Category: Ethics

If you had to restart society from scratch, what rules would you make? Who would be in charge? In this week’s assignment, you will put yourself in the position of drafting a new social contract.
It might be helpful to conceive of this in the context of a fictional scenario. Imagine that you are enjoying a pleasant vacation on a cruise ship, only to find that a global nuclear war has broken out. The only survivors left on the planet are the few thousand passengers and crew on the cruise ship. Since governments, as you knew them no longer exist, it is up to the survivors to “restart” society.
In this fictional scenario, consider the following questions:
What should the rules be?
What kind of rights and protections would everyone have?
What responsibilities would they have?
Who should have the power to make decisions?
Should society be divided into “groups” or “classes”?
How would disputes be handled?
In other words, what kind of government should the survivors adopt?
In one single-spaced page or roughly 500 words, answer these questions.

The categorical imperative is one of the more important and famous tests for ethical action. The formulation of the categorical imperative that Kant includes in the section of the Groundwork that we read is the following: “I ought never to conduct myself except so that I could also will that my maxim become a universal law” (18). For this essay I would like you to apply the categorical imperative while making a case for its effectiveness. To apply the CI, you may use Kant’s example (which begins on page 18 and goes to page 19 in our text) whether or not it is morally permissible to make a promise without the intention of keeping it, or you may come up with your own ethical issue. In either case, make careful use of Kant’s text to apply the categorical imperative and then reflect on its usefulness. While you are asked to argue for its effectiveness, you might also consider reflecting on questions such as this in your concluding paragraph(s): Can you think of instances where it might not work? Would reasonable people potentially disagree on the results of applying the categorical imperative?

What does “right” really mean? How do you know when something is truly right or wrong? Explain and document your reasoning in 350 words using scholarly and peer reviewed journal articles and/or texts.
For each thread, students must support their assertions with at least 2 scholarly citations in APA format.
Acceptable sources include journal articles, theoretical texts (you are required to incorporate/cite the textbook, the Bible).
Discussions are encouraged to be written in third person.

Week Three – Philosophical Ethics and Business

DISCUSSION-
From your perspective, what makes a decision or an issue an ethical one? Please explain the differences between ethical/non-ethical on one hand, and non-ethical/ethical, on the other.

What does “right” really mean? How do you know when something is truly right or wrong? Explain and document your reasoning in 350 words using scholarly and peer reviewed journal articles and/or texts.
For each thread, students must support their assertions with at least 2 scholarly citations in APA format.
Acceptable sources include journal articles, theoretical texts (you are required to incorporate/cite the textbook, the Bible).
Discussions are encouraged to be written in third person.

Week Three – Philosophical Ethics and Business

DISCUSSION-
From your perspective, what makes a decision or an issue an ethical one? Please explain the differences between ethical/non-ethical on one hand, and non-ethical/ethical, on the other.

What does “right” really mean? How do you know when something is truly right or wrong? Explain and document your reasoning in 350 words using scholarly and peer reviewed journal articles and/or texts.
For each thread, students must support their assertions with at least 2 scholarly citations in APA format.
Acceptable sources include journal articles, theoretical texts (you are required to incorporate/cite the textbook, the Bible).
Discussions are encouraged to be written in third person.

Week Three – Philosophical Ethics and Business

DISCUSSION-
From your perspective, what makes a decision or an issue an ethical one? Please explain the differences between ethical/non-ethical on one hand, and non-ethical/ethical, on the other.

Taking this issue from Martin Shkreli has occasionally been dubbed “the most hated man in America”, is someone like Shkreli correct to simply focus completely on his CEO duties as opposed to being concerned for all stakeholders, including hospitals and insurance companies? Is his mentality the logical consequence of a postmodern point of view, where morality is simply what we make of it and what we prefer, or perhaps a negotiating of pragmatic good? Or is there something objectively wrong with his position and demeanor? Develop your argument in 3-4 paragraphs.

For this assignment, identify two character traits that you think a virtuous person should possess. You will then explain what constitutes the vice of deficiency and the vice of excess for each virtue. Each explanation should consist of one paragraph, for a total of four paragraphs. To add clarity to your explanations, you should aim to provide actual examples of these virtues and vices in practice.
Do not use the virtue of courage, no need for a reference page.