Choose 5 DIFFERENT CASE STUDIES (these can be those we discuss or those we don’t; as long as they are from the TEXT, any case study will work).You are to analyze ALL 5 of the case studies using ONLY ONE of the following ethical theories: Kantian Deontology, Utilitarianism, Ethics of Care Theory, Virtue Ethics, Rawls theory, or Marxism.Make sure you provide a paragraph that accurately describes the theory you will be using.Make sure you describe the case study before you apply the theory.Provide a general assessment of the paper.Avoid using phrases like: “In my opinion,” “I believe,” “Ethics is difficult and not certain, so it is hard to tell if this ethical theory is right or not.” This is an ETHICS course, so don’t do or say anything in your ETHICS PAPER that would undermine ethics as a discipline. Further, you are making an ARGUMENT in this paper, as such there is no room for “personal opinions” or “feelings.” Just turn those opinions and feelings into statements of fact.This paper should be no less than 8 full pages and no more than 10. This papers should be well written, typed, doubled spaced, 12 point font, Times New Roman (Or equivalent font). No cover sheet needed. Include proper citation.
conservative_judges_to_deal_blow_to_unions_case.docx

business_ethics_lecture_week_1__1_.pptx

class_distinction_from_education_case_.docx

phil_186_aristotilean_virtue_ethics_glatz.pdf

phil_186_utilitarianism_meeler.pdf

prison._the_prison_industrial_complex_and_the_global_economy__case_.pdf

robert_reich_horrifying_future_case.docx

case_studies_4_5__6.docx

case_studies_4_5__6.docx

phil_186_case_study_louisiana_senate_rejects_equal_pay.pdf

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Conservative U.S. justices prepared to deliver blow to unions
By Lawrence Hurley. Jan 11, 2016
WASHINGTON, Jan 11 (Reuters) – Conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices on Monday
voiced support for a legal challenge that could erode organized labor’s clout by depriving publicemployee unions of millions of dollars in fees that many state laws force non-union members to
pay.
Justices John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia indicated during an 80-minute oral
argument that they could join the nine-member court’s two other conservatives to overturn a
1977 high court precedent allowing the fees, a vital source of funds for the unions.
Legal experts had thought Scalia might be sympathetic to the union position due to prior votes
and statements on the subject, but his questions signaled support for the 10 non-union California
public school teachers who challenged the fees.
U.S. conservatives have long sought to curb the influence of unions representing public
employees like police, firefighters and teachers that often support the Democratic Party and
liberal causes.
A ruling allowing non-union workers to stop paying “agency fees” equivalent to union dues,
currently mandatory under laws in about half the 50 states including California, could strip
public sector unions of millions of dollars, reducing their income and political power.
About 5 million public sector employees are subject to union contracts that include mandatory
fee provisions, according to the
National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, which backs the non-union teachers.
Unions worry that a ruling throwing out the fees would give workers less incentive to join
because they would get all the benefits of collective bargaining without having to pay for it.
Chief Justice Roberts and Kennedy appeared unsympathetic to the California Teachers
Association’s argument that non-members would become “free-riders” if not required to pay the
fees to fund collective bargaining activities.
“The union basically is making these teachers ‘compelled riders’ for issues on which they
strongly disagree,” Kennedy said.
Roberts said the majority of the California teachers union’s members appeared to back collective
bargaining, making the “free-riders” concern “really insignificant.”
The teachers who filed the lawsuit in 2013 are asking the justices to overturn the 1977 Abood v.
Detroit Board of Education Supreme Court ruling that allowed these unions to collect fees from
workers who are not members as long as the money is not spent on political activities.
California teachers generally pay around $1,000 annually in union dues. Non-members can opt
out of paying for union political activities, which means they pay around $600 a year in
mandatory fees covering collective bargaining.
Several justices hinted at the difficulties of separating out political issues in a way that would not
infringe upon the free-speech rights under the U.S. Constitution of non-members who disagree
with the union.
“The problem is that everything that is collectively bargained with the government is within the
political sphere, almost by definition,” Scalia said.
‘RIGHT-TO-WORK’ STATES
Roberts and Scalia seemed skeptical that unions would collapse without fees from non-union
employees, in part because such fees are already banned in 25 states that have what is known as
“right-to-work” laws. In those states, unions still represent workers but membership rates are
lower.
Federal employee unions also cannot collect such fees.
Even when the union’s lawyer, David Frederick, sought to explain routine issues on which the
union negotiates such as teacher lunch breaks, he faced hostile questions.
