Mock Exam-PSLS 375 - sample answers
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Manhattan College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
375
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
8
Uploaded by jmilan01
MOCK EXAM
You will consider the ethical consequences of the business deal below and write a
paper about its ethical issues. Do not do outside research.
To begin, read the attached file library. These are the “rules” you will apply to the
Fact Pattern.
Next, for your paper, discuss the ethical issues in this order:
1.
First, identify four different ethical dilemmas you recognize in the below
Fact Pattern. Briefly explain the dilemma and why you believe it’s unethical.
The Jennings Model has examples of ethical dilemmas encountered in the
business world. Use some of those examples here and evaluate how some of
the Jennings examples you select fit the facts. This subpart should be no
more than two sentences for each dilemma. You may use bullet points for
this part only.
2.
Next, select just two of your four ethical dilemmas. For those two dilemmas,
analyze each separately using the three-step rule from the perspective of
some other impacted entity or person and evaluate how the impacted party
might react and why. Use paragraphs here, not bullet points. This section
will have four subparts.
3.
Last, use two of the ethical principles from your file library and apply any
applicable Jennings rule, to evaluate and resolve the situation. Finally, if any
law from your file library applies, please make sure to apply them in your
analysis.
Case Fact Pattern
Several large U.S. manufacturers of infant and toddler products designed and
marketed an infant baby walker to the public. An infant as young as four months
can be placed in the walker and perform upright movements long before motor
skills have developed sufficiently to permit such movements unaided. The result
was that many infants injured themselves; nearly 30,000 injuries were reported in
just a few years. Some of these injuries occurred when babies maneuvered the
walkers into open stairways. The American Medical Association (AMA) asked the
federal Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to ban and recall the
walkers because of the clear dangers they present, but initially, the commission
refused. The AMA has also expressed concern about possible long-term skeletal
damage because infants who are not yet ready to stand unaided are standing in the
walkers.
The industry continued to sell the walkers up to the time of the eventual ban in the
U.S. in 2016. If the walkers are banned by the Consumer Product Safety
Commission here in the United States, how would you feel about serving as an
agent to export and market them for sale in other countries? Discuss fully the
ethical issues related to this case.
Grading Rubric
Your paper is evaluated based on the logic, depth, and coherence of your argument
and on the application of the materials to the below Fact Pattern. Your response
should be double-spaced, about four pages, using 12 pt. type.
I.
Identifying Ethical Dilemmas
a. Ethical Dilemmas in the Fact Pattern:
1.
Product Safety and Consumer Welfare:
- Dilemma: The manufacturers are aware that the infant walkers pose a significant risk to the
safety of infants, leading to thousands of reported injuries.
- Unethical Aspect: Continuing to sell a product that poses a danger to infants demonstrates a
prioritization of profit over consumer welfare, violating ethical principles.
2.
Transparency and Public Health:
- Dilemma: The Consumer Product Safety Commission initially refuses to ban the walkers
despite the clear dangers reported by the American Medical Association (AMA).
- Unethical Aspect: Lack of transparency and delayed action in the face of potential harm raises
ethical concerns, as it neglects the responsibility of the commission to prioritize public health
and safety.
3.
Long-Term Health Implications:
- Dilemma: The AMA expresses concern about possible long-term skeletal damage to infants
using the walkers.
- Unethical Aspect: Marketing a product with potential long-term health consequences for
infants, especially when alternatives are available, raises ethical questions about prioritizing
short-term profits over the well-being of consumers.
4.
Global Market Exploitation:
- Dilemma: Considering exporting and marketing the banned walkers in other countries after
the U.S. ban.
- Unethical Aspect: Exporting a product known to be hazardous and banned domestically to
exploit less regulated markets demonstrates a lack of corporate social responsibility and a
disregard for the safety and well-being of consumers in other countries.
A.
Analysis of Selected Ethical Dilemmas:
1.
Product Safety and Consumer Welfare:
- Impacted Entity: Infants and their parents.
- Likely Reaction: Parents may feel betrayed and outraged upon discovering the danger their
infants were exposed to, potentially leading to legal action. Infants could suffer physical harm
and long-term health consequences.
2.
Transparency and Public Health:
- Impacted Entity: The general public relies on the Consumer Product Safety Commission for
product safety assurance.
- Likely Reaction: Public trust in the commission may erode, leading to skepticism about the
safety of products in the market. This may result in increased demand for independent product
safety evaluations.
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
B.
Under the Jennings Law
1.
Hiding or Divulging Information:
Application: The manufacturers of infant baby walkers designed and marketed a product
that posed significant dangers to infants, leading to numerous injuries. Despite
knowledge of these dangers, the industry continued to sell the walkers up to the time of
the eventual ban in the U.S. in 2016.
