Business Ethics Test 2

Audi: Moral pluralism

There are multiple moral principles- it does not boil down to only 1

W.D. Ross influences Audi

Ross: Moral principles can conflict therefore we need prioritization. “Prima Facie Duties”- things we recognize as intuitive level as being right.

Prioritization in conflict example

Duty to truth doesn’t outweigh our duty to protect innocent lives. This connects to D+D’s hypernorms.

Affirmative Action

Audi says we start with 2 intuitions/moral principles in mind

1. 1. merit

2. 2. recompense

Merit

We have an idea that we want people hired for work because they’re the most capable and accomplished people.

Recompense

When someone’s been wronged, we should try and make it up to them.

AA’s difficulty

Both intuitions are in play and can come into conflict in AA policies.

We can agree that there have been injustices against POC and women in the past but we have to answer 2 questions.

a. who has been harmed?

b. from whom should recompence come from?

This is sticky!!

Audi says there are 6 stages of recompence in process of AA. The first stage is…

Increased awareness of job openings for affected groups

2

Increased consideration in hiring procedures- give injusticed people additional care

3

Preferential hiring IFF candidates are otherwise equal in qualifications

4

Preferential hiring even if qualifications slightly favor the other candidate

5

Preferential hiring even if other candidate is significantly more qualified

6

Quotas. Ex) In x years, we need x positions to be filled by x type of people.

Bonified Occupational Qualification (BFOQ)

Floor level- it’s a requirement to do a job. You can’t do the job without it.

For example, a firefighter needs to be able to carry a body down a flight of stairs.

Argument for religion in the workplace

If religion is real and vital to our lives, it should be worked into all areas of our lives, especially work (we spend so much time here anyways).

Audi’s Principles (Prima Facie Principles)

1. Liberty

2. Equality

3. Neutrality

Liberty

Government must protect religious freedom

Equality

Government must treat different religions equally

Neutrality

Government must treat religious and nonreligious people equally. You can’t be penalized for being a part of either group.

These principles and business connections

Audi says the principles ought to apply to businesses. There is an exception for privately owned businesses to focus on their own values, and even more of an exception for businesses if it’s religion-oriented.

BFOQ example

If you’re selling books about Christ and yoga, you should be a believer so you can actually do your job.

Religious expression at work vs religious belief

Expression can have more limits. You can have all the beliefs you want, but at the point they infringe on business or other people, they should be limited.

For example, if it’s in your religion to smoke weed, it would infringe on both the business and other people to smoke on the job, so this should be limited.

However, wearing a cross necklace does not infringe on anyone else and should be allowed.

There’s a big difference between…

religious displays that interfere with others and religious displays that make others uncomfortable. it’s necessary to distinguish between the two.

how do people feel about whistleblowing?

Everyone recognizes the good of what they do, but we don’t like them, so they end up being treated badly. SNITCHES!!

Arguments for whistleblowing balance

the public good with loyalty

Larmer’s argument

Says whistleblowing is not an issue of public good and disloyalty. Whistleblowing is not a conflict of loyalty because even though businesses aren’t people, they are filled with people you can still have loyalty to.

Virtue of Loyalty and Larmer’s stance

Looks at “what does it mean to be loyal?”

You want the best for the objects of your loyalty. BUT… if someone if doing something wrong, it’s not in their best interest.

Genuine loyalty

Calling out the people who you’re loyal to if they’re doing something wrong.

Key idea for loyalty

loyalty implies internal channels first. If you’re in a company and notice something fishy, you should go to the department of that business that is looking out for you before CNN.

Implications of doing this

You’re calling them out in a wat that expresses allegiance. You stick to this until they do not respond to you or they respond to you negatively or dismissive

Workplace Privacy: Miller and Weckert

Privacy is the ability to prevent/exclude outside scrutiny/interference

They believe privacy is a

Moral right or at least an important good.

Why do they believe this?

1. You need to have control over public information about you.

2. Privacy is crucial to autonomy and your “life plays”

   If someone knows every plan you have (creating something, beating someone else’s numbers) they can steal ideas/plans. So, we need privacy in our plans so we can succeed.

Privacy covers…

1. intimate relations

2. finances

3. inner life- religious convictions, deep thoughts and beliefs

4. voting

5. medical data

6. education data

7. private spaces

When/how can work intrude on privacy? and Miller and Weckert’s response

number one

Efficiency: they can monitor to see if you’re actually doing your job.

Miller and Weckert say no! this is counterproductive because no one likes being micromanaged. if you get in trouble for every little thing, you’ll build resentment and workplace morale will suffer.

number 2

Workplace crime.

Miller and Weckert say yes! if you think people are using company resources to embezzle and the company could be reliable, this should be monitored.

BUT… not all the time!

This should be conducted like a warrant system. If there’s suspicion about someone, that creates grounds for bosses to engage in surveillance.

number 3

Work says they get to monitor because it’s their resources (phone, computer, etc.)

Miller and Weckert say no! Just because you’re in someone else’s house doesn’t mean they can follow you into the bathroom.

number 4 (not miller and weckert)

Work can monitor if you’re “bad mouthing” the organization. Ex) trashing company on facebook.

*There’s usually a labor law that protects this as it relates to unionization.

Response: 2 key ideas.

1. Does your private talk/social media interfere with a BFOQ? Ex) hiring manager is posting racist posts does interfere with BFOQ of giving equal opportunity to each candidate.

2. Is there a reason to believe that in this instance you are representing the organization?

   Ex) wearing school jersey and making negative comments would look like you represent the school.

If it meets one or two, then this should be monitored.

Hagenbuch claims that Marketing is a

Christian vocation

A Christian vocation…

furthers reconciliation because of the connections built

On the continuum (anti-practice where it’s not beneficial to be good, skillset that can be used for bad or good, to virtue-based practice), where do Christian vocations have to fall?

Between skillset and virtue-based practice.

How does Hagenbach define marketing?

Facilitating mutually beneficial exchange (this fosters reconciliation)

If marketing creates mutual exchange, it leads to…

indirect persuasion

Why is the term “mutually” important here?

successful marketing can’t burn bridges for future marketing. If you’re marketing and don’t move for mutual benefit, you make your consumers stop trusting you.

Ex) prisoners dilemma: when someone else confesses on you, they actually wind up taking one for the team in the future and serving more overall time b/c they are trying to earn back the trust they lost initially by confessing on you

Successful marketing is

long term

Evangelism is what!?

marketing! bringing good news and spreading gospel is selling an idea

Clapp believes marketing is

Evil and an anti-practice.

Rise of consumerist capitalism

Capitalism needs to figure out how to sell the stuff it has, so they create consumerist mentality.

Increasing productivity and efficiency means capitalism pushes level of production that the public “wants”/what they want the public demand to look like.

• can either expand the market or increase interest in product to start selling more

Light rail example

Car company buying all light rails and destroying them so everyone has to buy cars- making culture consumerism based

Clapp: marketing is really the creation of wants. What does that mean?

We’re being convinced we have needs (these are illusory b/c they’re not necessary).

To do this, businesses must deify desire/materialism and encourage greed, envy, lust, pride, and gluttony…

B/C of this, Clapp says marketing is an

Anti-practice: giving vision of good life that’s all tied up in self-interest.

Marketing’s problems

1. gendered marketing to children. Ex) barbies and cards. The issue is that toys play on and reinforce gender stereotypes

2. Tobacco marketing to kids. Ex) Joe camel- a fictional character

3. Credit to financially struggling.

   • Big data label

   • Payday loans

     • show your stubs and we’ll give you a check before payday at 30% interest!

Breckert says these three problems encompass

Marketing to the vulnerable

Features making a population vulnerable

1. being vulnerable increases susceptibility. Ex) alcoholics are susceptible to alcohol advertising (10% beer drinkers drink 90% of beer sold)

2. Anomalous life circumstances. Ex) crisis of some kind. Like a loved one dying- casket seller more likely to make you purchase more expensive one bc you’re loved one deserves it

3. Diminished rational capacities. Ex) being a kid, or an addict, or aging

4. Physically vulnerable (allergies for example)

5. Cognitively vulnerable (dementia for example)

6. Motivationally vulnerable (addicts, grieving for example)

7. Socially vulnerable (you need to lose weight so try this for example)

Breckert’s main point

We should observe stricter parameters to respect/not infringe on vulnerabilities.