Kennedy said if the union believes it is doing a sound job negotiating over such daily concerns,
“the union can convince people to join.”
The court’s liberals defended the current practice and said justices usually think twice before
overturning long-standing precedents.
“You come here with a heavy burden,” Justice Elena Kagan told the teachers’ lawyer, Michael
Carvin.
A ruling favoring the non-union teachers would be a blow to organized labor because unionized
teachers and other civil servants in states without “right-to-work” laws comprise its main power
base. Public sector workers are almost six times more likely to belong to a union than those in
the private sector.
The dispute pits non-union teachers and the Christian Educators Association International
against the California Teachers Association, an influential union with 325,000 members.
The conservative Center for Individual Rights sued on behalf of lead plaintiff Rebecca
Friedrichs, an elementary school teacher in Anaheim, and the other teachers.
The union noted that California law requires it to represent all workers when negotiating with the
state, regardless of whether they are members.
A ruling is due by the end of June.
Foundational Theories of Ethical Justification
Winter Session 2016: Start on Slide #9
“Ethical Argument”
The Project of Ethics
In this class we will be examining the various
manifestations of Ethics within the parameters of the
business world. First, however, we need a working
definition of just what “ethics” is.
+ Ethics is considered the examination of how
humans ought to live their lives. It can be seen as a
discipline that critically examines assumed moral
principles and laws. Hence, morality and justice are
sometimes considered synonymous with ethics.
Ethical debates have been a long standing enterprise
in the philosophic tradition.
The Sophists: Cultural Relativism
and Might Makes Right
 The attempt to formulate codes and principles of moral
behavior started with the Sophists of the Greek world in
the 5th century B.C.
 They were the first to raise critical questions about the idea
of morality and moral conduct.
 “Their teaching of rhetoric and techniques of persuasion
invited the charge that such techniques could be used to
make wrong more persuasive than right and would be able
to flout moral standards with impunity.” (oxford
companion to philosophy).
 Sophists were prepared to show how to argue for or against
any topic.
Notable Sophists
 Protagoras (490-420 BC): supposedly claimed “man is the
measure of all things, of things that are, and of things that
are not.” Meaning that there is no objective or universal
truths other than the those created by mankind.
 Thrasymachus (459- 400 BC): Claimed that since moral
standards are mere conventions, they have no binding
force, the rational way to live is to pursue one’s interests
and power. Argued that it is contrary to self interest to
accept the constraints of morality; immorality, then, is a
virtue and morality is a vice. Also claimed that justice is to
the advantage of the stronger.
Socrates, Plato, & Aristotle
 The philosopher Plato (428-348 BC) wrote many
treatise to respond to the amoral claims of some of the
sophists. Writing in the form of dialogues, Plato pitted
the proponents of sophist ideas against Socrates (470399 BC), his mentor. Plato, in turn, was the mentor of
Aristotle (384-322 BC).
 Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle helped switched the
discussion from the sophist amorality to a more
idealist form of ethics, where the ethical person lived
his or her life in accordance with virtues.
Plato
 “Plato’s early dialogues, which probably reflect the activity of the
historical Socrates, portray him searching for definitions of the
traditional virtues- temperance, courage, justice, piety… [T]his
must be because they make for a good life for those who posses
them, and underlying all the virtues must therefore be the ability
to know what constitutes the human good… Plato argues that the
good life consists in the harmony of the soul with each part of
the soul. – reason, appetite, spirit- performing its proper
function. The traditional virtues can then all be defined as
underlying condition of psychic harmony. Since such a
condition is one in which the person is happy and flourishing,
the morally good life lived in accordance with the virtues is
thereby shown to be the best life for human beings. This is
Plato’s answer to the question ‘why should I be moral?’” (The
Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Ed. T. Honderich. Page 587.)
The Republic
 The Republic’s main focus is on whether it is better to be just than
unjust. The book addresses justice as a requisite virtue for living a good
life.
 The Republic is divided into 10 separate books. Socrates is in dialogue
with the sophist Thrasymachus in book 1. Thrasymachus proposes the
slogan “Justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger.”
(338c2-3). Through a heated discussion, Socrates forces Thrasymachus
to concede and sit quietly.
 In book 2 Plato’s brothers, Glaucon and Adeimantus, take up
Thrasymachus’ arg. The brothers attempt to make the point that no
man would act justly, if they had the opportunity to do injustice with
impunity. Glaucon submits the myth of the ring of Gyges as an attempt
to prove that the just man as well as the unjust man would act the same
way if they had the power to get away with injustice exempt from
punishment.
The Ring of Gyges

“According to the tradition, Gyges was a shepherd in the service of the king of Lydia; there was a great
storm, and an earthquake made an opening in the earth at the place where he was feeding his
flock. Amazed at the sight, he descended into the opening, where, among other marvels, he beheld a
hollow brazen horse, having doors, at which he stooping and looking in saw a dead body of stature, as
appeared to him, more than human, and having nothing on but a gold ring; this he took from the
finger of the dead and reascended. Now the shepherds met together, according to custom, that they
might send their monthly report about the flocks to the king; into their assembly he came having the
ring on his finger, and as he was sitting among them he chanced to turn the collet of the ring inside
his hand, when instantly he became invisible to the rest of the company and they began to speak of
him as if he were no longer present. He was astonished at this, and again touching the ring he turned
the collet outwards and reappeared… Whereupon he contrived to be chosen one of the messengers
who were sent to the court; whereas soon as he arrived he seduced the queen, and with her help
conspired against the king and slew him, and took the kingdom. Suppose now that there were two
such magic rings, and the just put on one of them and the unjust the other; no man can be imagined
to be of such an iron nature that he would stand fast in justice. No man would keep his hands off
what was not his own when he could safely take what he liked out of the market, or go into houses
and lie with any one at his pleasure, or kill or release from prison whom he would, and in all respects
be like a God among men. Then the actions of the just would be as the actions of the unjust; they
would both come at last to the same point. ”

Leaving the remaining 8 books of the Republic aside, what would we say at this point? Was the
Sheppard an ethical man, exercising his strength to act with impunity or was he a corruptible
deviant? Discuss.
Ethical Argument
 An ethical argument is an argument that has
1. A conclusion of the form:
-We ought to do X
-It is permissible to do X
-We ought not to do X
-It is impermissible to do X
2. The set of premises has at least one premise containing a
moral/ethical principle that can be used to derive a
conclusion.
Ethical premises typically come from an ethical theory which
aims to justify why the moral principle is the principle we
ought to be using.
Ethical Arg. Example
Ethical Question: Should we use hazardous and cost effective
pesticides to protect our crops and increase profits?
(1) Whenever it is possible to prevent great harm without causing
greater harm, we ought to prevent the great harm.
(2) It is possible to prevent great harm to the company if we use
cheap hazardous pesticides.
(3) So, we ought to use cheap hazardous pesticides to prevent harm
to the company.
Premise (1) is our ethical principle- it is a general claim about
harm.
Premise (2) is a claim about the specifics of preventing harm
without causing greater harm
Our moral conclusion is (3).
Evaluating Ethical Arg.
Are the premises true? Consider the principle in (1).
Whenever it is possible to prevent harm without causing
greater harm, we ought to prevent harm.
Suppose we can prevent 1,000,000 people from dying of
starvation by torturing a single child.
Should we torture the child?
If you think “no,” then you have an objection to the
principle.
If you think “yes,” and you disagree with the principle,
you have to come with some reason why you disagree.
Evaluating Ethical Arg. #2
Are the premises true? Consider the factual claim in (2).
It is possible to prevent great harm to the company if we
use cheap hazardous pesticides.
For us to know (2) we have to be confident that:
a) Our product will not be harmed by the pesticides
b) Our employees will not be harmed by the pesticides
c) There will not be public outrage toward the use of the
pesticides
Are we confident of all of these?
Ethical Arguments
 An ethical argument is an argument that has
1. A conclusion of the form:
-We ought to do X
-It is permissible to do X
-We ought not to do X
-It is impermissible to do X
2. The set of premises has at least one premise containing a
moral/ethical principle that can be used to derive a conclusion.
Ethical premises come from an ethical theory which aims to justify
why the principle is the principle we ought to be using.
Example: Perform only those actions that increase the welfare of
the most number of people involved.
Mistakes to Avoid
 Avoid arbitrary argumentation. Don’t argue from the
claim that because something is thought to be right or
wrong it is in fact right or wrong.
 Avoid arguing from gut feeling. Don’t argue that
something is wrong simply because it is wrong from
your gut.
 Avoid arguing from authority. Don’t argue that
something is wrong simply because an authority says
so. (Mom, dad, the law, religion, etc.)
 Always try to offer an argument with premises that
someone can engage through argument.
Moral Egoism is not a live option
Moral Egoism states: Because it is impossible to be altruistic,
one ought morally to only do what is in his/her self
interest. We can also lump Psychological egoism into this
camp.
While there is substantial debate in moral psychology about
moral egoism, for the purposes of applied ethics it is not a
live option.
 It can not account for apparent acts of altruism.
 It makes the world far more combative.
 It does not engage moral reasoning.
Cultural Relativism is not a live
option
Culture X says that Y is morally wrong.
Culture Z says that Y is morally right.
So, there is no fact of the matter about whether Y is morally
right or wrong.
Not a good argument
Culture X says that the Earth is flat.
Culture Z says the Earth is round.
So, there is no fact of the matter about whether the Earth is
flat or round.
You can not use mere variation in belief to show that there is
no fact of the matter.
Ethical Disagreement




Moral/Ethical disagreement is not the end of a
conversation, it is the beginning of the process of hard
moral reflection. When we reach moral disagreement, we
should:
Recognize that morality requires giving reasons in the face
of initial disagreement.
Seek to understand the disagreement in terms of the
source of the disagreement.
Aim to formulate hinge point questions, questions that if
answered would resolve the debate.
Learn to tolerate ultimate brute disagreement, and
recognize the difference between reasonable and
unreasonable disagreement.
Theoretical Approaches to Ethics
In spite of the fact that ethics have been debated and
reflected since the ancient Greeks, we are left with an
ever-growing list of ethical approaches to varying
types of ethical questions. Ethicists divide their
discipline into three “branches”:
1. Meta-Ethics
2. Normative Ethics
3. Applied Ethics
Theoretical Approaches to Ethics
In spite of the fact that ethics have been debated and
reflected since the ancient Greeks, we are left with an
ever-growing list of ethical approaches to varying
types of ethical questions. Ethicists divide their
discipline into three “branches”:
1. Meta-Ethics
2. Normative Ethics
3. Applied Ethics
Normative Ethics
Normative Ethics aims to offer a theory of what makes
something right or wrong, or what constitutes a good
life. Approaches in normative ethics are:
 Deontology- claiming morality is constituted by rights
and duties.
 Consequentialism- Moral rightness of an action is
determined by the result of that action
 Virtue Theory- Actions are not the central objects of
moral evaluations; the character of the person
performing the action is the object of moral
evaluation.
Applied Ethics






Applied Ethics is the area in which normative ethical
theories get applied to specific problems within sufficiently
well defined areas of inquiry in order to give answers to
particular questions. These areas include:
Bio-ethics
Computer ethics
Environmental ethics
Legal ethics
Medical Ethics
BUSINESS ETHICS
Ethical Theories #2
Ethics can be put into three brackets: Meta-ethics,
Normative Ethics, and Applied Ethics. As business
ethics is considered to be part of the discipline of
applied ethics, we will be examining the basic tenets of
applied ethics. However, because applied ethics is the
field where normative ethics gets applied to specific
cases, we will also be discussing basic issues in
normative ethics.
Normative Ethical Theories
a. When considering the question: What is the
fundamental object of moral evaluation? We can
understand normative ethical theories to be divided
into two separate camps:
b. + Act Centered
c. +Agent Centered
Act Centered
 Act centered theories contend that the point of moral evaluation
has something to do with the action that brought about a state
of affairs.
 Types of act centered theories include: Intention and
consequence based theories
Intention based: Maintain that the fundamental moral
consideration is about the intentions that go into the action.
Consequence based: maintain that the fundamental moral
consideration is about the consequence of the action.
 The ethical question runs: Is pushing with the intent to save with
the result of killing worse or better than pushing with the intent
to kill and the result of saving?
Act Centered- Consequence Based
 The theorists that are attributed with the creation of
utilitarianism are Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart
mill (1806-1873).
 Utilitarianism: an approach to morality that treats pleasures or
desire satisfaction as the sole element in human good and that
regards the morality of actions as entirely dependent on the
consequences or results for human well being. An act is morally
right if it produces as great a balance of pleasure over pain as any
alternative action open to the agent.
 We will consider two forms of utilitarianism, in relation to
consequence based ethical evaluation:
Act-Utilitarianism
Rule-Utilitarianism
Problem
 For act utilitarianism, any means can be justified by a
good enough end. For example: If framing an
innocent person would prevent the outbreak of street
riots and hundreds of fatalities, act-utilitarianism
would insist that it is our moral obligation to frame
that innocent person. As that would produce the
greatest balance of pleasure over pain. For those that
are conflicted about framing innocent people but
enjoy the prospect of the utility principle, there is still
hope.
Rule Utilitarianism
 The rightness of an action depends not on the consequences of the action
itself, but of various sets of rules. An …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment