class 12-5 - BUS221 CONCEPTS FINAL

ethical claims must be true : T/F

False: ethical claims can be true or false - they cannot be scientifically proven

Three well-known frameworks for generating ethical reasons

outcomes, rules, character

Social Utility

some function of the individual utilities of all relevant parties

The Expected Value Formula

EV = (p1 x V1) + (p2 x V2) + ... + (pn X Vn) - fixed cost

The Expected Utility Formula

EU = (p1 x U1) + (p2 x U2) + ... + (pn X Un)

To model a decision problem, specify…

The possible actions, The possible states of the world, The outcomes

What does it mean to say “You can’t afford the worst outcome”?

The utility of the worst outcome is much worse than you would know from simply looking at the dollar value!

Simple insurance cases (EV)

EV of not insuring:

• (probability of bad outcome) x (cost of bad outcome)

EV of insuring:

• cost of insurance policy

types of insurance coverage

full coverage

deductible

max coverage

deductible + max coverage

a deductible

The insured party is responsible for the first X amount of $

maximum coverage

The insurance covers damages only up to a point

when not to maximize expected value?

• When you value or disvalue risk for its own sake (maximize expected utility instead).
  

• When you can’t afford the worst outcome (maximize expected utility instead).
  

• When rules or other values make maximization inappropriate (don’t maximize at all)

Straw Man

misrepresents or exaggerates another person's argument to make it easier to attack or refute.

Slippery Slope

arguer warns that one of the options available to you is liable to lead to a chain of events that will eventually end in some very bad outcome

Ad Hominem (Personal Attack)

focusing on the person putting an idea forward rather than on the quality of the idea

Appeal to Popularity

Arguing that a claim must be true merely because a substantial number of people believe it.

appeal to tradition

a fallacy which assumes that something old is automatically better than something new

Hasty Generalization

A fallacy in which a faulty conclusion is reached because of inadequate evidence.

post hoc ergo propter hoc

it is incorrect to always claim that something is a cause just because it happened earlier.

• correlation does not imply causation.

The Anchoring Effect:

Attaching disproportionate importance to the first piece of

information received (the "anchor"), even if irrelevant

The Framing Effect:

Reaching different conclusions based on how information is presented (framed), even if the underlying data is identical (e.g., 90% success rate vs. 10% failure rate)

Confirmation Bias:

The tendency to search for, focus on, and remember evidence that

confirms prior beliefs while ignoring disconfirming evidence

Survivor Bias

Focusing only on successful people/organizations ("survivors") and

ignoring failures.

False Consensus Effect

The tendency to overestimate the extent to which others agree

with us.

The fact that we've always done it that way isn't a good reason. We need to look at how well we've done, whether there are better alternatives, and whether circumstances have changed

appeal to tradition response

We can't make reliable claims about the population from such a small sample

Hasty Generalization Response

False Consensus:

A tendency to over-estimate how much other people agree with us

Meghan is getting married to Harry. She pays thousands of dollars for her designer wedding dress. On her wedding day, she shows her bridesmaids the dress and talks about how thrilled she is with it. As nobody says otherwise, she is happy that they all like the dress as much as she does.

Is Meghan committing a known argumentative fallacy here, is she likely to be subject to a cognitive bias, or is her reasoning acceptable?

False consensus effect

Teams have more information than each individual member. Therefore, it is guaranteed that a group will take more information into account than any individual member would.

True or false?

False

According to the critical discussion model, what happens in the "confrontation stage"?

Participants recognize they have a disagreement and identify who supports which conclusions

Two sisters, Rachel and Rebekah, are planning their family Christmas dinner. Rachel says, “I think we should have ham for Christmas because my kids like ham better than turkey”. Rebekah replies, “Our family likes ham better than turkey as well, but we’ve

always had turkey for Christmas, so we should have turkey.”

Is Rebekah committing a known argumentative fallacy here, or is her reasoning acceptable?

Fallacy – appeal to tradition

Livingston and Giuseppe are discussing their last class about World War II history. Giuseppe says “How can we trust anything the professor says when he can’t stop eating donuts in class!”

Is Giuseppe committing a known argumentative fallacy here, or is his reasoning acceptable?

Fallacy – Ad hominem

Maria has science class with Jason, the captain of the school hockey team. Jason is really good at science and has the highest marks in the class. Maria concludes that hockey players in general are good at science and have high marks.

Is Maria committing a known argumentative fallacy here, or is her reasoning acceptable?

Fallacy – hasty generalization

Sally, a scientist, is talking to her hairdresser one day. “We’ve just recently found that sugar does not make children hyper,” she exclaims. Her hairdresser replies, “That can’t be true, everybody knows sugar makes kids hyper”.

Is the hairdresser committing a known argumentative fallacy here, or is her reasoning acceptable?

Fallacy – appeal to popularity

Frances and Neaveh are next door neighbours. Frances wants to make some cookies but has run out of sugar. She goes to her neighbor to ask for a cup of sugar. Neaveh replies, “I would help you Frances, but if I give you a cup of sugar today, you’ll want some eggs tomorrow, and before I know it, you’ll want to borrow my oven too!”

Is Neaveh committing a known argumentative fallacy here, or is her reasoning acceptable?

Fallacy – slippery slope

Sheila and Zeta are friends. Sheila states, “There are only two kinds of people, those who don’t drink and alcoholics. I saw your boyfriend have a drink the other night, so...”.

Is Sheila committing a known argumentative fallacy here, or is her reasoning acceptable?

Fallacy – False Dilemma

Martin has recently been hired as a store manager. He is really pleased that he got the job. He thinks back to the day of his interview. He was interviewed by Kazuo, the store owner. Martin recalls complimenting Kazuo on his striking yellow necktie. Martin thinks to himself, “Who ever said that flattery doesn’t work? I was obviously offered the job because I complemented Kazuo’s tie”.

Is Martin committing a known argumentative fallacy here, or is his reasoning acceptable?

Fallacy – post hoc error

Rory is talking to his classmate Victor about his great day yesterday. Rory got perfect on a test and then bought a lottery scratch ticket and won $50. Rory says, “There you have it: karma, dude! I won because I did so well on the test”.

Is Rory committing a known argumentative fallacy here, or is his reasoning acceptable?

Fallacy – post hoc error

Franz is a branch manager for Coronation Bank. Franz is on the phone with Kathleen, an HR manager. Kathleen asks Franz whether or not he would like to hire a summer student to temporarily work at his branch over the summer. Franz tells Kathleen “No, I would not like to hire a summer student. Last year’s summer student had a terrible work ethic. Having summer students is more of a detriment than a benefit for the business”.

Is Franz committing a known argumentative fallacy here, is he likely to be subject to a cognitive bias, or is his reasoning acceptable?

Hasty generalization

Jon is a member of a church that believes that prayer can heal the sick. Jon is skeptical of this claim, but he is very intrigued when he hears that an expert on the question will come to visit the church. The expert doesn’t come alone: he has a group of 17 people with him, all of whom had been diagnosed with serious illnesses – ranging from leukemia to paraplegia – and all of whom are now healthy. They all received very different types of treatment, but the one thing they all have in common is that their families prayed for them every day. Jon is convinced.

Is Jon committing a known argumentative fallacy here, is he likely to be subject to a cognitive bias, or is his reasoning acceptable?

Survivor bias

Reut has just won the lottery and suddenly all kinds of people are pitching investment ideas to her. In particular, her brothers Raul and Ruben offer a bunch. Raul says: “look, nothing is guaranteed in life, but this venture I’m telling you about is 95% likely to succeed.” Reut thinks this sounds quite promising, but wants to hear from Ruben as well. “I can’t promise anything, of course”, Ruben says, “but I’d say the chances you lose money on this are no higher than 5%”. Reut decides to invest her money in Raul’s project.

Is Reut committing a known argumentative fallacy here, is she likely to be subject to a cognitive bias, or is his reasoning acceptable?

Framing effect

Gregor and Samantha are co-owners of G&S Grocers. Recently, a high school student named Lily came into G&S asking for summer employment. Samantha says to Gregor “We can either hire Lily, or we can send out the message that G&S doesn’t support local youth. I think it’s pretty clear what we need to do.”

Is Samantha committing a known argumentative fallacy here, is she likely to be subject to a cognitive bias, or is her reasoning acceptable?

False dilemma

Adrian is a marketing executive pitching an idea for a new campaign to his team. Fjodor immediately says that the idea is great, and Hillel and Diana agree. Bogdan is skeptical,

and Ruth says she thinks the idea is bad. When he later talks to his husband about how the presentation went, Adrian says it went well. He recalls: “Hillel, Diana, and Fjodor loved it; Ruth didn’t like it, but she is always negative.”

Is Adrian committing a known argumentative fallacy here, is she likely to be subject to a cognitive bias, or is her reasoning acceptable?

