EMOB - to do

find a specific topic from lectures to center my essay around

put assignment brief and example intro with lectures as documents and ask “here is the assignment brief, tell me which of these lecture topics i should center my essay around considering what i need to do. i want you to pick one based off which one will have the most to answer, best opposing and supporting arguments, and so forth. here is also an example from my lecturer to use as guidance ‘

AI response:

Why Corporate Psychopathy?

  1. Rich Content & Opposing Views:

    • The concept of corporate psychopathy (as covered in your lecture slides) presents a strong argument that corporations, by design, function in ways that resemble psychopathic tendencies.

    • There are counterarguments that challenge this perspective, including those that emphasize individual leadership ethics, legal structures, and economic necessity.

  2. Ethical & Theoretical Tensions:

    • Joel Bakan’s "corporation as an externalizing machine" argument suggests that corporations are structured in a way that prioritizes profit at all costs, which can result in unethical actions.

    • Milton Friedman’s shareholder primacy argues that corporations are not responsible for social issues and should focus on maximizing shareholder value.

    • Zimbardo’s bad apples vs. bad barrels vs. bad barrel makers framework provides another way to analyze responsibility—are the corporations themselves at fault, or the legal and economic systems that shape them?

  3. Strong Critical Perspectives Available:

    • Some scholars argue that corporate psychopathy is an unfair generalization, as many executives and corporations do engage in ethical business practices.

    • Others believe that regulation and governance can limit corporate harm without fundamentally changing the profit-driven structure.

    • There is also a debate over individual vs. systemic responsibility—should we blame CEOs and managers, or the capitalist system itself?

  4. Engagement with AI and Module Content:

    • Your dialogue with AI can explore whether AI adopts a managerial, ethical, or critical stance when discussing corporate psychopathy.

    • The second part of your assignment can critically evaluate AI’s perspective by comparing it with theories from your module.

Alternative Options:

  • Stakeholder Capitalism: Good choice, but may lean heavily into economic justifications rather than strong ethical critiques.

  • Ethical Employment Relationships: Important but may not have as strong theoretical conflicts compared to corporate psychopathy.

  • Corporate Citizenship: Interesting, especially with the "woke capitalism" debate, but not as inherently controversial as corporate psychopathy.

Final Recommendation:

Go with Corporate Psychopathy—it provides strong arguments, clear counterarguments, and deep ethical complexity, making it an excellent topic for both engaging AI and writing a strong critical evaluation.

now i want to know using the notes from that lecture and the example, what kind of questions should i ask the ai model to get the best answers for essay? the assignment brief, and the ppt goes - “using the brief and the ppt which go into detail on how to approach the assignment, and the notes from the corporate psychopathy lecture which is also attached, which questions should I ask the AI model to receive the best answers to revolve around my essay?“

Based on the Corporate Psychopathy lecture content, the assignment brief, and the assignment preparation slides, you should structure your AI dialogue to extract the best responses for your essay. Your initial question should be broad enough to prompt a detailed response but focused enough to tie into key ethical debates. Your follow-up questions should challenge the AI's responses, ensuring it considers opposing perspectives, ethical implications, and theoretical debates.

Suggested AI Questions for Part 1

1. Initial Question:

To what extent can corporations be considered psychopathic, and what are the ethical implications of this characterization?

  • Why this works: This ties directly into the Bakan "externalizing machine" argument, the psychopath test, and corporate personhood.

  • Expected AI Response: The AI should discuss how corporations prioritize profits, externalize harm, and exhibit traits akin to psychopathy.

2. Follow-up Question (Challenging the AI's Initial Viewpoint)

Your response characterizes corporations as psychopathic, but some argue that this is an unfair and exaggerated comparison. Are there ways in which corporations demonstrate ethical responsibility despite their profit motives?

  • Why this works: Forces AI to consider counterarguments, potentially bringing in concepts like CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility), stakeholder theory, and ethical leadership.

  • Expected AI Response: AI may argue that some corporations act ethically due to stakeholder pressure, reputation management, or "enlightened self-interest."

3. Follow-up Question (Exploring the Role of Individual Responsibility)

Bakan argues that corporations are psychopathic due to their legal structure rather than individual intent. However, some suggest that corporate executives themselves exhibit psychopathic traits. To what extent should we blame individuals versus the corporate system itself?

