Business Ethics Notes QUESTION 1: “The nature of the soul [psyche] can be understood with the figure of a pair of winged horses and charioteer” (Plato)1) Explain the metaphor/analogy a. Black horse: appetite (food power) More morally wrongb. White horse: spirit (love, honor) Honorable horsec. Charioteer: reason (balance, choice) d. Motive force of human behavior comes from horses + driven by driver2) How might understanding this figure help us understand the nature of morality? a. Not have tunnel-vision b. Knowledge is essential (what guides the two horsesc. Need techniques to keep appetite, spirit in control d. The Charioteer: the confabulation (explaining unconscious behavior) 3) Do you think the metaphor/analogy is helpful? Why/Why not? a. It can describe moralityb. It describes what we do (our actions) c. See where horses are headed and driver can help steer in the right directionQUESTION 2: The Toby Groves case shows how “we are all capable of behaving profoundly unethically without realizing it” 1) How is that supposed to work? How do the psychologists and economists interviewed him explain Toby Groves behavior?a. Our minds simply cant process the choices we are confronted withb. Business view: be successful no matter whatc. Ethical view: what’s the moral (right) thing to dod. Depends on how the decision is framede. We tend to help people out that we are identified with and friends (human nature) f. We’re all behaving profoundly unethically without realizing it – tunnel vision 2) Do these explanations establish that Toby didn’t do anything wrong? If so, how? If not, do they help us understand people like Toby can do better? a. Yes, because he didn’t think about the ethical decisions, and his mind didn’t fully process the other decisions he was confronted with 3) What do you think about these explanations? Why? a. The business view is not always the ethical way of doing things, and we can be blind to confronting an ethical problemQUESTION 3: Ancient and medieval philosophers tended to be virtue ethicists; in other words, they thought that morality was largely a matter of self-development.1) Briefly explain how this approach to ethics is supposed to worka. Developing good/virtues persons, not mercy b. Virtue view and how does that tell you what to do (notes chapter 1)2) We live in a society that doesn’t generally accept the virtue ethics approach. What sort of argument against virtue ethics approach? Why/Why not? a. Nature is corrupt – cant ground ethicsb. Nature isn’t well defined (cant generalize across people, no such thing)QUESTION 4: 1) What are Sandel’s three approaches to justice? a. Welfare-oriented/consequentialist: Justice means maximizing utility or welfare – the greatest happiness for the greatest number b. Base their outcomes, consequences broader; base their acts, rules, and institutions on the goodness of their consequences. c. Freedom-and-autonomy-oriented/deontological: Justice means respecting freedom of choice – either the actual choices people make in a free market (libertarian view) or the hypothetical choices people would make in an original position of equality (liberal egalitarian view)d. Choices that are morally required, forbidden, or permitted. In other words,a moral theory that guide and assess our choices of what we ought to do. Our duty! What’s the right thing to doe. Rules not from not from consequences/fall out from project itself. See if our own interest makes sense. Rules are rules, doesn’t matter if life is better breaking f. Character-oriented/virtue: Justice involves cultivating virtue and reasoning about the common goodg. Guide and asses what kind of person we are and should be – being the bestyou can beh. To get the most out of live2) Consider a contemporary debate about justice and show how two of the approaches lead to different answersa. Welfare-oriented VS. Freedom-and-autonomy-orientedb. Have the outcome that you want VS. do what is right (what is our duty as a person) with not necessarily with the best outcome3) Do you think one of the approaches is better? Why/Why not? a.QUESTION 5: 1) According to Benthamite utilitarianism, what is morally good? a. Net pleasure (the greatest good for most amount of pleasure) b. Pleasure minus pain c. We all seek pleasure2) What does morality require of us? a. Busy bodyness – improve utility for everyone 3) Mill tries to soften the hard edges’ of Benthamite utilitarianism. What are the problems Mill addresses? How? How successfully does he address them?a. Fails to respect individual rights (35)b. All values cant be captured by a common currency or value (41)c. (Page 49-52 and 53-54 shows why Mill object those)4) Do you find either Bentham’s or Mill’s version of utilitarianism plausible as a moral account? Why or why not? a. Mill is a hedonist (pleasure is the only good) 5) Can you think of any additions or corrections that might make utilitarianism more plausible? How well do they work? a.QUESTION 6: According to Immanual Kant, the only thing that is good itself is a good will. 1) Why does he think this? a. Benevolence (an act showing good will) is not always good if clever – can get away with bad b. Wants to do good because the good is motivated by their desire to do good (do what is good because it’s good) c. People acts for reasons and desires, good will wants nothing in particular (good will only pursue itself; unmotivated principle of action) 2) Is this a plausible argument? Why/Why not? a.Actions are driven by maxims (principles) Utility (pleasure/desire) are not always good All good things are horrible in the wrong circumstanceOnly good will is unconditionally good QUESTION 7: 1) What does Kant’s Categorical Imperative require? Explaina. Act in accordance with The Categorical Imperative, irrespective of what you want or desire. b. Act from duty alone (out of respect or the moral law alone) c. Universal Law, Humanity, and Autonomy d. (Page 120, 132)2) How does the Categorical Imperative show that lying is immortal? Does it succeed? Why/Why not? a. “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”b. Lying is the wrong thing to doTHE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE1.The only thing that is unconditionally good is the good will2.The good will is a will that acts from duty alone3.Acting from duty alone consists not in acting from inclination and desire, but out of respect for the moral law