2830 24R In-Class Test Answer Key
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Winnipeg *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
2331
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
6
Uploaded by ChefGorillaPerson510
Business Ethics PHIL 2830 A01 24R ANSWER KEY
In – Class Test: 20 October, 2023
Instructor: P. Walsh.
This test is worth 20% of you mark for this course. Instructions: This test consists of two parts, Part A and Part B. Part A
consists of 32
multiple-choice questions. Respond to all of the multiple choice questions on the bubble sheet provided. Each multiple choice question is worth one mark each. Part B
consists of a short answer question. Respond to that question in the test booklet provided. The short answer question is worth 25
marks. Total possible high score for this test = 57 marks
. Dictionaries, notes, or any other electronic device, are not permitted for use on this test. Return all test materials once you have completed this test.
You have until the end of our class, at 11:20 a.m., to complete this test.
Part A
Multiple Choice Questions
For each question, choose the answer which best
answers the question. There is only one correct answer for each question. Indicate your response to each question on the bubble sheet. The total possible high score for this part is 30 marks. For questions #1 - #3 refer to the following passage on Ethical Egoism.
Ethical Egoism is a normative ethical theory asserting that the morally right action is the one that produces the most favourable balance of good over evil for (1) oneself
. Proponents of this theory
base their view on the alleged fact that human beings are, by nature, self-interested. While this may be the
case, a clear distinction between (2) Psychological Egoism
and Ethical Egoism must be drawn. At best, the former provides justification for the latter. Ethical Egoism is an attractive account but critics of Ethical Egoism maintain that it’s most significant weakness is that (3
) it cannot provide direction in cases of genuine conflict of interest
.
For questions #4 - #8 refer to the following passages on Utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory asserting that the morally right action is the one that produces the most favourable balance of good over evil for (4) everyone affected by the act
. While the initial accounts formulated by Bentham and Mill focused on singular acts, a contemporary form of Utilitarianism that accounts for principled action, is referred to as (5) Rule Utilitarianism
. As a consequentialist normative moral theory, the two key ideas that are at the center of any utilitarian account of morality are that (6) human happiness is the ultimate moral good
, and actions should be evaluated in light of their consequences.
Utilitarianism is often an attractive account for business ethics students because it provides the foundation
for economic reasoning, and for practical methods like (7) cost-benefit analysis
. However, critics of Utilitarianism contend that we intuitively realize that some actions are wrong even if they produce good results. Indeed, a very pressing concern for Utilitarianism is that (8) it incorrectly overlooks considerations of justice and the distribution of happiness .
For questions #9 - #14 refer to the following passages on Kantian Ethics.
Kantian Ethics is a normative ethical theory that is an important example of a purely non-consequentialist
approach to ethics. Kant held that only when we act from a sense of duty does our action have moral worth. Good will is the only thing that is (9) good in itself . Kant’s ethics gives us firm standards that do not depend on results; it injects a humanistic element into moral decision making and stresses the importance of (10) acting on principle
and from a sense of duty. Given the importance of the concept of duty in Kant’s theory it is often referred to as deontology.
Two key ideas are at the center of Kant’s thinking about morality. First, (11) only a good will has ultimate moral value , and secondly, moral rules must be universal and binding for all rational beings. Regarding the binding and universal nature of our moral principles, Kant provides the (12) Categorical Imperative
as a test which the moral principle must pass. In one of our text readings, Norman E. Bowie continues by explaining Kant’s notion that persons should always be treated as (13) ends in themselves
. Because people are (14) the source of moral authority
, Bowie argues, they should be treated with respect at all times.
15. Kant formulates the Categorical Imperative in at least three ways, the most common variant is:
“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become (15
) a universal law .”
For questions #16 - #19 refer to the following passages on Virtue Ethics.
Virtue ethics is a normative ethical theory that highlights (16) the role of the agent
in moral deliberations making virtuous character the central concern. Deontology and Utilitarianism are action- and rule-centered ethical theories. Virtue ethics maintains that we should focus our energies on improving
our moral character rather than finding (17) abstract moral rules that allow us to classify actions
. An agent’s moral character is good insofar as the agent possesses virtues and (18) lacks vice
. Virtues are character traits that allow agents to act habitually well. Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean maintains that moral virtues are character traits that are (19) a midpoint between extremes
. 20. Chapter 1 in Honest Work
touches on everyday ethical problems in the workplace. In the Hochschild reading, he shows that, in some professions, part of the job is managing our feelings. A danger of some these kinds of work, Hochschild argues, is that the worker can become estranged or alienated from an aspect of Self .
