1. Define Utilitarianism and explain how Utilitarians decide what is morally right.
Utilitarianism is a theory of ethics that stipulates the quantitative maximization of good consequences for a population. Basically, utilitarians decide what is morally right if it conforms to happiness, pleasure, or preference satisfaction. In addition, utilitarians seek to maximize other consequences, these consequences generally have something to do with the welfare of people (or of people and animals).
2. Explain how rule utilitarianism differs from act utilitarianism.
To differentiate act utilitarianism to rule utilitarianism, let try to consider the following scenario: A doctor has three patients with terminal illnesses: one needs a liver, one needs a pancreas, and one needs a heart. A fourth, non-terminal patient just came in to have his appendix removed. Should the surgeon kill the fourth man and pass his organs around to the others? Many people would feel that these actions violate the rights of the fourth man, but utilitarianism initially seems to imply that, given a purely binary choice between (1) killing one man and distributing his organs or (2) not doing so and thus allowing the terminal patients to die, violating one man’s rights is exactly what we ought to do. Of course, there might be reasons for the act utilitarian to refrain from killing the fourth man, but most would agree that rule utilitarianism can provide more unconditional reasons not to kill him.
3. State three objections raised against utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism has objections i.e. the morality of common sense, results of actions, incompatibility to human rights.
4. In the ford Pinto Case, did Ford use a utilitarian analysis? Why?
No, because the ford Pinto Case did not consider the welfare of some people. But it only considers the welfare of the company. Although there is cost-benefit analysis about the possible actions of Ford but the quantitative maximization of good consequences for a population is not considered.
Kantian Deontology
1. Explain how Deontology differs from utilitarianism. According to the Katian tradition, what is the relation of reason and morality?
Deontology is an ethical theory holding that decisions should be made solely or primarily by considering one’s duties and the rights of others. Thus, Deontological theories hold that right and wrong actions are not solely determined by their consequences but utilitarianism says that right acts are those that lead to the best consequences. In Kantian tradition, reasons and morality are related since this theory describes that there is no good reasons that abandon morality. It still would be wrong to violate someone’s rights even if it led to the best consequences.
2. Explain each of the three Kantian formulations of the Categorical Imperative.
First Formulation: Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law.
This formulation explains that it is not correct to be tied to any particular conditions, including the identity of the person doing the moral deliberation. Example, “If I am person A, killing is right; If I am person B, killing is wrong”. Therefore, a moral mandate must have universality, which is to say that it must be disconnected from the particular physical details surrounding the proposition, and could be applied to any rational being.
Second Formulation: Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.
If any person desires perfection in himself or others, it would be his moral duty to seek that end for all persons equally, so long as that end does not contradict perfect duty. Example, as a slaveowner would be effectively asserting a moral right to own a person as a slave, he or she would be asserting a property right in another person. But this would violate the categorical imperative because it denies the basis for there to be free rational action at all; it denies the status of a person as an end in himself.
Third Formulation: Act as though you were through your maxims a law-making member of a kingdom of ends.
We ought to act only by maxims which would harmonize with a possible kingdom of ends. We have perfect duty not to act by maxims that create incoherent or impossible states of natural affairs when we attempt to universalize them, and we have imperfect duty not to act by maxims that lead to unstable or greatly undesirable states of affairs.
3. In the Ford Pinto Case, did Ford’s decision not to make the safety modification meet Kant’s 3 formulations of the Categorical Imperative? Why?
Yes, Ford’s decision did not make the safety modification to meet Kant’s 3 formulations of the Categorical Imperative because it violates some rules like considering only the welfare of the company and not the act in such a way that they always treat humanity.
Justice
1. Briefly explain the main differences between Nozick’s libertarian theory and the egalitarian approach to justice.
Nozick’s libertarian theory stated that justice is based on the rights of property, ownership and rights of property transfers which contradict the view of an egalitarian that emphasizes the equality of morally-significant beings. If libertarian justified that the right of ownership, then egalitarian argued that it has to be distributed equally to the people.
2. What does Rawls mean by a veil of ignorance? What purpose does it serve?
Veil of ignorance accurately reflect what principles of justice would be manifest in a society premised on free and fair cooperation between citizens, including respect for liberty, and an interest in reciprocity. It serves as a protection to attain basic rights as well as economic and social advantages.
3. Some people object to the multimillion dollar salaries of senior business executives. What might Rawls, Nozick and a utilitarian have to say about this?
Rawls might argue that it should be distributed equally to the people. However, Nozick might argue that senior business executives should be protected because it is their right to own. And a utilitarian might argue that it is fine to sacrifice the salaries of senior business executives if it is for welfare of majority.
Rights
1. Distinguish between positive and negative rights. How are these rights justified?
Actually, positive right imposes an obligation on others and the state to do certain things, while a negative right merely obliges others and the state to refrain from certain activities. Under the theory of positive and negative rights, a negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another human being, or group of people, such as a state, usually in the form of abuse or coercion. A positive right is a right to be provided with something through the action of another person or the state. In theory a negative right proscribes or forbids certain actions, while a positive right prescribes or requires certain actions.
2. Explain how the concept of places limits on rights.
The rights of an individual/organization vary on places limits. Actually, rights should of an individual/organization conform to the rules and regulation of a certain place. The place limits the rights based on the places’ role, customs and value.
3. How can conflicts between rights be resolved?
Conflicts between rights can be possibly resolved if obligation and consequences are clearly evaluated in doing one’s right.
Ethical Relativism
1. What is ethical relativism and why do most ethicists reject relativism yet accept the importance of managers recognizing cultural differences?
Ethical relativism takes the position that ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths but instead are relative to social, cultural, historical or personal references. Ethicists reject relativism yet accept the importance of managers recognizing cultural differences because they believe there is no single standard by which to assess an ethical proposition’s truth.
Solving Ethical Problems
1. “The debates in business ethics-whether on the level of individual action, corporate practice, or public policy-that take place on the job, in the newspapers, and in the business, philosophical, and popular literature are couched primarily in terms of consequences (or utility), rights, justice, and duty” (de George, 2006:112). Select one debate in business ethics and outline the relevant issues in terms of consequences, rights, justice and duty to respect autonomous beings.
Business corporations, while their aim is to make profit, should consider the larger environmental context they are in. In conducting business and making profits in the process, it is inevitable that their measures will impact upon society and the environment. And more often than not, their actions go counter with societal and environmental interests because of the differences in paradigms that govern business and society. In this regard, appropriate evaluation of consequences, rights, justice and duty to respect autonomous beings should be analyzed. Actually, the main reason businesses exist is to serve the economic needs of society. By themselves businesses cannot solve, and should not be expected to solve, social problems like damage to the environment.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment