Final Exam: Business Ethics 2074F
Question 1 is worth 10%; questions 2 and 3 are each worth 20%; questions 4 and 5 are each worth 25%.
1. Explain Kant’s two formulations of the categorical imperative, outlining how Kant uses one of these formulations to show why it is morally wrong to make a false promise. With reference to Salazar’s examples on Kant on “right motivation,” explain why the moral worth of an act is dependent on its being carried out for the sake of obligation rather than merely in accordance with obligation.
2. In “Advertising and Behavior Control,” Robert Arrington sets out to show that advertising does not violate our autonomy. With reference to the sections entitled autonomous desire and rational desire and choice, explain why he holds that associative advertising is not a violation of individual autonomy. Then, drawing from the essays by Lyn Sharp Paine and Jean Kilbourne, explain one main reason from each of these authors regarding why they would hold that Arrington is wrong. Do you think Arrington is wrong and why?
3. Adam Smith’s butcher-brewer-baker passage is often used to justify self-interest as motivation for exchange. Albert Carr takes this further, contending that self-interest should take the form of bluffing and deception, and that bluffing and deception is both necessary and justifiable in business exchanges. Drawing from Amartya Sen and Adam Smith, explain where Carr goes wrong. If you think Carr is right, then explain why these commentators are wrong. As part of your answer, explain why Sen concludes that, if interpreted correctly, Smith would have thought that business ethics makes “good economic sense”?
4. Both Epstein and Machan advance libertarian arguments against special worker rights, whether it be the right to due process or the right to occupational safety. Do you think Epstein is correct in contending that fairness can be achieved without due process? Then with direct reference to Machan’s hazardous coal mine example, outline why Machan holds that workers should not have a right to occupational safety. Why does Earl Spurgin contend that Machan’s argument fails? Specifically, why does he contend that worker rights enhance rather than limit employee freedom. Do you think libertarians are right in rejecting worker rights?
5. Rawls and Nozick differ on the question of which rights are important if human beings are to be treated as ends in themselves. Nowhere is this more manifest than in their disagreement concerning property and redistributive taxation. Explain how Nozick makes use of Locke’s theory of property and Locke’s “enough and as good” criterion to develop his entitlement theory and his defense of free market capitalism. What is the role of his Wilt Chamberlain argument in all of this? Why does Rawls contend that Nozick’s theory does not go far enough to satisfy our intuitions regarding what it means to treat people as equals, and what role does his argument from the veil of ignorance play in this? Why, in turn, would Marx contend that neither Nozick nor Rawls go far enough with respect to treating human beings as ends in themselves. Specifically, what does Marx mean when he says that “labor not only the produces commodities; it also produces itself and the workers as a commodity”?
Solution
1. Explain Kant’s two formulations of the categorical imperative, outlining how Kant uses one of these formulations to show why it is morally wrong to make a false promise. With reference to Salazar’s examples on Kant on “right motivation,” explain why the moral worth of an act is dependent on its being carried out for the sake of obligation rather than merely in accordance with obligation.
Kant’s philosophy of ethics is known as deontology, which emphasizes the importance of duty and good will. His two formulations of the categorical imperative are the formula of universal law and the formula of humanity. The former states that an action is morally right if one can will that it becomes a universal law, while the latter states that one should treat humanity as an end in itself, rather than as a means to an end. Kant’s two formulations of the categorical imperative are essential principles in his moral philosophy. The first formulation, known as the formula of universal law, states that one should “act according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.” This means that we should only act in ways that we can rationally will to be a universal rule for everyone to follow. If an action leads to a contradiction when universalized, it is considered immoral.
Kant uses this formulation to show why making a false promise is morally wrong. When we examine the maxim “I will make false promises whenever it benefits me,” and attempt to universalize it, we encounter a contradiction. If everyone were to make false promises whenever it suited their own interests, trust and communication would break down entirely. No one would believe anyone else’s promises, and the practice of promising would become meaningless. Therefore, according to Kant, making a false promise cannot be universalized and is morally impermissible…Please click on the Icon below to purchase the full answer at only $19
Instant Download on Payment
