Posted by Professor Comisso
on March 9, 2009, 11:39 am, in reply to "Re: Sample questions for the final exam--second installment"
132.239.208.141
These are the last 3 sample questions for the first part of the final exam. Again, the general intro/explanation is at the start of the "first" installment. The questions will also be posted on the web page--this is just faster.
8. “The story is no different when it comes to labor standards other than wages. If standards are set too high they will hurt investment and employment….Perversely, if the highest standards advocated by critics retard the growth of formal sector jobs, then that will trap more informal and rural workers into jobs that are far more hazardous and insecure than those of formal sector counterparts.” (Maitland, p. 455)
Explain what Maitland is discussing in this section. How do you think a utilitarian such as Mill would evaluate such a situation? How would a deonotological theorist like Kant evaluate it? What do you think? Under what sorts of conditions might it be ethically permissible to trade workers’ wages, safety, and right for the ability to create more jobs? Provide arguments for your position, cite at least one likely objection to your position, and respond to the objection.
9. “I only worry about things I have control over. I have no control over this…so why worry?”
--Ed Link, prior to suggesting that the data by “rationalized” in the Aero Products case
If we are completely free, there is no excuse for wrongdoing; if we have no freedom, we cannot be held morally responsible for our actions. Both Friedman and Ladd suggest that in large companies, the latter is the case: in the chain of principal-agent relationships that characterize modern business, the freedom of agents is limited and they must protect the principal’s interest above all. Thus, executives are agents of the owners in a company, employees are the agents of their supervisors, mutual fund managers represent their shareholders, etc. Do you agree? Are the “agents” of a “principal” morally responsible for actions they take when carrying out the principal’s wishes? Why or why not?
Based on your answer, morally evaluate actions any two of the following took:
--Lauris and Gove, in following their supervisor’s order at Aero Products;
--the executive in charge of marketing operations at Ford in 1971;
--the analysts who recommended Valujet stock until the company began to change its practices in light of safety concerns
10. Tradeoffs between life and the quality of life occur in decisions made by individuals about other individuals, but they are especially frequent in decisions affecting large numbers of people and made by officials acting on behalf and representing the interests of large numbers of people. As we have seen, it is just this consideration that lies behind the view of many that political leaders must follow a different ethical code in their public activities from the one they might follow in their private lives. Milton Friedman suggests that for similar reasons, executives of large companies should also adhere to a particular type of moral norms in making business decisions, and that they should allow markets—labor, product, or financial—to determine the relative value of life and the quality of life. Do you agree? Discuss Friedman’s position here (or if you wish, you can discuss Maitland’s view), comparing it with that of Robert Almeder and Ian Davis. Based on your discussion, evaluate any two of the following decisions:
a. The decision to market the 1971 Ford Pinto
b. Dumping toxins into the river in order to keep costs down;
c. “Rationalizing the data” at Aero Products;
d. Al Dunlaps’ methods in “saving companies”
154
Message Thread:
« Back to thread