  • Why this works: Encourages discussion of Zimbardo’s “bad apples vs. bad barrels vs. bad barrel makers”framework.

  • Expected AI Response: AI may explore the balance between individual moral responsibility (bad apples), corporate culture (bad barrels), and systemic capitalism (bad barrel makers).

4. Follow-up Question (Linking to Broader Ethical Theories)

If corporations are inherently structured to prioritize profit, does this mean that capitalism itself encourages psychopathy? How does this relate to ethical theories such as utilitarianism or deontology?

  • Why this works: Forces the AI to apply ethical theories, possibly contrasting Milton Friedman's shareholder primacy (utilitarian justification) with deontological perspectives on corporate ethics.

  • Expected AI Response: AI may argue that capitalism promotes efficiency but not necessarily psychopathy, or it might suggest that systemic change is necessary.

How This Helps Your Essay (Part 2)

  • Allows you to evaluate the AI's argumentation quality—Did the AI initially favor the corporate psychopathy thesis? Did it neglect opposing views?

  • Engages with key thinkers—You can critique the AI’s take on Bakan, Zimbardo, Friedman, and others.

  • Highlights gaps in the AI’s reasoning—For example, did the AI overlook stakeholder capitalism, ignore power dynamics, or fail to critically evaluate the ethical implications?

By using this structured questioning approach, you maximize your AI dialogue’s value and ensure that your Part 2 evaluation is rich with analysis.

this is somewhat separate but still important and is about essay structure “using the example essay in pt.2, give me a detailed plan on how to structure the essay“

Detailed Essay Plan: Evaluating AI’s Response on Corporate Psychopathy

Your essay should follow a structured approach that critically evaluates the AI's response to your Part 1 questions. Below is a detailed outline based on the structure of the example essay and tailored for Corporate Psychopathy.

Introduction (Approx. 200-300 words)

  1. Introduce the topic: Explain what corporate psychopathy refers to and why it is a significant issue in business ethics.

    • Mention Bakan’s "externalizing machine" theory.

    • Introduce the debate over whether corporations or individuals (executives) are to blame.

    • Reference Zimbardo’s "bad apples, bad barrels, bad barrel makers" framework.

  2. State the purpose of the essay:

    • Explain that the essay will evaluate the AI's response to a discussion on corporate psychopathy.

    • Outline the key themes: (1) whether corporations are psychopathic, (2) individual vs. systemic blame, (3) ethical justifications for corporate behavior.

  3. Preview the AI’s general response:

    • Did the AI initially support the psychopathy argument?

    • Did it acknowledge counterarguments?

    • Were there gaps in its reasoning?

Section 1: The AI’s Initial Response & Key Arguments (Approx. 400-500 words)

  • Summarize the AI’s first response to your initial question (To what extent can corporations be considered psychopathic?).

  • Did it use Bakan’s argument that corporations function as "externalizing machines"?

  • Did it acknowledge stakeholder theory or corporate social responsibility (CSR) as a counterbalance?

  • Compare the AI’s framing to key thinkers (Bakan, Friedman, Zimbardo).

  • Evaluate the AI’s stance: Did it lean too heavily towards one side?

Section 2: Evaluating the AI’s Consideration of Counterarguments (Approx. 500-600 words)

  • Summarize your second follow-up question (Are there ways in which corporations demonstrate ethical responsibility despite their profit motives?).

  • Analyze the AI’s response:

    • Did it bring in stakeholder capitalism or CSR?

    • Did it discuss the "enlightened self-interest" perspective (acting ethically benefits the company)?

    • Was its argument strong, or did it just list examples without deeper analysis?

  • Compare with theoretical perspectives:

    • Friedman’s Shareholder Primacy: Corporations should only maximize profit.

    • Freeman’s Stakeholder Theory: Corporations have ethical duties beyond shareholders.

  • Critical evaluation:

    • Did the AI provide a balanced argument, or did it overlook certain perspectives?

    • Did it fail to address corporate accountability gaps (e.g., greenwashing, misleading CSR practices)?

