full file at ...€¦ · law an d b u sin ess eth ics related ? t h e legality of th e d ecision is...

Chap ter 0 2 - B usiness E

thics


thics

In th e n ews… T ea ch in g tip : F or each ch ap ter, con sid er askin g stu d en ts to relate cu rren t n ews items to material from th e ch ap ter.

In ad d ition to id eas stu d en ts come u p with on th eir own , con sid er

weavin g in n ews stories p rovid ed b y th e tex tb ook p u b lish er. S tories

are availab l e via a McG raw-H ill D V D , an d on th e p u b lish er’ s web

site.

F or C h ap ter T wo, McG raw-H ill offers th e followin g story:

“ S moke & M irrors: T ob acco C omp an ies H ave B een S tead ily A d d

in g M ore N icotin e to C igarettes to M ake T h em M ore A d d ictive, E

sp ecially to T een agers.”

A p p ly th e W P H framework to th e d ecision s tob acco comp an

ies are makin g.

Is it “ socially resp on sib le” for tob acco comp an ies to ad d n icotin

e to

cigarettes?

S h ou ld legal ru les p rovid e ad d iti on al p rotection s to

vuln erab le con su mers, su ch as teen agers?

Wh at are b u sin ess

eth ics an d th e

social resp on sib

ility of b u sin ess?

E th ics is th e stu d y an d p ractice of d ecisi on s ab ou t wh at is good or righ t.

Business ethics is the a pplication of ethics

to sp ecial problems and opportunities

experienced by businesspeople . A n ex amp le of a

b u sin ess eth ics q u estion : Is th e comp an y in th e C ase O p en

er d oin g th e righ t th in g wh en it attemp ts to red u ce th e costs

of ad vertisin g b y n ot listin g all p ossib le comp lication s of th e

med icin e for th e

con su mer? A s ex p lain ed later in th is ch ap ter th ere are several

ways of evalu atin g an eth ical d ecision , for ex amp le, th e G old en

R u le, th e P u b lic D isclosu re test, or th e U n iversalization T est. O

n e reason ab le an swer, th u s, is can b e p rovid ed b y th e G old en

R u le. P resu mab ly, if

Full file at https://testbank123.eu/Solutions-Manual-for-Dynamic-Business-Law-3rd-Edition-Kubasek


https://testbank123.eu/Solutions-Manual-for-Dynamic-Business-Law-3rd-Edition-Kubasek


thics


thics

on e were th e con su mer of a med icin e, on e wou ld wan t to b e in formed

of all of th e p ossib le comp lication s of a med icin e b efore d ecid in

g to p u t th e d ru g in to one’ s b od y. T o n ot d esire in formation

wou ld b e th e eq u ivalen t of n ot carin g ab ou t one’ s h ealth or p

oten tially d yin g from a d an gerou s d ru g. In ligh t of th is ap p

lication of th e G old en R u le, a comp an y’ s d ecision to cu t costs b

y n ot listin g all p ossib le n egative effects of a med icin e con stitu

tes eth ically q u estion ab le b eh avior.

A n eth ica l d ilem m a is a p rob lem ab ou t wh at a firm sh ou ld d o for

wh ich n o clear, righ t d irection is availab le.

T h e so cia l resp o n sib ility o f b u sin ess con sists of th e ex p

ectation s th at th e commu n ity imp oses on firms d oin g b u sin ess in

sid e its b ord ers.

E x h ib it 2 -1 p rovid es a u sefu l ex amp le of th e way th at th e

social resp on sib ility of b u sin ess h as affected th e way a b u sin

ess operates. F or ex amp le, n otice th at th e valu es an d goals

section s in th e cod e of con d u ct p yramid p u t con su mer n eed s

an d h on esty at th e forefron t of th e b u sin ess’ s obj ectives.

T ea ch in g tip : H ow are th e con cep ts of eth ics an d social resp on

sib ility d ifferen t? D o th ey overlap ?

H ow are b u sin ess law

an d b u sin ess eth

ics related ?

T h e legality of th e d ecision is th e min imal stan d ar d th at mu st b e met.

U n ited S ta tes o f A m erica v. A lfred C a ro n ia (b riefed b elow) comp

ares wh at is legal with wh at is eth ical. E th ics p resu mes obed ien ce to

law. H ow can we u se th e

WP H framework

for eth ical b u sin

ess d ecision s?

T h e W P H framework p rovid es p rac tical step s for resp on d in g to an eth ical

d ilemma.

W: W h om wou ld th e d ecision affect?

o stakeh old ers: assorted grou p s of p eop le affected b y th e

firm's d ecision s, e.g., own ers or sh areh old ers, emp loyees,

cu stomers, man agemen t, gen eral commu n ity, fu tu re gen e

ration s.

o in terests of stakeh old ers will sometimes b e in common an d

will sometimes con flict.

T h e C ase N u gget in th is section in volvin g M aria

Lop ez p rovid es a u sefu l ex amp le of h ow mu ltip le

stakeh old ers are affected b y a b u sin ess d ecision . T h

e stakeh old ers in clu d e in th is ex amp le in clu d e th e

motor su p p liers, th e C E O , man agemen t, an d d ep

en d in g on th e motor su p p lier ch osen , th e workers

for th e motor su p p liers th at are n ot tran sacted with .

P : P u rp ose—Wh at are th e u ltimate p u rp oses of th e d ecision ?

o Wh ich valu es are b ein g u p h eld b y th e d ecision ?

o V alu es are p ositive ab straction s th at cap tu re our sen se of wh

at is good or d esirab le.

o F ou r imp ortan t valu es often in flu en ce b u sin ess d ecision s:

freed om (to act with ou t restriction from ru les imp osed b y oth

ers), secu rity (to b e safe from th ose wish in g to in terfere with Full file at https://testbank123.eu/Solutions-Manual-for-Dynamic-Business-Law-3rd-Edition-Kubasek





thics


thics

j u stice (to receive th e p rod u cts of you r lab or), an d efficien cy (to

get th e most from a p articu lar outp u t).

H : H ow d o we make eth ical d ecision s?

o We u se classical eth ical guid elin es, su ch as th ese:

o T h e G old en R u le —“ D o u n to oth ers as you wou ld h ave d on

e to

you ."

o P u b lic D isclosu re T est —S u p p ose you r d ecision wou ld

b e p u b lish ed in th e n ewsp ap er. (O u r action s are in th e

open rath er th an h id d en .)

o U n iversalization T est—If I take action X , were oth ers to

follow my ex amp le, wou ld th e world b e a b etter p lace?

o T h e C ase N u gget on T yson F ood s’ B rib ery C h arges

p rovid es a u sefu l ex amp le of th e way th e U n

iversalization T est can serve as a gu id e in makin g eth

ical d ecision s. In th is case, T yson F ood s was p ayin g

b rib es to p ass q u ality in sp ection s. B u t, food s th at

are low in q u ality h ave to p oten tial to cau se d iseases,

like salmon ella, in con su mers. T h u s, b y circu mven

tin g safety in sp ection s, T yson F ood s was en d an

gerin g th e h ealth of th eir con su mers. O n e

wou ld b e h ard p ressed to argu e th at th e world is a b

etter

p lace as a resu lt of T yson F ood s’ b rib es.

o E -C o m m erce a n d th e L a w : T h is section p rovid es an ex

amp le of th e eth ical d ilemmas th at h ave b een created in th e

in tern et age . Sp ecifically, th e d ilemma con sists of weigh in g

th e righ ts of n ews agen cies to p rotect th e in formation th ey

gath er again st th e righ t of th e govern men t to imp rove n ation

al secu rity, th ereb y p rotectin g U .S . citizen s.

T ea ch in g tip : C h oose a cu rren t eth ical d ilemma from th e n ewsp ap er

an d ask stu d en ts to ap p ly th e W P H framework to th e d ilemma.

A p p en d ix on T h eories

of B u sin ess E th ics

E th ical relativism—A sserts th at morality is relative.

S itu ation al eth ics—A sks th e th in ker to p u t h erself in th e p

osition of th e p erson facin g an eth ical d ilemma .

C on seq u en tialism—A sks th e th in ker to con sid er th e h arms an d b

en efits of makin g a p articu lar d ecision

D eon tology—R ecogn izes th at certain action s are righ t or wron g, n o

matter th e con seq u en ces.

V irtu e eth ics—F ocu ses on in d ivid u al d evelop men t, e.g., in d

ivid u als d evelop virtu es su ch as cou rage, an d th ese virtu es

guid e b eh avior.

