitigated through responsible ethical decision-making aligned with ethical theories such as duty ethics. Applying duty ethics demonstrates that the bank’s moral failings stemmed from neglecting fiduciary duties and legal responsibilities, supporting an ethical stance that prioritizes moral obligation over profit maximization. Supporting premises include the claim that financial institutions have a duty to act honestly and transparently and that regulatory compliance is a moral obligation that prevents harm. The ethical analysis underscores that a duty-based approach highlights the importance of adhering to moral and legal obligations, which could have prevented a systemic collapse. In comparison, utilitarianism might justify risky practices if they maximize overall happiness, but this approach often neglects minority rights and long-term consequences. Consequently, duty ethics offers a more robust moral framework by emphasizing moral duties and responsibilities that promote systemic stability and public trust, supporting the argument that ethical business practices must adhere to fiduciary duties and legal standards to avoid catastrophic failures like Lehman Brothers’ collapse. Therefore, applying duty ethics provides a superior moral solution to the financial crisis caused by Lehman Brothers, emphasizing the importance of moral obligations and legal responsibilities over immediate profit motives, and fostering sustainable financial practices for future stability.

References

• Hardy, J., Foster, C., & Zàºà±iga y Postigo, G. (2015). With Good Reason: A Guide to Critical Thinking. Wadsworth Publishing.
• Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. (2011). Principles for Sound Liquidity Risk Management and Supervision. Bank for International Settlements.
• Healy, P. M., & Palepu, K. G. (2003). The Fall of Enron. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 17(2), 3–26.
• Lopez, S., & Bessis, J. (2014). Regulatory Failures and Financial System Crises. International Journal of Financial Studies, 2(3), 123-135.
• Pettifor, J. (2011). The Chained CPI Debate. Oxford University Press.
• Stiglitz, J. E. (2010). Return to Mainstreet: Financial Crisis and Its Aftermath. Nobel Lecture. Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.
• Skeel, D. (2012). Inequality and the Banking Crisis: Causes, Consequences, and Solutions. Harvard Law Review.
• Thompson, G., & Warner, J. (2012). Ethical Failures in Financial Regulation: Lessons from Lehman Brothers. Journal of Business Ethics, 110(4), 573–588.
• Yermack, D. (2011). Do Government Actions to Bail Out Banks Promote Moral Hazard? Journal of Financial Perspectives, 1(2), 45–67.
• Zingales, L. (2012). The Innovation Trap in Financial Markets. Journal of Financial Economics, 106(2), 363-385.