Study Guides (390,000)
CA (150,000)
UTSC (10,000)
MGS (50)
Midterm

All Notes before Midterm


Department
Management (MGS)
Course Code
MGSC14H3
Professor
Andrew Stark
Study Guide
Midterm

This preview shows pages 1-2. to view the full 6 pages of the document.
MGTC59 โ€“ Ethics
Neo-classical โ€“ Whatever law and market allow
Corporate Social Responsibility
๎€Whether law will prevent you from doing such activity one day. Then you shouldnโ€™t do that activity
now
๎€Not regulated now but could be in the future, then shouldnโ€™t be doing it now
By doing so you may lose profits and not keep up with the competition, but you show the marketplace you
compete ethically and get better trust in long run. โ€œethics paysโ€ being rewarded in long run for being
ethical today.
Business Ethics
1.Ethical doesnโ€™t not equal heading off the law or doing what market will reward in the long run
If doing the right thing and profitable thing are the same thing you only make profits if your doing it for
the right thing, not the profitable thing
Ethics = profits
Because it is the ethical not because it is profitable
Doing the right thing because it is right or ethical will bring you profits
Problem of Dirty Hands
Situation where every action a person can take they will be morally wrong.
Use the self interest motivation to get them to do the right thing
Moral Theory
Utilitarianism โ€“ right thing to do is greatest amount of good for the great amount of people.
Profolactive law โ€“ prevents you in situation in doing something wrong, everything if caught you may not
be doing something wrong.
Act utilitarianism โ€“ find the act that would bring about the great good to society.
Action was right if and only if such action, on balance, brought more good over bad than any other action
that was possible.
Rule Utilitarianism โ€“ better society would result if we did that in all circumstances (doesnโ€™t capture what
we value)
www.notesolution.com

Only pages 1-2 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

If adopting the rule โ€œdo not lieโ€ results in better consequences for general welfare than the rule โ€œlie
whenever you likeโ€ then the rule utilitarianism would adopt the rule โ€œdo not lieโ€
Difference is that rule util is willing to accept that individual actions can cause more harm than good, but
if following the rule on balance produces more good then the individual harm is justified.
E.g. of this difference โ€“ if a friend has a large, disfiguring mark on his face and asks if it is noticeable, the
kind lie that it is not noticeable might protect his feelings. Overall, however, lying would lead to an
inability of people to know when to trust what anyone said. So the rule util would argue that the
individual pain caused by telling the person the truth about his face is on balance, out weighted by the
good of truth-telling.
Criticism of utilitarianism
Problem of Defining goods - what is good for one person is not necessarily good for another. Maximizing
good for all may only apply to the lowest common denominator of goods and never approach higher-order
goods and values that are unimportant to the avg. person.
Problem with means-to-ends justification - What if torturing an innocent child indefinitely could end
world poverty? The Util would have to accept the torture of the chid. Doesnโ€™t seem right?
Paradox of the Harms - In Act Util. by looking at each act separately you may not see the overall impact
of harm. Rule util. if obeying the rule that optimizes welfare, you may in fact do harm to some people
Deontology
An action is moral, independent of its consequences and based solely on purely rational ethical belief,
derived through the reason that is available to all mature, intelligent, reasoning human beings.
Kant believed that God had provided all human beings with the same rational faculties, moral laws
derived through reason are universal and absolute.
Kant believed that the practical implications was that, when thinking about moral act, one had to
consider whether it could be universalized as an action and further, that in considering human beings,
one should always treat them as ends in the themselves, not as means to some other end.
Criticisms
Counterintuitive Aspect โ€“ 9 seats on a lifeboat but there are 10ppl. Kant says life cannot be used as a
means to an end, therefore all 10 should die instead of one dying and 9 living.
KANT โ€“ Categorical Imperative โ€“ if everyone did what I am thinking of doing, would there be any point in
doing it? Can you still achieve what your trying to do? (e.g. cheating on a test to get a higher mark)
๎€ If the answer is NO ( cant achieve) then its wrong (not moral)
www.notesolution.com
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version