E th ics of care— A sks th e th in ker to focu s on carin g an d main tain in

g h u man relation sh ip s.

T ea ch in g tip : A sk stu d en ts h ow sp ecific th eories of b u sin ess

eth ics are in tegrated in to th e W P H framework.

T ea ch in g tip : F or more in formation ab ou t th eories of b u sin ess eth ics,

go to Full file at https://testbank123.eu/Solutions-Manual-for-Dynamic-Business-Law-3rd-Edition-Kubasek





thics


thics

th ese web sites:

P h ilosop h y an d eth ics on th e web :

h ttp ://www.ep istemelin ks.com/Main /E n cyR efs.asp x ? T op iC od e=E th i

S an ta C lara’ s M arkku la C en ter for A p p lied E th ics :

h ttp ://www.scu .ed u /eth ics/p racticin g/d ecision /framework.h tml

A P owerP oin t p resen tation b y E rn est A . K allman an d J oh n P . G rillo.

C lick on “ view grap h ic version .” h ttp ://www.ecs.csu n .ed u /~rlin gard /C

O MP 4 5 0 /cs4 5 0 ed m/tsld 0 0 1 .h tm

P oin t/C ou n terp oin t:

S arb an es-O x ley

A ct of 2 0 0 2

T ea ch in g tip : H ere are some q u estion s to h elp you tie th e P oin t/C ou n terp oin t in to class d iscu ssion :

Wh at main p oin t d o critics of S arb an es -O x ley make?

Wh at are th e costs of th e S arb an es-O x ley A ct?

Wh at are th e costs of n o t h a vin g th e S arb an es-O x ley A ct?

W h ich stakeh old ers most ap p reciate th e S arb an es -O x ley A

ct? Wh ich d o n ot?

C A S E B R IE F S WITH A NS WE R S TO THE QUE S

TION S

C a se 2 -1 U n ited S ta tes o f A m erica v . A lf red C a ro n ia , 5 7 6 F . S u p p .

2 d 3 8 5 (2008 ) C a se B rief

Issu

e:

D id th e d efen d an t violate th e law in p r omotin g off-lab el effects of a p rescrip tion

d ru g?

F

acts:

T h e d efen d an t, A lfred C aron ia, a sales rep resen tative for a p h armaceu tical comp an y, marketed

th e d ru g X yrem, a d ep ressan t in d u cin g sleep , to d octors. T h e FDA had reviewed the drug, and

approved it safety for th e p u rp ose of treatin g on ly on e con d ition : catap lex y, i.e. a n arcolep tic con

d ition . S everal, p oten tially d ead ly, sid e effects h ad b een associated with X yrem, an d F D A regu

lation s man d ated th at th ose u n d er th e age of 1 6 sh ou ld n ot u se th e d ru g. C aron ia was fou n d

to h ave marketed X yrem to d octors for p u rp oses n ot warran ted b y th e F D A , in clu d in g comb

atin g d aytime sleep in ess, fib romyalgia, mu scle d isord ers, ch orn ic p ain an d weigh t loss. T h ese u

ses h ad n ot b een ap p roved b y th e F D A . S o, C aron ia was marketin g off-lab el u ses for a d ru g.

P roced u ral H

istory:

T h e d efen d an t is seekin g to d ismiss allegation s of illegally marketin g X yrem for off-lab

el u ses. H old in g:






thics


thics

T h e d efen d an t’ s motion to d ismiss ch arges was d

en ied .

R eason in

g:

T h e cou rt rej ected th e d efen d an t’ s argu men t th at h e was n ot accou n t ab le in th at th e

h e p rovid ed th e coop eratin g p h ysician with th e b lack b ox warn in g th at outlin ed X

yrem’ s sid e effects. T h e reason b eh in d th is rej ection was th e estab lish ed ru le th at F D

A regu lation s p ertain in g t o th e marketin g of off-lab el u ses b y a sales rep resen tative is p

roh ib ited regard less of wh at d irection th e rep resen tative p rovid ed for th at u se.






thics


thics

T h e cou rt reason ed th at con su mers req u ire th e p rotection of regu lation s for th eir

safety to b e en su red ; th at is, con su mers wou ld h ave little awaren ess of th e h ealth h

azard s th at related to h ealth u ses th at h ave n o scien tific b asis . C on seq u en tly, b u sin

ess rep resen tatives h old a large d egree of p ower th at can b e h arn essed to make more p

rofits in th e ab sen ce of an y regu lation s on marketin g an d d ru g d istrib u tion .

