Assignment 2 exercises
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Old Dominion University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
412
Subject
Law
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
4
Uploaded by CountIce11231
Page 40
1. Think of a person who did something morally wrong, at least to your way of thinking. What was it? Explain to a friend of yours—or a classmate—why you think it was wrong. Does your friend agree? Why or why not? What is the basic principle that forms the basis for your judgment that it was wrong
?
-There may be a day that you have to file an insurance claim and the way that insurance company goes about distributing payments is that they send you, the claimant, the money to pay the appropriate contractors as work is complete as well as choose who completes the work.
This can lead to you going with a contractor that will work with you or give you a deal on the project so that you may complete the repairs at a rate that is cheaper than what the insurance company estimated and paid to you. As a result, you pocket the difference and keep the extra money for yourself instead of returning it to the insurance company. This would generally be considered morally wrong as well as potentially fraudulent, at least in the eyes of the company paying the money. People I have talked to tend to agree that it is wrong and at the very least is considered to be acting in bad faith with the insurance company. We even go on to say that it is
part of the reason why insurance costs so much to begin with. The basic moral principle I feel this applies to is that of integrity. The insurance company trusts that you will use all the money toward the repair and not try to find the cheapest contractor to complete the job and you profit
off of the claim.
2. Think of a person who did something morally right, at least to your way of thinking. (This is not a matter of finding something they did well, like efficiently changing a tire, but something good.) What was it? Explain to a friend of yours—or a classmate—why you think it was right. Does your friend agree? Why or why not? What is the basic principle that forms the basis for your judgment that it was right?
-I have see many posts on Facebook groups about people losing their credit cards in the parking lot. All the information needed to make a transaction is there and in today’s world is all too easy to make a purchase with that credit card before it gets reported lost. Making an online purchase with the card may be difficult since the payment processor typically wants a billing address but you could simply walk into a store, cover yourself up in a fashion that makes it hard for the cameras to see who you are, and swipe the card to purchase a gift card then walk away. Fortunately, the people I see who make these posts are those looking for the owner of the card and have no interest in committing a crime. Others I have spoken to agree with me in that the correct course of action is to always turn in a lost card despite the temptation. You never know if the card used is for a person who is financially troubled and if they will even be able to get the
charges reversed. Credit cards are easier to reverse a fraudulent charge when compared to debit cards. It’s also inconvenient for the affected person because they may be out that money until the financial institution rules in your favor and reverses the charge. There are two basic principles that I see apply here and they are integrity and kindness
3. Think of an action by a business organization (sole proprietor, partnership, or corporation) that was legal but still strikes you as wrong. What was it? Why do you think it was wrong?
-Interest rates on savings accounts a shockingly low especially when you consider that much of the money the bank lends out is in fact money borrowed from you, although the value of the account is still guaranteed to you. The typical interest rate on a savings account is less than 0.5%, 3% or more with high-yield savings accounts, but the typical interest rate for a personal loan can exceed 12-15%. This is just one example of the disparity of interest rates and one can argue that the banks take on all the risk of loss especially since your account is federally insured up to $250k should the bank fail. Although still being legal I would view this as wrong because banks are significant profiting off of your money especially since they collect all sorts of other fees depending on the loan or transaction. The amount of money that banks make is surprising to say the least and many banks have even gotten into trouble with the law because the legal but potentially unethical banking practices kind of serve as a gateway to eventually breaking the
law in some fashion.
4. Think of an act by an individual or a corporation that is ethical but not legal. Compare your answer with those of your classmates: were you more likely to find an example from individual action or corporate action? Do you have any thoughts as to why?
-Whistleblowing is generally considered to be ethical but depending on the nature of what it is you are revealing, it can very much be an illegal activity. You are more likely to hear about whistleblowing to be an individual action than a corporate action and this is primarily because corporations tend to be the ones to bring on workers than may have a moral objection to the corporate practices and thus more incentivized to reveal these actions.
Page 64
1. Consider again Milton Friedman’s article.
a. What does Friedman mean by “ethical custom”?
-What I think he means is there are business practices that are generally accepted and regarded to be ethical but not necessarily illegal. Essentially, following a set of ethical standards that are generally accepted to be good such as not resorting to actions such as deception which may not necessarily be considered illegal.
b. If the laws of the society are limiting the company’s profitability, would the
company be within its rights to disobey the law?