Section 3: Individual vs. Systemic Responsibility (Approx. 500-600 words)

  • Summarize your third question (Should we blame individual executives or the corporate system itself?).

  • Analyze the AI’s response:

    • Did it refer to bad apples (individuals) vs. bad barrels (corporations) vs. bad barrel makers (capitalist system)?

    • Did it place responsibility on CEOs or focus on structural problems?

    • Was its stance consistent with Bakan’s argument, or did it contradict itself?

  • Compare with relevant theories:

    • Zimbardo’s framework: Are unethical corporate decisions due to bad individuals, bad corporate cultures, or deeper systemic flaws?

    • Bakan’s theory: Corporations must prioritize profit, so they can’t be ethical.

  • Critical evaluation:

    • Did the AI simplify the issue by focusing too much on one level of responsibility?

    • Did it ignore real-world examples of corporate executives making unethical decisions?

Section 4: Ethical Justifications and AI’s Use of Ethical Theory (Approx. 400-500 words)

  • Summarize your fourth question (Does capitalism itself encourage psychopathy? How does this relate to ethical theories?).

  • Analyze the AI’s response:

    • Did it engage with ethical theories like utilitarianism, deontology, or virtue ethics?

    • Did it discuss how capitalism rewards ruthless behavior (e.g., cost-cutting, exploiting workers)?

    • Did it reference Friedman’s argument that corporations shouldn’t engage in ethics?

  • Compare with ethical perspectives:

    • Utilitarianism: Does maximizing profit justify harm?

    • Deontology: Are corporations failing to respect moral duties?

    • Egoism: Does self-interest lead to good or bad outcomes?

  • Critical evaluation:

    • Did the AI apply these theories correctly?

    • Did it ignore critiques of capitalism, such as Marxist perspectives on corporate exploitation?

Conclusion (Approx. 200-300 words)

  1. Summarize key findings:

    • Did the AI give a balanced discussion, or did it favor one side?

    • Were its counterarguments weak or well-developed?

    • Did it acknowledge ethical dilemmas, or was it simplistic?

  2. Highlight missing elements in the AI’s response:

    • Did it ignore radical critiques of corporate power?

    • Did it fail to engage with real-world examples of corporate wrongdoing?

    • Did it struggle to differentiate between individual and systemic responsibility?

  3. Final evaluation:

    • Does the AI provide a useful but limited perspective?

    • How could its argument be improved (e.g., better engagement with ethics, deeper theoretical grounding)?

Reference List (Harvard Style)

  • Ensure that you cite:

    • Key thinkers from your module (Bakan, Friedman, Freeman, Zimbardo, etc.).

    • Relevant business ethics literature.

    • Your AI conversation (required for referencing AI sources).

Suggested Revisions to Your Assignment Structure and Questions

Your draft is strong in terms of engaging critically with the topic of corporate psychopathy. However, based on the marking criteria and the lecture materials, you can refine your Part 1 (AI dialogue) and Part 2 (evaluation) to better align with the assignment's goals. Here’s what I suggest:

Changes to Part 1: AI Dialogue Questions

Your current questions focus well on the ethical behavior of corporations and corporate psychopathy, but they don’t evaluate the AI's reasoning as explicitly as required by the assignment. According to the lecture slides, you need to push the AI on its assumptions, omissions, and engagement with ethical theories.

Revised Questions

  1. Initial Question:

    • To what extent can corporations be considered psychopathic, and what are the ethical implications of this characterization?

    • ✅ Why this works: Engages directly with Bakan's "externalizing machine" argument and corporate personhood.

  2. Follow-up Question 1 (Challenging the AI's Initial Viewpoint):

    • Your response characterizes corporations as psychopathic, but does this comparison oversimplify the issue? Are there ethical frameworks that justify corporate behavior, despite its profit-driven nature?

    • ✅ Why this works: Encourages the AI to incorporate ethical theories like utilitarianism, deontology, or virtue ethics, rather than just describing corporate behavior.

  3. Follow-up Question 2 (Evaluating the AI's Framing and Bias):

    • Your response assumes that corporate psychopathy is a structural issue. However, could your response be biased by the way the question was framed? If the question were phrased differently, how might that change your answer?

    • ✅ Why this works: This explicitly tests the AI’s reasoning process, pushing it to reflect on its own biases(as seen in the assignment example).