A fter fin d in g th at C aron ia’ s sp eech con stitu ted commercial sp eech , th e cou rt ru led

th at th e restriction on C aron ia’ s marketin g of off-lab el u ses was con stitu tion al p u rsu

an t to th e C en tral H u d son test. S p ecif ically, u n d er th e fou rth p ron g of C en tral H u

d son , a restriction on sp eech is allowed if it is “ n ot more ex ten sive th an n ecessary to

serve [th e govern men t’ s] in terest." T h e cou rt fou n d th at, con trary to b ein g ex ten

sive, th e restriction was h igh ly n eed ed to en su re th at p atien ts were n ot given p rescrib

ed med ication s for u ses th at cou ld b e en tirely in ap p rop riate.

A n sw ers to th e q u estio n s

C ritical T h in kin g

1 .) T h e relation sh ip b etween p h armaceu tical comp an ies an d th e p h ysician s wh o p rescrib e

med ication s cou ld b e d an gerou s to p atien ts in th at p atien ts h ave little ex p ertise in med icin e

an d th e p oten tial n egative effects of d ifferen t med icin es. C on seq u en tly, were p h armaceu tical

comp an ies an d p h ysician s to team u p for th e goal of makin g a good p rofit, con su mers wou ld h

ave little ab ility to d efen d th emselves as th ey wou ld h ave little in formation ab ou t wh eth er a p

articu lar u se of a d ru g is its in ten d ed u s. P resu mab ly, con su mers go to d octors b ecau se th ey

tru st th at d octors’ in terest is in b etterin g th eir h ealth .

2 .) A t first, C aron ia’ s sp eech was d eemed to b e p rotected u n d er th e u mb rella of commercial

sp eech . T h e logic b eh in d p rotectin g commercial sp eech is th at con su mers h ave a righ t to b e

in formed ab ou t th e p rod u cts th at th ey p u rch ase. H en ce, commercial sp eech i s a n ecessary

comp on en t of a b u sin ess tran saction . A fter makin g th is p oin t, J u d ge V italian o u sed to th e

C en tral H u d son test to see if restriction s on commercial sp eech in th is case were legally j u stified

on grou n d s th at th ey su p p orted th e p u b lic in terest. J u d ge V italian o, p u rsu an t to th e fou

rth p ron g of C en tral H u d son , reason ed th at d esp ite b ein g commercial sp eech an d n ot in h

eren tly mislead in g, restriction s on C aron ia’ s sp eech was j u stified in th at th ose restriction s were

in th e in terest of p rotectin g th e h ealth of p atien ts th at receive d ru gs su ch as X yrem.

E th ical D ecision M akin g

1 .) E th ics starts with th in kin g ab ou t “ th e oth er.” G leason ’ s b eh avior sh ows little regard for th

e h ealth of “ th e oth er,” in th is case, h is p atien ts. S p ecifically, wh at makes G leason ’ s b eh avior

p articu larly morally q u estion ab le is th e n atu re of th e d octor -p atien t relation sh ip . P resu mab

ly, p atien ts go to d octors b ecau se th ey tru st th at d octors’ can p rovid e recommen d ation s regard

in g h ow to imp rove th eir h ealth . G leason b reaks th is tru st b y essen tially takin g a b rib e from O

rp h an in ex ch an ge for p romotin g th e u se of X yrem for u ses n ot ap p roved b y th e F D A . In

oth er word s, G leason is u sin g h is ex p ertise an d p osition of p ower in th e d octor-p atien t relation






thics


thics

sh ip to d eceive p atien ts in to th in kin g th at th eir n eed s are b ein g atten d ed to ad eq u ately, wh

en in reality, th eir n eed s are b ein g sign ifican tly sh ap ed b y G leason ’ s an d O rp h an ’ s

d esires to make a p rofit. T h is d ecep tion is h igh ly q u estion ab le b eh avior.

TEA C HING SK ILLS : PR A C TIC E A S K ING QUE S TIONS THA T FA C

ILITA TE UNDER S TANDING






thics


thics

P ra ctice a sking questions encourage the rea d er to :

U se th ese q u estio n s a s m o d els:

“ R ed u ce” th e d ocu men t th ey are read in g.