-If it is not explicitly laid out as illegal then, technically speaking, a company can do whatever it wants to ensure it can turn a profit. However, if there is a law stating a company can not perform particular action then no the company would not be within its
rights to disobey the law although this can and does lead a company to find ways around the law since a single law cannot and does not always take into account all potential aspects of a particular action it is trying to prevent.
c. What if the law is “on the books,” but the company could count on a lack of
enforcement from state officials who were overworked and underpaid? Should
the company limit its profits? Suppose that it could save money by discharging a
pollutant into a nearby river, adversely affecting fish and, potentially, drinking
water supplies for downstream municipalities. In polluting against laws that
aren’t enforced, is it still acting “within the rules of the game”? What if almost all
other companies in the industry were saving money by doing similar acts?
-If everyone were to break the same law primarily because they know it won’t be enforced it still doesn’t make it right. If enforcement of the laws in lacking for whatever reason, a company should still limit it’s profit potential because, one, it is within the bounds of the law, and two, it is the ethical thing to do. This even applies to situations where a company could save money if they broke the law. A company or individual is still not acting “within the rules of the game” if the laws are not enforced because there is a law for a reason despite the government’s ability to properly enforce it. If other company’s were to break the same law then that still does not make it right.
Consider again the Harris v. Forklift case at the end of Chapter 1 "Introduction to Law and Legal
Systems"
. The Supreme Court ruled that Ms. Harris was entitled to be heard again by the federal
district court, which means that there would be a trial on her claim that Mr. Hardy, owner of
Forklift Systems, had created a “hostile working environment” for Ms. Harris. Apart from the legal aspects, did he really do anything unethical? How can you tell?
-Mr. Hardy’s behavior was unethical primarily because he was targeting his insults toward Ms. Harris because she was a woman. He distinctly implied that a man would be better. I can tell mainly due to his comments especially when he tried to pass them off as jokes.
a. Which of his actions, if any, were contrary to utilitarian thinking? -His comments, which he tried to pass of as jokes, are contrary to utilitarian thinking because they were in no way funny. They are more considered to be insults and ultimately caused harm
to Ms. Harris.
b. If Kant were his second-in-command and advising him on ethical matters, would
he have approved of Mr. Hardy’s behavior? Why or why not? -He would not have approved because Mr. Hardy’s actions and comments run contrary to what is considered to be ethical behavior. Consider the behaviors alleged by Ms. Harris and assume for a moment that they are all true. In terms of core values, which of these behaviors are not consistent with the core values Josephson
points to? Be specific.
-The two core values that Mr. Hardy’s behaviors are not consistent with are respect and fairness. Mr. Hardy had not respect for Ms. Harris mainly due to her gender and as such he did not treat her fairly.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Assume that Forklift Systems is a large public corporation and that the CEO engages in these kinds of behaviors. Assume also that the board of directors knows about it. What action should the board take, and why?
-The board should immediately move to terminate his employment because if they didn’t they would effectively be signaling to the public and their other employees that they support the disrespectful and unfair treatment of a person based on their gender.
Assume that the year is 1963, prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Title VII
provisions regarding equal employment opportunity that prohibit discrimination based on sex. So, Mr. Hardy’s actions are not illegal, fraudulent, or deceitful. Assume also that he heads a large public company and that there is a large amount of turnover and unhappiness among the women who work for the company. No one can sue him for being sexist or lecherous, but are his
actions consistent with maximizing shareholder returns? Should the board be concerned?
-The board should be concerned because if not in this case, then eventually his actions will lead the public to start looking to do their business elsewhere. This will lead to a loss of profits and potentially the collapse of the company. They should look at this case for what it represents and they should truly determine if the comments Mr. Hardy made to Ms. Harries truly represent the values of the company. Notice that this question is really a stand-in for any situation faced by a company today regarding its CEO where the actions are not illegal but are ethically questionable. What would conscious capitalism tell a CEO or a board to do where some group of its employees are regularly harassed or disadvantaged by top management?
-Conscious capitalism should tell the CEO or board to terminate Mr. Hardy’s employment immediately and at the very least issue a statement that Mr. Hardy’s comments and actions do not represent the values that the company holds.