Analysis: The manufacturers may be seen as hiding information about the risks
associated with their products. By not adequately disclosing the potential harm to infants,
they allowed consumers to be unaware of the dangers posed by the walkers.
2.
Balancing Ethical Dilemmas:
Consideration: Exporting and marketing the banned walkers may present an ethical
dilemma between financial interests and the potential harm to infants. Balancing this
dilemma involves considering the greater ethical responsibility toward consumer safety
and well-being.
II.
Three-Step Rule
The three-step rule in ethics typically involves analyzing an ethical dilemma by considering the
actions, consequences, and principles involved. Let's apply this rule to the given fact pattern:
Step 1: Analyze the Consequences
The consequences of the actions are evident in the reported injuries to infants, especially when
the walkers are maneuvered into open stairways. The AMA's concerns about potential long-term
skeletal damage also highlight the gravity of the issue. Moreover, the refusal of the Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to ban the walkers initially raises questions about the
prioritization of public safety.
Step 2: Analyze the Actions
The actions in this case involve the design, marketing, and sale of infant baby walkers by several
large U.S. manufacturers. These walkers have led to a significant number of injuries, and
concerns have been raised by the American Medical Association (AMA) about potential long-
term skeletal damage. Despite these issues, the industry continued to sell the walkers until their
eventual ban in the U.S. in 2016.
Consider the Principles
Ethical principles, such as those of beneficence (doing good), non-maleficence (avoiding harm),
justice, and accountability, come into play. In this case, there is a clear conflict between the
manufacturers' pursuit of profit and the well-being of infants. The refusal of the CPSC to ban the
walkers despite known dangers raises concerns about regulatory responsibility and
accountability.
Ethical Analysis
Exporting and marketing the banned walkers in other countries would raise significant ethical
concerns. It would involve knowingly subjecting infants in other countries to the same dangers
that led to the ban in the U.S. This action would be inconsistent with the ethical principles of
beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice.
Beneficence and Non-Maleficence
: The actions of designing and selling baby walkers that
result in injuries and potential long-term damage go against the principles of beneficence and
non-maleficence. The well-being of infants should be prioritized over profit.
Justice:
There is an issue of justice, as the infants using these walkers are vulnerable and may
not have a voice. The industry's actions seem to prioritize financial gain over the fair treatment
and protection of consumers.
Accountability:
The refusal of the CPSC to ban the walkers initially raises questions about the
regulatory agency's accountability in ensuring consumer safety.
Step 3: Make A Decision
Engaging in the export and marketing of banned baby walkers would likely be viewed as
ethically unacceptable due to the known risks and potential harm to infants. It would be more
ethical to prioritize the safety and well-being of infants, even if it means forgoing potential
financial gain.
III.
Ethical Principles
1.
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is an ethical principle that assesses the morality of an action based on the overall
happiness or well-being it produces. In a utilitarian framework, the right action is considered to
be the one that maximizes overall happiness or minimizes overall suffering.
In the context of exporting banned walkers (assuming walkers refer to a product for infants), a
utilitarian analysis would weigh the well-being of infants and the public against corporate profits.
If the banned walkers pose a significant risk to the health and safety of infants, exporting them
would likely lead to harm and suffering. Utilitarians would argue that protecting the well-being
of infants is crucial, as the happiness and health of individuals, especially vulnerable populations,
should be prioritized.
Exporting banned walkers might affect individual infants and have broader implications for
public health if these products are distributed widely. The potential harm to public well-being,
including the physical and mental health of parents and caregivers, needs to be considered.
From a utilitarian perspective, the pursuit of corporate profits is not inherently wrong, but it
becomes problematic if it leads to harm or compromises the well-being of individuals.
If exporting banned walkers is driven solely by a desire for profit without adequate consideration
for safety and regulations, it may be deemed unethical under a utilitarian framework.
Utilitarianism involves weighing the overall happiness and suffering caused by an action. If
exporting banned walkers leads to a net decrease in overall happiness (considering the potential
harm to infants and the public), it would be considered ethically wrong.
In conclusion, a utilitarian analysis would likely favor prioritizing the well-being of infants and
the public over corporate profits in the case of exporting banned walkers. This analysis
underscores the importance of considering the broader impact of actions on the happiness and
welfare of all affected parties.
2.
Deontological Duties
Deontological ethics, often associated with philosophers like Immanuel Kant, is centered on the
concept of duty and holds that certain actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of their
consequences.
Kant proposed the Categorical Imperative as a fundamental principle of deontology. One
formulation of this imperative is to act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the
same time will that it should become a universal law. In the case of exporting banned walkers,
one might ask whether it is morally acceptable for everyone to prioritize corporate profits over
the well-being of infants and the public.
If everyone were to prioritize corporate profits over the safety and well-being of vulnerable
populations, such as infants, it could lead to a general disregard for the rights and welfare of
individuals. From a deontological perspective, this universalizability test might argue against
such a course of action.