  4. Follow-up Question 3 (AI’s Limitations in Evaluating Ethics):

    • Your response lacks direct engagement with real-world corporate case studies (e.g., Enron, Facebook, ExxonMobil). How would applying specific ethical theories to these examples change your answer?

    • ✅ Why this works: Forces AI to engage with real-world cases, apply ethical theories, and acknowledge potential weaknesses in its reasoning.

stakeholder theory - introduce another topic

must know reading list

maybe friedman doctrine instead of deontology/utilitarianism

Changes to Part 2: Evaluation of AI’s Responses

Your essay plan is strong, but it doesn't fully critique how the AI reasons—which is key to the assignment.

Revised Essay Structure

💡 Major Change: Instead of just analyzing corporate psychopathy, your essay should also assess how well the AI reasoned, engaged with ethical theories, and handled counterarguments.

Introduction (200-300 words)

  • Introduce the debate on whether corporations can be considered psychopathic.

  • State the purpose of the essay: To evaluate the AI’s reasoning on this topic.

  • Outline key themes:

    1. How well the AI engaged with ethical theories.

    2. The AI’s biases and framing issues.

    3. The AI’s ability to incorporate real-world corporate cases.

    4. Whether the AI’s reasoning was rigorous or superficial.

Section 1: AI’s Initial Response & Key Arguments (400-500 words)

  • Summarize the AI’s first response: Did it rely on Bakan’s argument? Did it discuss corporate personhood?

  • Evaluate the AI’s framing:

    • Did it overstate the psychopathy analogy?

    • Did it consider stakeholder capitalism as a counterpoint?

  • Compare to ethical theories:

    • Did it use utilitarianism (Friedman) or deontology (Kant)?

    • Was its argument one-sided or balanced?

Section 2: AI’s Handling of Counterarguments (500-600 words)

  • Summarize your second question (challenging AI’s assumptions).

  • Evaluate AI’s response:

    • Did it engage with ethical responsibility or just describe CSR?

    • Did it acknowledge alternative frameworks like virtue ethics?

  • Critique AI’s depth:

    • Was its reasoning nuanced or shallow?

    • Did it provide ethical justification, or just a factual explanation?

Section 3: AI’s Framing and Bias (500-600 words)

  • Summarize your third question (AI bias and question framing).

  • Analyze AI’s response:

    • Did the AI recognize how question framing influences responses?

    • Did it self-correct or justify its bias?

  • Compare with real-world examples:

    • AI didn’t initially include scandals like Enron or Volkswagen’s emissions fraud—why?

    • What does this omission suggest about its reasoning?

Section 4: AI’s Use of Ethical Theory and Case Studies (400-500 words)

  • Summarize your final question (real-world corporate cases).

  • Evaluate AI’s response:

    • Did it correctly apply ethical theories to real cases?

    • Did it acknowledge moral responsibility within corporations?

  • Highlight AI’s limitations:

    • AI may have over-relied on general principles rather than case studies.

    • AI may have missed historical shifts in corporate ethics.

Conclusion (200-300 words)

  • Summarize your key findings:

    • Did AI provide a balanced discussion, or favor a single perspective?

    • Did it engage deeply with ethical theory or just list examples?

    • Did it acknowledge bias in its reasoning?

  • Final evaluation:

    • What were AI’s strengths and weaknesses?

    • How could its argument be improved?

Why These Changes Improve Your Assignment

✅ Explicitly evaluates the AI’s reasoning process, aligning with the marking criteria.
✅ Pushes the AI on its assumptions, biases, and missing arguments, making Part 1 stronger.
✅ Moves beyond describing corporate psychopathy to critically assessing how AI constructs ethical arguments.

TOPIC AND CONTENT SHOULD BE THE FOCUS

i like the first draft more, but want to change one question to third question from second draft

rather than thinking of it as analysing AI responses, think of it more as intro, initial argument, counterargument, third differnt part, conclusion [normal essay structure] but include how the AI responded and answered in each part - so it is mainly on the content and debating it

maybe ask AI “which of these later topics can i bring in and discuss in the essay“ - but only if it works - only do after i have my question and responses

use reading list!!