Business Ethics Notes QUESTION 1 (chapter 8)What, according to the Aristotelian approach to ethics, is the connection between human nature and morality? - Virtue approach o Goal: “realize our nature as human beings” (195)o Will & reason + desires + character traits o “Best flute player) o Center on characterDoes this approach allow us to reflect on and criticize our own current inclinations? How? -Compare and contrast this approach with the Millian and Kantian approaches. To which approach are you most attracted? Why? -Aristotle’s theory of justice:1.Justise is teleological – requires us to figure out the telos (purpose, end or essential nature) of the social practice in question 2.Justise is honorific – to reason about the telos of a practice – or to argue about it – is, at least in part, is to reason or argue about what virtues it should honor and rewardAristotelian- internal criticism – virtue approach; goal in life is to flourish in life; figuring out what structure or conducive to human flourishing; allows you to look at the structure and figure out their role; connection between human nature and reality it is hard to judge our intentions because it doesn’t give a whole picture of our human nature.Kant – external criticism - step outside your self and examine your interests; anything you want probably doesn’t have moral value Live your interests and do what gives you pleasureQUESTION 2 (chapter 4) What are the two main justifications for Free Markets that we examined? Briefly explain each approach. - Consequentialism (Heyne) o “I’ll do this for you if and only if you do this for me”o Markets are good because they give people what they want o Means-end reasoning: how do I get what I want/what is good?o Will & reason + desires o What markets gives you- Deontology (Libertarian) o Markets are good because they give people liberty o Will & reason o Doing what reason requires (acts/right action itself)o Process rather than outcome (what we do is more important then what outcome we geto Not looking at results, but following the rules Are these approaches compatible, i.e., if one is correct, can the other be correct as well? Could they both be incorrect? - One stands for the outcome, while the other one stands for the acts you do and not the outcome itself. If deontology is correct, consequentialism is not and vice versa. Of the two arguments, which one do you think is the most persuasive? Why? - I think deontology is better, because I think rights and liberty is important, even more important than people’s outcome. Consequentialist – markets are good because they give people what they want Libertarian – markets are good because they give people liberty If rights are important, then the consequential don’t really matter; you kind of have to choose one or the other (they can both be true, but they cant be super morally importantQUESTION 3 (Heyne) According to Heyne, each of us should strive to satisfy our own preferences. Why does he say this? - “I’ll do this for you if and only if you do this for me”- It leads to productivity and innovations of the market- Things has to lead to productivity and innovation, if not it does not matter- Somebody wants “stupid” things - The world will “go under” if we do things for people instead of profitIs this the standard Pareto argument (preference satisfaction is just good)? Why orwhy not? - No What is Heyne’s criticism of ‘St Francis’ values? - The Golden Rule could not effectively organize a commercial society even if every single individual in the society were like St- Francis,- A commercial society would never have developed - They don’t lead to innovations Do you agree with Heyne’s position? Why/Why not? -What markets get you is worth havingSometimes people want bad things (bad preferences) What people want may not always be what is best, but it causes innovation; anonymous trading cause innovations; better than the “lovey-doing” St. Francis style of life (interpersonal relationships) (give to others without anything in return)“I’ll do this for you if and only if you do this for me” (2)QUESTION 4 (Hausman & McPherson)Hausman & McPherson reject the claim that markets are good because preference satisfaction is a good thing. Explain why. - People sometimes want bad things – sometimes it is not so great to get what you want- Don’t trust peoples decision (cash vs. in-kind benefits)- Preference satisfaction is not welfare What does their argument have to do with paternalism? - Isn’t rejecting preference satisfaction paternalistic? o You should let me be free to make my own mistakes o We sometimes need help to do the right thing o They see what we don’t see- They say it is not paternalism to say that people do stupid things, just when you physically stop them from doing it (for their own good). Do you agree with their argument? Why/Why not?- People learn from their mistakes - People make bad decisions - Stress and anxiety H & M criticize Pareto argument (that markets give people what they want) Rejects consequentialistsCash vs. in-kind benefits Sometimes people want bad things “There is nothing paternalistic about believing that a friend who smokes or who does notwear seat belts is making a mistake” (2)“Paternalism arises only when people are coerced their own good”Rather good sense, not paternalism Paternalism (rules made to provide benefits)QUESTION 5 (chapter 3)Libertarians think that each of us have the right to do whatever we want with the things we own, provided we respect other people’s right to do the same. Further, they think that such rights are so important and inviolable that respecting them is more important than achieving any substantive end. Is this a plausible claim? - Yes, sort of - It has many shades, it’s not a matter of black and whiteE.g., is a person’s right to exclude others from her property more important than a human life? Why/Why not? -LIBERTARIANISM Each of us has a fundamental right to liberty – the right to do whatever we want with thethings that we ownMinimal state – protects private property from theft, and keeps the peace – is compatiblewith the libertarian theory of rights Because the fundamental individual right is the right to liberty, just because we are separate individual human beings. Process rather than outcome Not looking at results, but following the rules Matters more who makes the decision rather than