The central theme of 1994 movie Disclosure is sexual harassment. The movie is based on a novel by Michael Crichton (author of many best-selling novels including Jurassic Park).

The central theme of 1994 movie Disclosure is sexual harassment. The movie is based on a novel by Michael Crichton (author of many best-selling novels including Jurassic Park). In the movie Meredith Johnson is appointed to be the head of a division of a company becoming Tom Sanders’ boss, a man with whom she had an intimate relationship many years earlier. Meredith Johnson meets with Sanders late on evening at which time she sexually harasses Sanders. The very next morning, she accuses Tom Sanders of sexually harassing her.
Later in the movie, the lawyer representing Tom Sanders, Catherine Alvarez, mentions that her husband, a senior partner in the law firm for which she worked, had asked her out on a date five times before she finally accepted the invitation. She said that on the current standard that might be considered sexual harassment.
Write an essay on the topic of the ethical dimension of sexual harassment in business highlighted in these two incidents depicted in the movie. In this essay you need to explain (and will be graded on)
The definition of sexual harassment proposed by Robert Holmes (in the chapter of his book which we read and discussed). If you think that this definition is problematic explain the problems.
How these two incidents in the movie Disclosure raise the issue of the moral of the problem of sexual harassment;
Meredith Johnson’s the sexual harassment of Tom Sanders;
Catherine Alvarez’s husband’s asking her out five time.
What make an action right according to the version of moral objectivism known as Utilitarianism/Consequentialism and how the defenders of this theory would judge the morality of incidents described above.
What make an action right according to the version of moral objectivism that is Kant’s Deontology (Duty/Rule Based Moral Theory) and how defenders of this theory would judge the morality of the incidents described above.
What you think is the correct moral evaluation of these incidents and how you would defend this position.