Wh y sh ou ld I care ab ou t th is issu e?

Wh at is th e au th or’ s con clu sion ?

Wh at is th e au th or's reason in g?

H ow d oes th e au th or's argu men t relate to th e b

road er issu e at h an d ?

Wh at terms in th e au th or's argu men t sh ou

ld b e clarified ?

C ou ld th is argu men t b e a metap h or for a more ab

stract issu e? E valu ate reason in g. Wh at sort of reason s d oes th e au th or u se to p rove h er p oin t?

A re th e reason s stated in an en gagin g man n er?

Is th e au th or u sin g statistics, su rveys, logic, or

an ap p eal to common sen se? W h at d oes each of

th ese meth od s fail to take in to accou n t? H ow

imp ortan t is th at omission to th e d etermin ation

of wh eth er you sh ou ld accep t th e reason in g?

Is th e argu men t well-con stru cted ? Is it well written ?

D oes th e au th or claim an y ab solu te tru th s? If so,

wh at?

D oes th e au th or id en tify an y d eficien cies or flaws

in h er argu men ts, or d oes sh e p resen t th e rea son in

g as flawless?

D oes th e au th or ackn owled ge th e "oth er sid e"?

H ow d ed icated is th e au th or to h er con clu sion ?

D oes th e au th or p resen t th e p ossib ility th at sh e is

wron g or misgu id ed ?

D oes th e au th or j u stify h er assu mp tion s?

Wh at assu mp tion s (related to th e p articu lar d iscip

lin e)

d oes th e argu men t su p p ort an d /or call in to q u

estion ?

C on sid er an u n familiar id ea. Wh at are th e maj or ten ets of th is b elief system? T h at is, wh at asp ects of oth er b elief p h ilosop h ies d oes th is p h ilosop h y accep t?

Is th is system of b eliefs an ex ten sion of an oth er

system?

A reaction to an oth er system?

Wh at are th e key "terms" in volved with th is id ea? H

ow are th ese terms d efin ed ?

Wh at are th e variou s p ersp ectives or ap p roach es

with in th e system?

Wh at are th e goals of th e p ersp ective/ap p roach ?

Wh at is th e ap p eal of th e argu men t/ p ersp ective?

Wh at kin d of assu mp tion s d oes th e b elief system

make ab ou t h u man n atu re? A re we resp on sib le?

Lazy? In con trol? O u t of con trol? R eason ab le? Ign

oran t? G ood ? E vil? S elf-cen tered ? O th er- cen

tered ? Full file at https://testbank123.eu/Solutions-Manual-for-Dynamic-Business-Law-3rd-Edition-Kubasek





thics


thics

Wh at evid en ce su p p orts th is p ersp ective?

Wh at kin d s of relation sh ip s ex ist b etween con cep

ts?

Is th ere a maj or con flict b etween two d omin

an t p ersp ectives, or d o man y p ersp ectives d

isagree?

Is th ere a common th read amon g th e p ersp ectives?

C an we come to a con clu s ion ab ou t th e issu e b

ased on variou s p ersp ectives?

Wh at factors con fou n d th e issu e an d p reven t a con

crete an swer?

In vestigate th e au th or/ex p ert. Wh o is th e au th or, an d wh ere is sh e "comin g from"?

H as sh e h ad su fficien t ex p erien ce an d ex p

ertise in th e su b j ect?

Wh at (if an yth in g) h as th e au th or stated in th e p

ast th at may con firm or con trad ict h is cu rren t argu

men t? If th e latter is th e case, wh at factor(s) warran t

th is con trad iction (i.e. ch an ge in id eology, p u rsu it

of material self-in terest, etc)?

Wh at is t h e au th or's in ten t for writin g th is p iece?

H ow d oes th e au th or in ten d to p ersu ad e h er au d

ien ce?

D o I agree with h er rh etorical d evices?

Is th e au th or tryin g to b e amb igu ou s or n on -lin

ear for a p u rp ose?

D oes th e au th or ackn owled ge th e "oth er sid e"?

H ow d ed i cated is th e au th or to h er con clu sion ?

Wh at stakes d o th e p articip an ts h ave in th e p

ossib le ou tcomes of th e d iscu ssion ?

Wh at valu e assu mp tion s d o th ose p articip atin g b

rin g to th e d iscou rse?

Wh at are th e d omin an t p arad igms th e writer su b

scrib es to?

Wh at d o oth er reason ab le sch olars h ave to say ab

ou t th e id ea?

Wh o are th e ex p erts on th is p articu lar issu e an d

wh y?

A re th e ex p erts’ opin ion s b ased on a p articu lar b

elief system or is it an in d ep en d en t opin ion th at d

eals with evid en ce th at th e ex p ert feels is relevan

t?

Is th e ex p ert d efen d in g a p articu lar b elief or

makin g an h on est attemp t to come to an ap p rop riate

con clu sion ?

P rob e our in d ivid u al u n d erstan d in g or

kn owled ge.

Wh at d o I alread y know ab ou t th is issu e? H ow can I

con n ect th is in formation to n ew knowled ge?

Wh ere am I "comin g from"? H ow d o I fit in to

th e au th or's view of th e world ?

H ow d o I feel read in g th is? A n gry? A mu sed ?

A mb ivalen t? W h y d o I feel th is way?

Wh at is th e b est p ossib le argu men t you cou ld con

stru ct again st th e au th or's con clu sion ?

D o I u n d e rstan d th is id ea well en ou gh to teach it?






thics


thics

O ffer closu re, e.g., wh ere d oes th is

id ea take u s?

C an we accep t th e au th or's con clu sion ? T o wh

at d egree? W ith wh at stip u lation s? W h at sh ou

ld we d o

Wou ld an oth er ep istemological ap p roach

yield a d rastically d ifferen t con clu sion ? H ave we kep t reason s an d con clu sion s sep

arate? In oth er word s, h ave we ackn owled ged th at we cou ld

afterward s?

agree with th e au th or's reason in g, b u t n everth eless, cou ld n ot en d orse h er con clu sion ? H ave we ad mitted th at we migh t agree with t h e au th or's con clu sion b u t are n ot satisfied with h er reason in g?

TEA C HING IDEA S

C on n ectin g to th e C ore

O n e way to con n ect to th e core ex p an d s th e ch ap ter’ s d iscu ssion of eth ics

an d accou n tin g. Y ou may wan t to obtain an d sh ow you r class a P B S

vid eotap e called “ B igger th an E n ron ,” availab le at:

h ttp ://www.p b s.org/wgb h /p ages/fron tlin e/sh ows/regu lation /

T h is vid eotap e ex p lores th e collap se of A rth u r A n d ersen , th e

accou n tin g firm E n ron u sed to h elp it h id e its frau d . T h e tap e

asks, “ Wh at wen t wron g? ” T each in g B asics

A fter sh owin g “ B igger T h an E n ron ,” ask th e class q u estion s th at

facilitate u n d erstan d in g. H ere are some q u estion s to get you started :

Wh at argu men t d id H ed rick S mith p resen t in th e vid eotap e?

Wh y sh ou ld b u sin ess stu d en ts care ab ou t th e argu men t an d

facts in th e vid eotap e?

Is th ere “ an oth er sid e” to th e story?

H ow d id th e vid eotap e make you feel, as an A merican citizen ? A d van ced T each in g

In "B igger T h an E n ron ," F R O N T LIN E corresp on d en t H ed rick S

mith sh ows h ow corp orate watch d ogs, e.g., lawyers, regu lators, p

olitician s, an d accou n tan ts failed to p reven t th e A rth u r A n d ersen /E

n ron scan d al. A sk you r stu d en ts to write a p ap er in wh ich th ey ex p

lore a d ifferen t in d u stry (e.g., toy man u factu rin g) to con sid er th e ex

ten t to wh ich corp orate watch d ogs h ave d isap p oin ted th e A merican p

eop le.