21. In another reading from Chapter 1 of Honest Work
, Bruce Barry considers the problem of freedom of expression in the workplace.
Barry believes that if workers had greater rights to freedom of expression, then The economy could still flourish
.
22. In the Chapter 15 reading by Schimmel, he writes that the pursuit of wealth is highly valued in our society. The aim of such a pursuit is for the increase of pleasure, but it often sacrifices this very thing by its pursuit. Schimmel refers to this as The Paradox of Greed .
23. This question refers to the author's article found in our PDF "Ethics Intro – 22R". Onora O'Neill points of that, in Kant's view, acts that are done on maxims that require deception or coercion of others are wrong. Why is this the case?
Those acts cannot have the consent of those others.
24. This question refers to the author's article found in our PDF "Ethics Intro – 22R". Onora O'Neill maintains that Kant does not say that there is anything wrong about using someone as a means. We have to do so in any cooperative scheme of action. To use someone as a mere means is what Kant suggests is wrong. How does O'Neill define using someone as a mere means? To use someone as a mere means is to involve them in a scheme of action to which they could not in principle consent.
25. This question refers to the author's article found in our PDF "Ethics Intro – 22R". Why does Tom Reagan conclude that moral judgments are not merely expressions of personal preference?
When people say something is morally right or wrong, it is always appropriate to ask them to give reasons for accepting their judgment is correct. In the case of personal preferences, such requests are inappropriate.
26. This question refers to the author's article found in our PDF "Ethics Intro – 22R". What does Tom Reagan conclude based on the following passage?
"Even if there is a moral authority, those who are not moral authorities can have no good reason for thinking that there is one unless the judgments of this supposed authority can be checked for their truth or reasonableness, and it is not possible to do this unless what is true or reasonable regarding right and wrong can be known independently of what this supposed authority says."
The correct method for answering moral questions cannot consist merely in discovering what some alleged moral authority says.
27. This question refers to the author's article found in our PDF "Ethics Intro – 22R". Mary Midgley describes a position that consists in simply denying that we can ever understand any culture except our own well enough to make judgments about it. What does she call this position?
Moral Isolationism
28. This question refers to the author's article found in our PDF "Ethics Intro – 22R". Louis Pojman describes the following objection to utilitarianism. "Utilitarianism makes morality too demanding, it creates a disincentive to work, and fails to account for differential obligations."
What does Pojman call this objection? The No-Rest Objection
29. This question refers to the author's article found in our PDF "Ethics Intro – 22R". Louis Pojman describes the following objection to utilitarianism."Utilitarianism commands that we violate our most central and deeply held principles, which leads to personal alienation."
What does Pojman call this objection? The Integrity Objection
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
30. This question refers to the author's article found in our PDF "Ethics Intro – 22R". Julia Driver points to the general criticism of a virtue ethics that understands virtue as a "stable" character trait. Why is this a problem for virtue ethics? It is a problem because it fails to conform to what we know about how to best explain human behavior.
31. Chapter 10 of Honest Work
, considers some issues pertinent to international business. The article by John T. Noonan Jr. discusses the history of bribes. One of Noonan’s points is that there is a fundamental distinction between a bribe and:
A gift
32. What is the name of the argument that attempts to conclude that there is no objective truth in morality because different cultures have different codes?
Cultural Differences Argument
PART B:
SHORT ANSWER QUESTION: Honesty in Business.
