Class Notes (839,478)
Canada (511,349)
Philosophy (272)
PHIL 215 (40)
Lecture

PHIL215-2012-11-01-ProfessorBrianOrend.pdf

5 Pages
108 Views

Department
Philosophy
Course Code
PHIL 215
Professor
Brian Orend

This preview shows pages 1 and half of page 2. Sign up to view the full 5 pages of the document.
Description
Notice any mistakes in the notes? Let me know via an instant msg on the right -> Are you a good notes-taker? Looking for a collaborator: e-mail me at [email protected] PHIL 215 Lecture #8 Today: 1. Midterms Returned Next Week 2. Chill out! 3. Finish Pinto + Product Safety 4. Intellectual Property Ford Pinto Continued: The Classic Case of Business Ethics 1. Failure as Business Calculation (See cost comparison from last lecture’s notes) 2. Moral Failure 3. Legal Failure -> FORD guilty of NEGLIGENCE: a) Failure to act as a reasonable person would b) This violates a duty of care c) Resulting in harm to others (exploding cards: death, injury) 1. Ruthless, Selfish Cost-Benefit Analysis: Ford did not do consequential calculus for everyone - only did it for its own profit (putting the cost on others: their own customers!). Not only that, Ford failed in its own Marketing Analysis because it did not consider “Confirmation Advertising” - Existing Customers Crucial 2. Cost-Benefit Standard vs. Rights-Respecting Standard: Cost-benefit: aggregating pleasure vs. pains across a population. Rights-based: respecting all individuals in a population 2A: Problem: Quantifies things that can’t be quantified: life / death, injuries - McDonalds hot coffee example 2B: Problem: Ignores distribution of these costs & benefits within a population 2c: Problem: Ignores the existence of Rights not to be harmed, Right to be informed of risk Negligence has 3 elements: 1. Failure to act as a reasonable person would. LAW: rules / standards for behaviour, which makes society better. Can’t set standards too high because: - People aren’t perfect, nor saints - Widespread disobedience Can’t set standards too low because: - People will do terrible things! - Anarchy! “Goldilocks” Standard: Standard of the reasonable average person. In Ford Pinto’s case, Ford could have done any of these things: 1. Fix It: $21 million in recall costs 2. Fix It: Share the cost with customers, or pass it all onto them ($11 per car) 3. R.C.C would have fully informed the consumer of risk & let them take it themselves. Bad Ethics -> Bad Business. Product Safety: 1. Negligence (Pinto) 2. Breach of Warranty: (Warranty: promise that a product will adhere to a certain standard) Explicit: Written on a piece of paper Implicit: Intrinsic to purchase of good: “This good will do what it’s designed to do for at least 1 month” (To prevent fraud) 3. Strict Liability: Even if you’ve done nothing wrong, you might still be held liable for your products: If damage ordinarily comes about from the use of your goods (e.g.: firecracker, knifes, guns, gym equipment, lawn mowers) The notion is: the damage is done, who should pay for the damage? We decided as a public policy that the company should pay at least a portion of the damage - otherwise switch business. The reason that big ticket items that you think would be sueable by strict liability, like alcohol, tobacco, pharmaceuticals, cars are not is because these companies have really large sums of money and because of this reason they’re exempt from Strict Liability. Minimal Liability: 1. Rigorous product testing 2. Huge warning labels + clear instruction guides 3. Adhere any social safety codes I.S.O 9000/12000 etc 4. *Keep up with the industry state of the art Aside: Judge Learned Hand: - 1900-1907 - Ship smashing into the harbour of a big city, destroying the harbour - City sues the ship company for damages - Ship Company states that they followed all safety standards (flag-signal method), not negligent, but still crashed. - But Learned Hand asserted that use of radio is reasonable, thus precedent-setting to find a whole industry negligent. Aside: Viagra / Cialis takes advantage of fineprint product safety requirement to advertise its products. Intellectual Property: 1. Definitions + Importance: Definitions: Property: right to own things - things follow rights. Intellectual: As opposed to physical; ideas, especially creative ideas: entertainment, architecture, software design, inter
More Less
Unlock Document

Only pages 1 and half of page 2 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit