Sample Questions w_ Answers/Sample Questions w_ Answers, Exams of Business Systems

Download Sample Questions w_ Answers/Sample Questions w_ Answers and more Exams Business Systems in PDF only on Docsity! REVIEW QUESTIONS FOR EXAM 2 1. What is lying and what is bullshit, according to Frankfurt? What is the fundamental difference between the two? What are two reasons why we welcome bullshit? 2. According to Carr, what are the virtues of a business person? What reason does he give to consider these the virtues? How would Gini and Marcoux characterize Carr’s view of business ethics? And what would be their argument against it (note: there are a few different lines of argument suggested by G&M against this view; choose one.)? 3. What is suppresio veri? How does it differ from lying? What kind of suppresio veri does Machan discuss? What does he think about it (i.e., is it always morally admissible? in what cases is it admissible?)? What kind of general ethical point of view does he use to support his view about suppresio veri and how does it support this view? 4. What is moral skepticism? What are the three stages of the argument for moral skepticism put forward in Glaucon’s challenge? What key claim about human nature does Socrates deny and give arguments against in his response to Glaucon’s challenge? What is Socrates’s argument in favor of his alternative view of justice? 5. What are the two principles that Rawls takes as the central commitments of his theory of justice? What is the general structure of Nozick’s argument against Rawls’s view? And, more specifically, how does taxation of the earnings from one’s labor result in a violation of individual liberty? 6. What is business (here use Gini and Marcoux’s definition)? What role does business have in Plato’s perfectly good city? Please explain why it has this role. How would Gini and Marcoux characterize this conception of just business practice (would they agree with it? If not, why?)? Question 1: following the rules. They were not in the business to promote ethics, but to make a profit. Example Two – a manufacturer of mail order keys was accused of providing automobile keys to individuals that could be thieves. His response was that there was no law to prevent him from selling his keys to anyone (selfish, cunning). It is not his job to make sure that his customers are buying keys on moral grounds. Ethically, people may take issue with this claim, but Carr says there is no violation of business principles. Gini and Marcoux would characterize Carr’s view of business ethics as “business without ethics”. Carr’s view would imply the “moral skepticism” mentioned by G&M. Moral skepticism recognizes that morals exist, it just doesn’t give them any value. Carr too recognizes that ethical matters are real and exist in the world, but he completely disregards their relevance to any business matters. As a response or objection to Carr, G&M raise the idea that business is a societal practice (a part of society). Business happens within society, so the rules that govern society will, more or less, govern business. This is insinuating that the ruled governing society would be more of the “church” type of ethics mentioned in Carr’s paper. G&M would suggest starting with a business practice and looking at each practice on a case-by-case basis, deciding on the ethical and business implications as you go. B. Carr puts forth the idea of moral skepticism in concerning business. He believes that everyday virtues are useless in the business world and says that business has its own set of ethics to be followed. Further, he believes that a good businessman can still be morally good outside of business by following a separate set of virtues tailored to everyday life. Carr believes ideas such as distrust, deception, and selfishness could all be considered morally good virtues of a businessperson while honesty and mercy are vices of this person. Other Ideas discussed from Plato’s Republic II (Virtues as Formed Disposition) concerning the ‘spirited’ soul would also be found in a virtuous businessperson while the ‘gentle’ soul would fit among the other vices. While these ideas seem contradictory of ethical ideas followed in everyday life, Carr believes that these are ok in the business world. In his article he says, “As long as they comply with the letter of the law, they are in their rights to operate business as they see fit”. One major virtue that Carr argues for in the business world is the ability to bluff. He denies that it is the same concept as lying because bluffing is expected in business. Carr supports this idea by quoting Henry Taylor who said, “Falsehood ceases to be falsehood when it is understood on all sides that the truth is not expected to be spoken”. Carr continues that this “(is) an exact description of bluffing in poker, diplomacy, and business. He illustrates worth and as a responsible agent” (p. 63). Business with ethics must meet both of these requirements. G&M says this means that it is necessary “to recognize that business is itself an activity constituted by ethical norms, and that you owe it to those you do business with to follow these norms”. In Carr’s separate set of business ethics, it seems as though business persons do not consider the other person’s source of moral worth and this in particular is what lends G&M to classify Carr’s views a business without ethics. C. According to Carr, a successful businessman embodies many of the same virtues as a good poker player; among these are the skills and dispositions to be: deceptive, distrusting, cunning, selfish, and the ability to ignore friendship and conceal one’s strengths and weaknesses. These virtues enable a good businessman to do his function well (i.e. engage in business transactions, compete, and seek and make profits) and he is also likely to be successful. In addition, according to Carr, he is morally permitted to master these virtues within the special game ethics of business. The reason being because business’s game ethics is separate from society; it is not guided by the same ethics of private life, and is impersonal. The businessman only needs to play within the constituent rules of the business game set by governing laws, and as long as he does not violate these boundaries then he is free to pursue his profits as he chooses. For example, if a businessman were to deceive a customer with a bluff for his own selfish pursuit of profit, it would not reflect on his private morality; rather, it is simply a game player’s decision that can be justified and warranted within the competitive nature of business. In addition, similar to poker players, Carr holds that people involved in business activities do not expect the game to be guided by the same ethical principles of private ethics, reinforcing the impersonal and separate from society aspects of business practice, permitting the virtues he considers. Carr also suggests that in our society business is our primary form of competition and individuals engage in aggressive business pursuits, resulting in decisions being made by strategy rather than ethics. The virtues which Carr considers helps guide the businessman in forming and executing strategies that will foster success within this competitive environment. Furthermore, Carr’s business virtues are justified and warranted as being simply business practice, rather than having anything to do with personal and private ethics. As a result, a businessman who engages in business practice with these virtues cannot be thought of as morally wrong since the standards of right and wrong in business are separate from the morality in society. By setting business aside from private morality and society; and only thinking of business practice in terms of a strategy guided by game ethics, Gini and Marcoux (G&M) would virtues in the business world. For Carr’s extreme view does not view other business persons as persons at all, but only means to a end. Question 2: A. Rawls’s two central commitments of his theory of justice are as follows. First, “each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties of others.” Second, “social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be at everyone’s advantage [especially to those least advantaged members of society], and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all.” Both Rawls’s justice as fairness and Nozick’s entitlement theory share some common ground. As opposed to end- result theories, these theories take into account the historical context of transactions, to ensure they came about in a just manner. They differ in that Rawls’s theory is what we would categorize as being “patterned” whereas Nozick’s theory we would classify as “un-patterned.” Nozick disagrees with Rawls’s justification of fundamental principles with natural dimensions. Nozick believes that natural dimensions (patterns) don’t account for the variance individuals have within an entire society, and to use a selected amount of fundamental principles (which are based on natural dimensions) would be to disregard the liberties of those individuals who might possess other natural dimensions not accounted for in the selected fundamental principles Rawls’s society calls for. This is why Nozick’s theory is “un- patterned,” because it takes into account the uniqueness of each situation; as no two transactions are the exact same. To forget about the uniqueness of each situation would violate the individual rights of the persons involved. Although theoretically strong in argument, Nozick makes several arguments against Rawls’s theory in a real-world society. Firstly, Nozick points out that Rawls’s idea of distributive justice doesn’t give a solution for how to deal with injustice. Rawls’s theory of distributive justice addresses the justness/ unjustness of an acquisition or transference, but it does not account for what would happen if this actually occurred. Nozick realizes this happens all-too-often in a typical society, and uses the principles of rectification and completeness to figure out the overall justness/unjustness of a transaction. The principle of rectification essentially states that if a transaction doesn’t meet the first or second criteria (principles of acquisition and transference), then this given individual isn’t entitled to said holding(s). Nozick also postulates another condition called completeness, which calls for reflection on the first three principles. From what I gathered from the readings, this last principle of justice broadly considers if everyone who partook in the distribution their leisure time while simultaneously paying for their necessities. This leaves the harder-working individuals with less leisure time and requires that they work more, thus they receive an increasing yet gradually diminishing compensation for their extra efforts. B. The two principles that Rawls takes as the central commitments of his theory of justice: 1. Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others. 2. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all. Nozick agrees with the Rawls’ first principle completely. He does not, however, agree with the first part of the second principle (“reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage”). How do we know he disagrees with this part of the principle? For starters, the first two lines in Nozick’s paper state: “The minimal state is the most extensive state that can be justified. Any state more extensive violates people’s rights”. Nozick believes the only idea to be respected is that personal interest are not violated. Anything above this would be more extensive than the basic idea and would result in the violation of other people’s rights. According to Nozick, there is no way to uphold Rawls’ first and second principles. They are inconsistent. More specifically, Nozick mentions the idea of taxation of earnings. Nozick chops this taxation up to a violation of individual liberty due to the fact that taxation is essentially forced labor. Let’s say an employee is working for 8 hours today. Those 8 hours are taxed. So the employee is technically working more hours than they are getting paid for. They are being forced to work for roughly x more hours than they are being paid to receive that desired amount, something Nozick would say qualifies as a violation of individual liberties. Nozick would consider this forced labor a more concrete version of his general structure of the argument. C. Rawls holds two things to be the principles of his theory of justice: “each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others” and “social and economic inequalities are to be arranged such that they are both reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage and attached to positions and offices open to all.” As far as the scheme of basic rights in concerned, the only limit on these is that your rights cannot interfere with someone else’s exercising of their own rights. Nozick agrees with the first principle, but takes issue with the second. Nozick argues that people are allowed to do what they see fit with their own resources (to an extent, we still