A B E S T PRA C TIC E S TEA C HING TIP

“ B u zz” S essio n s. T h is teach in g tech n iq u e in volves sp littin g a class u p in to small su b grou

p s, two or th ree stu d en ts p er grou p , an d su b seq u en tly, h avin g stu d

en ts ad d ress a comp lex q u estion th at can yield several d ifferen t an

swers. T h e u sefu ln ess of th is strategy for en h an cin g stu d en t learn in

g h as b een d emon strated b y






thics


thics

several ed u cation stu d ies. F or ex amp le, acc ord in g to W ilb ert J . McK

each ie

“ d ata h as fou n d th at stu d en ts in two - an d th ree-man grou p s write more n

ew






thics


thics

id eas after a five-min u te d iscu ssion th an stu d en ts workin g alon e” (6 3

). T h u s, th e u se of B u zz S ession s can p romote more stu d en t en

gagemen t, an d max imize th e p oten tial for creative th in kin g, th e cogn

itive task th at ran ks h igh est on B loom’ s T ax on omy of Learn in g. F or

more sp ecific in formation on in corp oratin g “ B u zz” S ession in to lectu

res, see “ T each in g T ip s: A G u id eb ook for th e B egin n in g C ollege T

each er.”

R eferen ces:

Wilb ert J . McK each ie, T each in g T ip s: A G u id eb ook for th e B egin n in

g

C ollege T each er, 7 th ed ., 1 9

7 8 .

A NSWE R S TO QUE S TIONS A ND PROB LEMS

1. B u sin ess law p rovid es a floor of accep tab le b eh avior. B u sin ess eth ics b u ild s on b u sin ess law. It

often h as h igh er aims for accep tab le b eh avior. 2. C lassical eth ical guid elin es su ch as th e gold en ru le, p u b lic d isclosu re test, an d u n iversalization test

always p rovid es some sort of guid an ce. O n e b eh avior is rarely as good as th e n ex t. 3. T h e WP H ap p roac h p rovid es a p ractical set of ru les for th in kers to follow as th ey sort ou t h ow to

resp on d to an eth ical d ilemma. 4. In a c tua l ity, the c ourt rul ed in fa vor of Ka pl a n, c l a iming tha t there wa s n’t enough s c ientific

evidenc e to s upport the c ontention tha t hi ring ba s ed on c redit his tory disproportiona l l y a ffec

ted bl a c k s nega tivel y. However, ba s ing a hiring dec ision prima ril y on c redit reports is potentia l

l y unfa ir to minorities , or a nyone who ha s l ittl e a l terna tive but to go into debt in order to ha ve a c

c es s t o ba s ic needs. The rea s on for this injus tic e is ba s ed on the infl uenc e of the environment on

individua l s . M ore c onc retel y, thos e l iving in poverty often ha ve l ittl e a c c es s to educ a tion, a nd

thu s , fa c e the often imposs ibl e ta s k of overc oming poverty. C redi t is often us ed a s a means to buy

goods or services when one does not have the inc ome to a fford s uc h goods a nd s ervic es . Thes e

goods c a n inc l ude very ba s ic goods necessary for living a n a dequa te l ife, s uc h a s food, wa ter, a

nd s hel ter, a nd s ervices can incl ude basic services such as hospital or medic a l c osts . A s a c ons

equenc e, it is potentia l l y unfa ir to ba s e a hiring dec ision on c redit his tories bec a us e thos e his

tories c a n be l es s repres enta tive of how res pons ibl e or produc tive s omeone is, a nd more repres

enta tive of s impl y s omeone’s ha ving a very l ow - inc ome with few c hoic es but to go into debt to a

fford ba s ic goods a nd s ervic es . This case gained a lot of media attention, and therefore, did potentially

a ffec t other c ompa nies ’ us e of c redit his tories in their hiring proc es s . It did not nec es s arily

change most c ompa nies ’ beha vior, but its media a ttention potentia l l y ma de peopl e a t minimum

more a wa re of the potentia l disc rimina tory effec ts of reviewing c redit his tories to ma k e hiring dec

isions.

5 . The Supreme C ourt rul ed, in a 5 - 4 dec ision, in fa vor of Wa l ma rt. The ba s is for this rul ing was the

Court’s viewing tha t the pl a intiffs did not ha ve enough in common to constitute a class. While Walmart

may have won in pa rt a s a res ul t of the s ubsta ntia l a mount of pow er it hol ds in the U.S. by s uppl

ying ma ny hou s ehol ds with es s entia l goods, it is a l s o proba bl e tha t the C ourt’s dec ision wa s l a

rgel y a res ul t of the domina nt va l ues on the benc h tha t propel the view tha t ma rk ets a nd l a bor

disputes a re bes t res ol ved when government intrus ion is l imited.





full file at ...€¦ · law an d b u sin ess eth ics related ? t h e legality of th e d ecision is...

Documents