History of environmental ethics

The history of business shows how it negatively affects environment

Ex) London Fog- London was heart of industrialization and that led to smoke and fog collaboration

What’s business’ responsibility? 2 key individuals

Audi and Hoffman

Audi holds an….

anthropocentric view. It’s based around human beings so our values are biased to humans and their wellbeing.

Audi’s 2 principles

Principle of intergenerational Justice

Value of sustainability

Principle of intergenerational Justice

Future generations deserve to live with the same standards that we have now so gov’t and other entities must keep them in mind with decisions

Sustainability

If a business were to function roughly as it does it would be able to continue indefinitely.

Hoffman holds a…

Biocentric view. This means that it’s focused on the environment as a whole and says it needs to be valued outside of human interest.

Also called “deep ecology”

Hoffman’s issue with anthropocentrism

If we stick to it, we won’t be able to protect the environment because we do not care enough.

Hoffman believes natural things are

Intrinsically valuable and therefore have moral standing.

Why does Hoffman say we should value the environment for itself?

We have to stop somewhere!

Intercultural business

Different cultures have different norms. We need to navigate how to handle these differences when they occur.

For example, cultural norms of gift giving:

In Japan, if you give a gift, you expect to receive one of slightly less value. This goes on and on until value is minimal and both parties call it good.

2 responses to this tension

1. when in Rome do as the Roman’s do…

   • for example, in France they take 2-3 hour long lunch breaks. You could just do the same.

2. Carry your own values into other cultures.

Key ideas when handing these situations

• you should approach this with humility, accepting that your way could be the wrong way.

• don’t violate your own conscience.

• focus on harm reduction

• utilize utilitarianism to look what the outcomes of your actions

• run the publicity test- would you be ok with a bunch of people knowing what you’re doing?

• don’t treat people as mere means (relates to foundational/basic tier)

Moral law

Moral truths are objective and learnable by reason and experience.

2 tiers to natural law

1. foundation/basic

2. secondary/derivative

Foundational/basic

For these, you should stand your ground. They should carry over everywhere, all the time. They are basic parameters to life.

EX) children should be cared for and educated, and murder is wrong.

Relate to hypernorms

Secondary/derivative

These might flex a bit. They can vary from place to place.

EX) watering grass in Sahara desert is frowned upon because water is not abundant. However, watering grass in Michigan is OK, especially next to the largest body of water in the world.

Natural law gives different answers in these situations.

This relates to moral free space.

Natural law’s answer can change with time. For example,

Vaccines are now accepted for the most part to keep us healthy.

In the past, they didn’t exist.

Now, natural law may say it’s right to vaccinate but wouldn’t have in the past.

Gifts vs Bribes

Gifts: no expectation of return favor (no strings attached)

• not given manipulatively

• given freely

• valuable in eyes of giver

• giver should respond gratefully

Bribes: quid pro quo (this for that)

opposite of gifts:

• there is expectation of return favor

• given in manipulative sense

• often required

• recipients value it

• person giving bribe often responds with resentment/fear because they feel that they are being extorted

Relavitism

cultures get to make up the rules

Rachels vs relativism

Moral or cultural relativism is a non-objective view of ethics.

Moral judgments are true to or for time and space (key bc they can change with time) of specific cultures and are made true by those cultures’ acceptance.

Pros of relativism (Rachels)

1. facts of moral disagreement are real- there’s so many disagreements across cultures

2. ask where you get your moral beliefs? family, coaches, church? They are all from cultural institutions built into our larger culture…

3. It combats ethnocentrism (belief my culture is the best!)- there is no best, we’re all right.

What does stakeholder theory say about sweatshop labor?

It’s ok (not the best), but PR should be done at home. Because some cultures accept it as a practice and others do not, you should be sensitive to the place in which you are marketing

What does utility say about it?

They give cautious approval. They are not happy about it, but believe it is safer than some alternatives. It increases wellbeing in comparison to alternatives.

What does Kantianism say about it? (Machan)

People deserve autonomy! As long as there is informed consent, and people can make noncoerced decisions, we should uphold individuals’ autonomy.

Stillwell’s view on sweatshop labor (kantian)

The countries and companies using sweatshop labor are operating on rigged systems.