Confirmation bias

Uslan owns a hardware shop in Kitchener. In the spring, he offers two types of tomato cages built by his son Radi. One type goes for $12 the other for $16. Uslan thinks that the $16 model is actually a better deal because the quality is so much better, but he sells a lot more of the cheaper model. One year, Radi comes in with a new and improved model and says he will sell it for $25. Uslan tells Radi that nobody is going to buy it, but he puts it out anyway and places a sign advertising the new model in the entrance of the garden section. Uslan’s prediction that almost nobody buys the new model is right. However, that year a lot more customers buy the $16 model.

Are Uslan’s customers committing a known argumentative fallacy here, are they likely to be subject to a cognitive bias, or is their reasoning acceptable?

Anchoring effect

Archie is a consultant giving a presentation on environmental sustainability in the workplace. Archie’s main points are to encourage recycling in the workplace, printing on both sides of the paper, and reducing font size for all documents by 0.5. After the presentation, Asha says to Archie “Unfortunately, I do not agree with what you propose. Shifting our entire department’s focus to saving every nuance of the environment will just result in a loss of productivity for our business.”

Is Asha committing a known argumentative fallacy here, is she likely to be subject to a cognitive bias, or is her reasoning acceptable?

Strawman fallacy

Zeedan is the executive chef and owner of a mid-sized restaurant in Toronto. The restaurant’s specialty is a lasagna that uses a special sauce that only Zeedan and Steve, the sous chef, know. One day Steve approaches Zeedan and says “I think we can make the special sauce even better by adding a sprig of oregano.” Zeedan replies and says “No. The sauce is already the best it can be. My family has been using the same recipe for several generations.”

Is Zeedan committing a known argumentative fallacy here, is he likely to be subject to a cognitive bias, or is his reasoning acceptable?

Fallacious appeal to tradition

DeShawn and Carl attended a talk on environmental sustainability. DeShawn turns to Carl and says “That was a great talk! The speaker made some fantastic points!” Carl responds by saying “Did you see how the speaker was dressed? He was dressed so unprofessionally. He clearly doesn’t know what he is talking about.”

Is either of DeShawn and Carl committing a known argumentative fallacy here, is either likely to be subject to a cognitive bias, or is their reasoning acceptable?

Carl: Ad hominem

Fedor, a government representative, is negotiating a contract with two possible construction companies. Both construction companies have given him the same blind bid. Fedor is now concerned about the time line of the project. He first calls Steve’s Construction and asks how likely it would be that the project could be completed by August 2019. Steve, the CEO, says “There is a 10% chance that the project would take longer than that.” Fedor thanks Steve then calls Susan’s Construction with the same inquiry. Susan, the CEO, says “There is a 90% chance that the project will be completed by August 2019.” Fedor closes the deal with Susan over the phone.

Is Fedor committing a known argumentative fallacy here, is he likely to be subject to a cognitive bias, or is his reasoning acceptable?

Framing effect

Groupthink

group members to agree at all costs.

• minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation

Procedures for fighting groupthink

• Compare your situation to the relevant “reference class.” “What % of companies in our situation are able to achieve what they want?”

• Make sure to include people who are skeptical of the project.

• Conduct a pre-mortem

benefits to Conducting a pre-mortem

• thinking up proactive measures to mitigate causes of an extremely bad outcome

• reduces groupthink - open communication

Culture

Shared beliefs and behaviours regarding how decisions should

be made, including who should be involved and what processes

should be followed.

4 stages of argumentation

1. Confrontation

2. Opening

3. Argumentation

4. Closing

aspects of Opening in argumentation

Material starting points:

Procedural starting points:

Formal and substantive rules

Protagonists in Argumentation

Present arguments to support their claim using recognized

argumentation types/schemes

Antagonists in Argumentation

Initial evaluation of protagonist’s arguments

• Provide rebuttals/counter arguments

Closing in Argumentation

What is the result?

What is a virtue?

commendable trait or disposition in a person, group of people, or

organization

Intellectual Humility

individual’s recognition of the limits of their knowledge and

cognitive abilities

Open-mindedness

A willingness to be rationally persuaded

Intellectual Empathy

ability to recognize and appreciate the experiences of the people we are interacting with, and to see how these experiences

might inform their reasoning and argumentation

Intellectual Courage

willingness to engage in reasoning or argumentation when doing so

appears to carry the risk of pain or harm to the reasoner or arguer

example of Intellectual Courage

Asking and answering uncomfortable questions and pursuing uncomfortable truths

different ways Argumentation can occur

Negotiation, Mediation, Legal Action, Argumentative discussion

The role of argumentation in Legal Action

Arguments presented from each side address the third party, but

with second party in mind

The role of argumentation in Negotiation

presentation of arguments from each side

• willingness to be rationally persuaded

• With an expectation they will not get their ideal resolution.