Deontology emphasizes the inherent value of each individual. Prioritizing the well-being of
infants and the public over corporate profits aligns with the principle of respecting persons. It
recognizes the intrinsic value of human life and the duty to protect individuals from harm.
Deontological ethics includes a duty to prevent harm. Exporting banned walkers that pose a risk
to infants would be seen as a violation of this duty, as it involves knowingly engaging in an
action that can cause harm to vulnerable individuals.
Deontology also upholds the principle of non-contradiction, meaning that ethical principles
should be internally consistent. Prioritizing corporate profits over the well-being of infants might
be seen as a contradiction if it involves sacrificing the rights and safety of individuals for
financial gain.
In applying the ethical principle of deontological duty to this situation, it suggests that there is a
moral obligation to prioritize the well-being of infants and the public over corporate profits. This
is based on the duty to prevent harm, respect for persons, and the universalizability test, which
implies that the principles guiding one's actions should be applicable universally without
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
contradiction. Therefore, exporting banned walkers at the expense of infant and public well-
being is likely ethically impermissible within a deontological framework.
3.
Subjectivism
Subjectivism is an ethical principle that emphasizes the subjective nature of moral judgments.
According to subjectivism, moral statements express personal attitudes, feelings, or opinions
rather than objective facts. Applying subjectivism to the situation of prioritizing the well-being of
infants and the public over corporate profits (exporting banned walkers) involves examining
individual perspectives and values:
Subjectivists would suggest that the morality of prioritizing the well-being of infants and the
public over corporate profits depends on the individual's personal values and feelings. Each
person may have a different subjective view on what is morally right or wrong in this situation.
Individuals may weigh the importance of corporate profits differently based on their personal
values and priorities. Some may believe that financial success and profitability are crucial, while
others may prioritize the safety and well-being of infants and the public as more significant.
Subjectivism aligns with moral relativism, the idea that moral judgments are relative to
individuals or cultural contexts. In the context of exporting banned walkers, different individuals
or cultures may have varying opinions on the morality of prioritizing corporate profits over
public and infant well-being.
Subjectivism implies an absence of objective moral truths. Therefore, there may not be an
inherently "correct" or "incorrect" answer to the question of whether prioritizing the well-being
of infants and the public over corporate profits is ethically right or wrong; it depends on
individual perspectives.
In applying the ethical principle of subjectivism, the conclusion would be that the morality of
prioritizing the well-being of infants and the public versus corporate profits is subjective. It
depends on the individual's personal values, feelings, and priorities. While some individuals may
argue in favor of prioritizing profits, others may emphasize the importance of protecting
vulnerable populations. Subjectivism highlights the diversity of moral perspectives and the
absence of a universally objective answer to ethical questions.
4.
Intuitionism
Intuitionism holds that claims about morality can be objectively true or false and that we can
come to know what moral principles are right by way of intuition or direct awareness of their
moral principles. It begins with the notion of a moral sense or faculty called moral intuition. An
intuition is knowing something without reliance on observation or reason.
In applying the ethical principle of intuitionism to this situation, it suggests that there is an
intuitive moral obligation to prioritize the well-being of infants and the public over corporate
profits. The inherent value of protecting vulnerable populations might be immediately
recognized as a self-evident moral truth. However, the complexity arises in situations where
intuitions may seem to conflict, such as when considering the importance of economic interests.
Intuitionism would likely advocate for carefully examining these intuitions and a nuanced
understanding of how they align with the broader moral landscape.
5.
Realism
Realism in ethics, also known as moral realism, posits that there are objective moral facts that
exist independently of human beliefs or perceptions. It holds that there are moral truths that can
be discovered, and moral statements can be objectively true or false. Applying moral realism to
the situation of prioritizing the well-being of infants and the public over corporate profits
(exporting banned walkers) involves considering whether there are objective moral facts that
guide this ethical dilemma.
Moral realism implies that there are objective moral facts that exist independently of individual
opinions or cultural beliefs. In this case, it would involve determining whether there is an
objective moral truth regarding the prioritization of the well-being of infants and the public over
corporate profits.
If moral realism holds that the well-being of individuals has intrinsic value, then prioritizing the
well-being of infants and the public may align with an objective moral truth. This would be
based on the inherent moral significance of promoting the welfare of vulnerable populations.
Moral realism often involves the recognition of universal moral principles that apply consistently
across different situations. Prioritizing the well-being of infants and the public may be seen as a
reflection of a universal moral principle that transcends cultural or individual variations.
In applying the ethical principle of realism, there may be an objectively correct moral stance
regarding the prioritization of the well-being of infants and the public over corporate profits. If
moral realism holds that the well-being of individuals has intrinsic value and that there are
objective moral facts guiding ethical decisions, then prioritizing the safety of vulnerable
populations would align with these moral truths.