If there is a safety inspection, they are warned ahead of time, giving the opportunity to change the environment.

If a group of workers tries to unionize, they just get beat up…

This makes workers’ decision making coerced. You don’t have the opportunity to say no to the conditions, creating a problem.

Natural Law view on sweatshop labor (audi)

Maybe it’s ok, but special considerations should be put into place.

Part of the day is used for work, part for education, part for play/recreation, and increased safety measures.

Economic argument

Sweatshops may be a necessary stage in economic development.

Countries like South Korea and China began with cheap labor and now are global economic powers.

Denying these opportunities may halt development in poorer nations.

Insider trading

Material, nonpublic info

Material: important

non-public: not available to know

Insider: someone who has fiduciary duty

What does utility say about insider trading?

2 views:

1. Martin and Peterson (Manne)- IT would benefit the overall market by enhancing transparency and efficiency.

   If we allow IT, this will reveal to market at large of how security is doing, allowing people to make informed decisions.

2. Moore

   IT will not benefit firms or public because insiders can benefit in trading in ways not knowable to the public. Insider trades are deceptive and unproductive.

How does Kantianism see IT?

Werhane

Utility focuses on efficiency, but that’s not all. We also need a level playing field so investors all feel like they have a chance. Adam Smith declares perfect liberty as a condition for competition and you don’t get a level playing field with IT.

How does Stakeholder Theory see IT?

Martin and Peterson:

The only way to find something that everyone accepts is to lower standards to the point where there’s a common denominator everyone can accept.

In IT, we have so much disagreement that the common denominator is “don’t make it illegal!” so its ok as long as Its not illegal

How does virtue theory see IT?

It is cowardly, unfair, ungrateful (you expose others to scrutiny after they were kind to you by giving you a job), and is dishonest.

Ethical issues in accounting

1. conflict of interest: Accountants provide service to both company and public. The company pays them…

2. bribery

3. accountants aren’t responsible for verifying if information is correct

4. creative reporting of assets and liabilities (choosing how to list things makes them seem better or worse than they actually are)

These are from the day i missed: Rachels argument against relavitism #1

Just because cultures disagree doesn’t mean there’s no objective truth. Example: Disagreements about disease before germ theory didn’t mean disease had no cause—truth was just hard to find.

#2

Apparent vs. Real Disagreement Sometimes practices differ, but underlying values remain similar. Example: Inuit infanticide—driven by survival, not disregard for life. Example: Killing elderly in another culture—based on belief in the afterlife, not a lack of respect.

#3

Principle vs application:

Cultures may share principles (e.g., value of life) but apply them differently based on circumstances or factual beliefs. Rachels argues that actual moral disagreements are often less radical than they appear.

#4

Moral Similarities as the Pattern Rachels claims similarities across cultures are more common than differences. Cultural variation may reflect different conditions, not fundamentally different values.

Logical and Practical Problems with Relativism

1. Moral Progress Becomes Impossible If each culture’s values are “right for them,” change is just difference—not improvement. ○ Ending slavery, advancing women’s rights = not progress, just mutation.

2. Moral Reformers Are Wrong by Definition ○ Reformers challenge dominant cultural values. ○ If morality is defined by cultural consensus, reformers are immoral until consensus shifts.

3. No Ground for Cross-Cultural Moral Judgment ○ Cannot say Nazi Germany was wrong. ○ Leads to contradictions in intercultural conflict (e.g., Nazi Germany vs. Poland—both must be "right"). 4.

4. Cultural Bubble Problem ○ Does one carry moral standards when traveling, or adopt?

Subjectivism and Relavitism

Subjectivism: Morality is up to each individual.

Relativism: Morality is up to each culture.

Relativist critique: Subjectivism undermines social order (“You think stealing’s fine? That’s your truth?”)

Subjectivist critique: Who gave the culture authority to dictate moral truth? (“Who made you the boss?”)

Theological tension with relavitism

If morality is defined by culture, even God must follow cultural norms.

Undermines religious conceptions of God as a moral authority (especially in Judaism, Christianity, Islam).

If God’s morality varies with culture, then God can’t serve as a stable source of right and wrong.

executive compensation

people should be rewarded according to their position.

instrumentally valuable

we need it to get to something else like weight lifting