The role of argumentation in Mediation

Arguments still aimed at convincing the other side.

• Bring in a third party as a neutral discussion facilitator.

• Mediator can help re-construct, re-frame arguments and fix fallacies

What is a key instrumental reason for being ethical in business?

It builds a reputation for integrity that leads to long-term, mutually profitable relationships

Whichis most plausible about the claim that "ethics is all a matter of opinion?

There is a grain of truth, but disagreement doesn't mean there's no right answer

Which of the following is NOT one of the three prominent ethical perspectives in the Western philosophical tradition?

Profit-maximization reasoning

A duty-based or deontological perspective

someone who argues that a company "must be honest with the public, regardless of the consequences"

Suppose you are the owner of a $500,000 home. Imagine the probability that your house will burn down each year is 1 in 1,000 (in real life the probability is lower than that).

An insurance company offers a policy that covers your whole house for $3,000.

a) What is the expected value of buying insurance?

EV Insurance = (1 x $0) - $3,000 = -$3,000

Suppose you are the owner of a $500,000 home. Imagine the probability that your house will burn down each year is 1 in 1,000 (in real life the probability is lower than that).

An insurance company offers a policy that covers your whole house for $3,000.

b) What is the expected value of not buying insurance?

EV No Insurance = (0.001 x -$500,000) + (0.999 x $0) = -$500

Suppose you are the owner of a $10,000,000 resort on a tropical island. The probability that the resort will be destroyed by a hurricane each year is 1 in 100. An insurance company offers a policy that covers your resort for a premium of $150,000 a year.

a) What is the expected value of buying insurance?

EV Insurance = (1 x $0) - $150,000 = -$150,000

Suppose you are the owner of a $10,000,000 resort on a tropical island. The probability that the resort will be destroyed by a hurricane each year is 1 in 100. An insurance company offers a policy that covers your resort for a premium of $150,000 a year.

b) What is the expected value of not buying insurance?

EV No Insurance = (0.01 x -$10,000,000) + (.99 x $0) = -$100,000

Suppose you are the owner of a $10,000,000 resort on a tropical island. The probability that the resort will be destroyed by a hurricane each year is 1 in 100. An insurance company offers a policy that covers your resort for a premium of $150,000 a year.

c) What is the expected value of an alternative policy that has a lower premium ($30,000) but a maximum coverage of $6,000,000?

EV Alternative Policy = (0.01 x -$4,000,000) + (.99 x $0) – $30,000 = -$70,000

Basic Sources of Justification

Definitions and Logical Truths

Your Senses

Eyewitness Testimony

Common Sense

Expert Testimony

Scientific Studies

elements of common sense

Folk Psychology, Simple Design Knowledge

Folk Psychology

The body of knowledge that allows us to attribute to other people moods, beliefs, desires, intentions, memories and so on

Simple Design Knowledge

The body of knowledge that allows us to use common artifacts and navigate common institutional structures

Critical Creative Capacity

1.The appropriate number of reasons

2. That are appropriately diverse

3. In the strongest logical configuration

Inquiry Questions

Open-ended - Produce varied answers (do not typically

have a unique correct answer

Three Inquiry Questions: ECO

Evidence -

• What evidence do you have to support the belief?

Community of Experts and Opinion Leaders -

• What would the most knowledgeable people in the field say?

Objections -

• How might someone disagree?

• What can you say in response to their objection?

2 Kinds of Conditions (antecedent)

• Necessary conditions

• Sufficient conditions

Conditional Arguments

Arguments that have an “If..., then...” claim as an important premise

Descriptive Claims

Claims that describe how the world IS.

Normative

Claims regarding what OUGHT to be the case

2 types of Normative claims

Ethical, Prudential

Bridge Principles

tells you what descriptive facts must be established in order to support a particular normative claim.

An argument cannot be weak if the conclusion is acceptable : T/F

FALSE

An argument cannot be weak if the conclusion and all premises are

acceptable. : T/F

FALSE

2 Kinds of Logic

Inductive, Deductive

Inductive logic

Provide evidence in favour of a conclusion.

Deductive logic

provide an airtight link between premises and conclusion.

Inductive arguments examples :

analogy, generalization, Inference to the best explanation, Simple

induction

deductive arguments examples :

Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens, Dilemma

BEST - Inference to Best Explanation

• Background knowledge?

• Explanatory power?

• Simple?

• Testable?

Simple Induction

proceeds from a premise about a group to a conclusion about an individual belonging to that group

What is Simple Induction used for

Used to reach conclusions about individuals when all we have is information about the class or group they belong to

Analogy

is a comparison between 2 or more things