Study Guides (380,000)
CA (150,000)
UTSC (10,000)
MGS (50)

MGSC14H3 Study Guide - Final Guide: Corporate Title, Consequentialism, Nuclear Family

Management (MGS)
Course Code
Peter P Constantinou
Study Guide

This preview shows pages 1-3. to view the full 14 pages of the document.
- makes a distinction between the state of nature and the state of society, with the state of nature
being conceived of as pre-political.
- Traditionally associated with libertarianism, democracy, and republicanism.
Each person participating in a practice, or affected by it, has an equal right to the most extensive
liberty compatible with a like liberty for all; and second, inequalities are arbitrary unless it is reasonable to
expect that they will work out for everyone’s advantage, and provide the positions and offices to which
they attach, or from which they may be gained, or open to all.
Rawls believes that strength of his principles rests in the fundamental assumption of fairness as having
primacy in any notion of justice.
rational self-interest is the foundation for the contract.
reasoning autonomous agency is what counts in the original position, as well as the capacity for
abstract consideration of the principles of equality of liberty and difference. This excludes many classes of
persons as well non-human sentient beings.

Only pages 1-3 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Loyal Agent’s Argument
- Gulf had no reason to believe or suspect that the motive of the employee or officer involved in
such use of corporate funds was anything other than a desire to act solely on what he considered to
be the best interests of gulf and its shareholders.
- What they did was admittedly illegal, but they meant well. Had good intentions, namely, to further
“the best interests of Gulf and its shareholders.”
- They would and do perform immoral and illegal actions with altruistic motives, i.e., there are
people who would and do perform such actions with reasons they regard as good.
- They are stupidly altruistic by hypothesis.
Loyal Agent’s Argument
1. As a loyal agent of some principal, I ought to serve his interests as he would serve them
himself if he had my expertise.
2. He would serve his own interests in a thoroughly egoistic way.
3. Therefore, as a loyal agent of this principal, I ought to operate in a thoroughly egoistic way
in his behalf.
AN AGENT = a person who is authorized to act for a principal and has agreed so to act, and who has
power to affect the legal relations of his principal with a third party.
- they are not distinguished from regular employees
RELATIONSHIP : principal agent third party
1. going public with information about the safety of a product
2. sounding an alarm from within the very organization in which [an employee] works, aiming to
spotlight neglect or abuses that threaten the public interest
3. When the employee, “without support or authority from his superiors… independently makes
known concerns to individuals outside the organization.”

Only pages 1-3 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

4. A whistleblower is an employee or officer of any institution, profit or non-profit, private or public,
who believes either that he/she has been ordered to perform some act or he/she has obtained
knowledge that the institution is engaged in activities which (a) are believed to cause unnecessary
harm to third parties, (b) are in violation of human rights or (c) run counter to the defined purpose
of the institution and who informs the public of this fact.
- it is seen as a series of actions, not just one act
- it is characterized as a mode of communication
- Part being communicated is Safety of a product
- Corruption, bribery, mismanagement, inefficiency
- Activities believed to be causing unnecessary harm to third parties.
- An action is harmful if it violates human rights.
- Conflicting goals of institutions, their members and the public that generates the dilemma
Involves accusation
Loyalty of superior vs. the company… which goals and objectives should you follow?
Individual not only seeks greater power, but seeks protection that public scrutiny brings.
Anonymity is neutral, lying in the middle ground between secrecy and privacy: it entails that the public
does not know or have access to the identity of an individual, but does not locate the burden of proof in
withholding information.
- Bad: Its seen as snitching behind someone’s back.
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version