DOC PREVIEW
OU PHIL 1273 - Study Guide Exam 3

This preview shows page 1-2-3 out of 10 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 10 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 10 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 10 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 10 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

Hagen 1Business Ethics Final Exam HONEST WORK, CHAPTER 8: ADVERTISING: “THE BRIBED SOUL”ARTICLE: C. CAMERER, “BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS: REUNIFYING PSYCHOLOGY AND ECONOMICS” QUESTION 1: According to Savan, advertising is fundamentally misleading: ads deceive in the way they represent reality; frame choices in ways that tempt people to act irrationally (Camerer is relevant here); and influence people to think about the world in a simplistic, misleading way. - Ads are not only about information, but about character o Halo effect: associate the firm with something people like. Aimed to overcome “brand parity”. o When advertising works, it’s because the public more or less believes that something serious is going on between a product and its image- In expected utility, people weight a possible outcome by its probability – often overweight small probabilities; underweight large probabilities - All advertising tells lies, not all ads tell little lies, but all ads must tell big liesUse one of the moral theories we discussed in class (consequentialism, deontology,virtue ethics) to evaluate the morally appropriate response to advertising on the assumption that Savan is correct. Give specifics on how these ads are despiteful:Consequentialism - The greatest happiness for the greatest number- Markets give people what they want – they get good outcomes- By telling lies and being misleading, the corporation sell more - Do whatever it takes to close the deals- Being ethical doesn’t matter, as long as they see results o What happens if they are realistic and not misleading? o How does the cost of the benefit way up?o Who do the ads help/hurt? Deontology (Kant) - Actions are driven by principles based on what is the right thing to do- What is fundamentally good? – Act from duty alone - Don’t care about outcome as long as they do the right thingo Do misleading ads treat people as means and not end? o Motives must be good = realistic ads are more ethically righto How much they sell doesn’t matterVirtue ethics approachHagen 2- Justice involves cultivating virtue and reasoning about the common good - Emphasizes the moral individual – being the best you can be- Concerned about human flourishingo Do the misleading ads affect the healthy, flourishing society? o Truth-telling, trustworthiness and honesty is valuedo Not going to want to deceive them – o Don’t want to take advantage of them – Don’t manipulate themHONEST WORK, CHAPTER 9: PRODUCT LIABILITY: “HOW WE GOT INTO THIS MESS”ARTICLE: J. TULLBERG, “EXCESSES OF RESPONSIBILITY? RECONSIDERING COMPANY LIABILITY” QUESTION 2: Product liability, in theory, is supposed to accomplish (at least) two distinct ends: Compensating people who have been harmed by defective products (i.e., 'making victims whole') and inducing companies to be careful about the products they create (via Deterrence).Hagen 3To what extent are these goals justified? - Compensating and deterrence - What are these things aimed to do exactly? o Can promote more virtues people - More conscientious behavior o Heal the victim + Punish the person at faulto The defendant have to be deterred - The victim compensated To what extent are the two goals consistent? - Modic and Tullberg agree that o Product Liability is a response to bad behavior o Product Liability is expensiveo The system is working fine o Wrong way to encourage  Awards not big enough to deter  Awards too big to heal- Tullberg’s worries to Heyne: o People could be overcompensating, but on the other hand, if you have a sufficient amount of compensating, the amount of money that is going to cost might not be enough to change your company of business’s behaviorIf product liability law should be changed, which goal, if either, should be emphasized?- Modic: o Compensate via insurance - Punish via criminal law o Criminal punishment instead of compensation - Tullberg: o Limit awards for Product Liability; conservative compensation o Minimum amount of compensatingo Concerned of what compensating doeso Narrow responsibility: Getting the person back on his feeto Anti libertarian on how product liability compensates people: we are making the people into a different class of people: they get to live of this huge settlement and never have to be productive again. o Hayne criticize - He is a consequentialistHagen 4HONEST WORKQUESTION 3: Consider the following case: A woman loses her hand to gangrene because she was injected with an anti-nausea drug. There were indications in the drug trials that such an outcome was possible, but the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) approved the drug anyway. The instructions for using the drug included a warning about the procedure that created the problem, but no explanation for why the procedure was a problem. The drug manufacturerargued that FDA approval shielded it from liability – the government vetting should make it the responsible party. Morally, should the drug company be liable for the woman's damages? Why or why not? Both the company and the government? If anyone should be liable, how far should that liability go?- The drug included a warning about the side effect, but I still think the drugHagen 5company and the government should be responsible for the woman’s damages. o FDA is a government agency o Should not approve drugs with high risks like this o Should have been tested improvedo FDA’s “fault” - A Modic answer to this question is that the woman is the victim and FDA is the person at fault. He would like to punish via criminal law and compensate via insurance. I agree- A Tullberg answer to this question is that the FRA (the person at fault) should give a minimum amount of compensating to the women: just enough to get her back on her feet (narrow responsibility). My view is that since the consequences were this big, the woman should get a big compensation and FDA should be judged in court (by criminal law for approving a dangerous drug like thatHONEST WORK, CHAPTER 1: HIRING AND FIRING: “THE ETHICS OF CORPORATE DOWNSIZING” QUESTION 4: According to Orlando, employers should not be allowed to ignore employee interests when they make decisions (e.g., about layoffs). Of the arguments for ignoring employee interests that Orlando considers, which do you think is the strongest? - Individuals does not deserve the rewards or punishments that come via things forwhich she is not responsible (Outside the employees control) o You


View Full Document

OU PHIL 1273 - Study Guide Exam 3

Documents in this Course
Load more
Download Study Guide Exam 3
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Study Guide Exam 3 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Study Guide Exam 3 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?