This question is worth 25 marks in total. Don’t hesitate to give partial answers part marks can be awarded. a) What is business bluffing? Explain Albert Z. Carr’s reasons for maintaining that business bluffing is ethical. (5 marks)
b) Critics of Carr maintain that business bluffing is unethical. Provide three arguments in support
of the conclusion that business bluffing is not permissible
. The first argument must be based on
reasons derived from Utilitarianism. The second argument must be based on reasons derived from Kantian Ethics. The third argument must be based on reasons derived from Virtue Ethics. Each argument should be the best one that can be generated from the corresponding normative ethical theory. Of those three arguments, which one provides the best evidential support for the conclusion that business bluffing is not permissible? Provide an argument in support of your choice. (20 marks) Generic points about grading for this short answer question:
The commentary on the test scripts is minimal. I have used the following symbols – this is what they mean:
“E” – Elaborate on this point. In most cases, I use this to indicate that you are on the right track but need to develop, or more thoroughly explain, your point. “?” - You are making an unclear point, either for grammatical or conceptual reasons. This can also indicate that the line of reasoning you are expressing doesn’t follow. “??” - This is similar to above only, but it indicates some greater confusion, or unclearness, in your point. It can also indicate that your point is mistaken.
Carr thinks the morality of ordinary life is not applicable to business. Carr contends that there is a conflict between private (noncommercial) morality and the morality of business. Bluffing is essential to business and the ethics of business is different from the ethics of civilized human relationships. Business operates in accordance with particular rules, in this way, Carr suggests, it is more similar to a
game like poker. The ethics of business then, is like the ethics of poker. Importantly, for Carr, is the idea that the businessman doesn’t set the rules of this game. Nonetheless, there are rules of proper conduct that the businessman must follow in order to be competitive. If these rules coincide with ethics – and in a lot of cases they do - it is coincidental. The main highlights of Carr’s argument can be condensed to the following:
P1 - Business is a sphere with characteristic practices.
P2 - These practices are analogous to the ethics of games (such as poker.)
P3 - If one were to abide by these (commercial) practices in a nonbusiness sphere, then one’s actions would be condemned.
C - Kept within the confines of commerce, the practices of business are not condemned but are expected and encouraged. As such, business bluffing is ethical.
**An independent descriptive statement of what business bluffing is would be really helpful in setting up your arguments in the second part of this question. **
We might point out that with the growth of the large firm, the complexity of business decisions, the need for planning and stability, and the undesirable effects of puffery, exaggeration, and deception all count against Carr’s view that the ethics of business should be the ethics of a poker game. The ethics of a poker game are adversarial; they undermine trust and are economically inefficient. Both of these points can be considered as having a Utilitarian justification. The claim that viewing business as like a poker game is economically inefficient is against Carr’s point that, in some way, deception is necessary
for the business leader. If Carr’s claim has anything to do with economic efficiency, there are consequentialist arguments to be made to the contrary that business bluffing is unethical. In the case of Kantian ethics, the central issue will be whether people who are being bluffed are being treated as a means to an end. Additional concern would be whether their rational autonomous agency was being respected. Seemingly, the lacks of respect would be fostered by the undermining of trust. Of course is business bluffing is considered to be the equivalent of lying, then Kant’s well-formulated argument for why lying is unethical would be compelling.
The concern that business bluffing undermines trust would be central for the virtue ethicist. Developing a trustworthy character in yourself and others is a virtue. So, clearly business bluffing is unethical. Developing the characteristics and habits required for business bluffing would be considered vices, as they err to an extreme as opposed to a mean between extremes. Such vices, like deceitfulness, or lying, also pose the danger of corrupting virtuous characteristics such as honesty, trustworthiness, and integrity. When formulating your arguments remember that the conclusion, if it is claiming that business bluffing is not permissible, must show more than simply that we can’t engage in business bluffing, but that we ought not to. To be clear, to claim that an action is one that we ought not to do is to claim that the action is unethical.
Structurally, a Utilitarian argument might look like this. (You would have to add some detail to this structure.) Action X produces overall bad consequences Y for all persons involved. Therefore, action X is not permissible. Structurally, a Kantian Deontological argument might look like this. (You would have to add some detail to this structure.) Action X doesn’t respect the rational autonomy of all persons concerned. Or, action X treats people as means to an end. Or, to do Action X would mean we were following a principle that would not satisfy the Categorical Imperative. Therefore, action X is not permissible. Structurally, a Virtue Ethics argument might look like this. (You would have to add some detail to this structure.) Action X requires a character trait that is a vice. Or action X corrupts the virtuous character of all persons considered.
Therefore, action X is not permissible. Your conclusion regarding which of your three arguments provides the best evidential support must, itself, have some evidential support. This is why the question requires you to provide an argument in support of your conclusion. A simple statement of your preference is not adequate.
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