Business Ethics :(

11. According to Stone, managers should always seek to maximize profits because this goal serves as a "polestar"—pursuing it leads to benefits for all stakeholders. a. True b. False

.B-maybe the reason we should act like there's a contract between CEOs and shareholders because pursing the benefits between all stakeholders is not realistic

8. Friedman's argument for shareholder primacy is based in... a. Libertarianism. b. Utilitarianism. c. Feminisism. d. Teleology.

A- free and willing contracts

3. According to Orlando, most shareholders do not have a reasonable expectation of input into the firm's decision-making. a. True b. False

A-the idea that shareholders are in charge of what happens seems to be fictional, it's not like owning shares in a company makes you able to tell the CEO what to do

5. According to Bok, employees have a defeasible (i.e., non-absolute) obligation to go along with their employer's wishes. a. True b. False

A-they don't have to but they should

4. According to Hochshild, emotional labor is... a. when a firm's workforce is too emotional to complete its work. b. when an employer requires employees to induce or suppress emotions as part of the job. c. Both a and b D. None of the above

B

15. According to the ideology of colorblind racism, racial inequalities are explained by the biological inferiority of racial minorities. a. True b. False

B- colorblind racism says they have a fair shot but market forces and cultural limitations don't work out

14. According to Shaw, most proponents of affirmative action policies think that non-discrimination policies are sufficient on their own to rectify race- and gender-based hiring inequalities. a. True b. False

B- good but won't completely do it

2. According to Orlando, a manager's fiduciary responsibility to shareholders requires that the manager must always put shareholder interests ahead of employee interests. a.true b.false

B- the point of the Orlando paper is that it's wrong to say shareholder interests should be put ahead of employee interest-- fiduciary responsibility is not well defined enough and certainly does not say that shareholders should be put above employees

7. According to Duska, an individual cannot be loyal to a group of any kind. a. True b. False

B- there's some groups they can be loyal to but not all

9. According to Friedman, shareholders are only ever interested in profits for themselves. a. True b. False

B- too strong of a claim, of course sometimes people will be interested in other things but officially you should focus on what you have been contracted to do

10. In an agent-principal relationship, the agent is bound to act in the interests of the principal, no matter what the principal wants. a. True b. False

B-too strong of a claim, there are certain moral limitations

13. According to Shaw, affirmative action is a form of reverse job discrimination. a. True b. False

B-way of trying to make things more fair

1. In the context of employment-at-will... a. employers must hire only employees who exhibit a good will (in Kant's sense). b. employers may fire employees only with two weeks' notice and severance pay. c. employees may quit their jobs only with two weeks' notice to their employers. d. None of the above

D- it means that either party can stop at any time

6. Which of the following are among considerations Bok says would-be whistleblowers should take into account before blowing the whistle? a. The truth of the accusation to be made b. The harms and benefits whistleblowing will bring to the public c. The harms and benefits whistleblowing will bring to the firm and its employees d. The harms and benefits whistleblowing will bring to the whistleblower e. All of the above

E

12. According to Freeman, which of the following parties are among the stakeholders in a firm's success? a. the firm's stockholders b. the firm's bondholders c. the firm's employees d. the local community e. All of the above

E-they all have a stake in how the firm runs

2. According to Hochshild, employers owe employees a certain sort of respect as fellow human beings when setting working conditions. What sorts of working conditions fail to take into account an employee's interests/worth/dignity? (Feel free to appeal to "The Glass Floor" document here.) Can such working conditions be ethically justified? If so, how? If not, what are employers required to do?

Employers owe a respect as fellow human beings to their employees to not treat them as an instrument. Employers violate their employee's worth when enforcing physical labor that causes the employee to feel that they no longer own themselves. One working condition, more relevant in today's society is emotional labor. This takes place when employees are required to express certain emotions and suppress others in order to maximize profits for the company. This is frequent in occupations where a service is provided such as the restaurant industry or telephone operator where the "customer is always right" and its always "my pleasure." This requires an unnatural coordination between mind and feelings. These conditions can be justified to an extent. The employee's job is to assist the company in maximizing profits but their integrity should not be completely consumed by this overall goal that the employee and company share. Employees should be pleasant in order to obtain business but in return customers must be respectful and not abuse the emotional labor obligations that employees obtain. Some employees are faced with the trade off between sacrificing dignity to maximize profits. In cases where tips are a main source of income worth and dignity are often traded off for extra profit. In this situation I feel it is not ethical and there is no way to justify sacrificing worth for more profit gain. Emotional labor can induce or suppress emotions. An example is an airline employee who is supposed to be smiley, and their smile is their biggest asset. They are supposed to promote timeliness, safe travels, and an invitation to return. A smile is an attitude, viewpoint, and feeling that is being pushed into a professional setting. It is hard to suppress these feelings after work.

5. Freeman provides an argument for stake holder primacy : the doctrine that managers should run a company in a way that benefits each group that plays an important role in the success of a company. What, on Freeman's view, is the basis for managerial obligations to stakeholders? I.e., if I am a manager, why should I work in the interests of not only stockholders but also employees, bondholders, customers, suppliers, etc.? Freeman is not very clear on what it actually means to manage a company for the benefit of all stakeholders. Imagine you are the manager of a company that could marginally improve its profits by moving a manufacturing plant overseas but only at the cost of devastating a community. How do you think Freeman would approach this decision? Do you think this as a good approach? Why or why not?

Freeman's stakeholder primacy believes in calculating each group that takes a part in the success of a company and their wellbeing when making a business decision. He believes that the greatest good for the greatest number has problematic results like tragedy of the commons. He emphasizes the question to be asked, " For whose benefit and at whose expense should the firm be managed?" He wants to promote the interests of all those involved the manager, owners, community, suppliers and even customers when making a business decision and weighs them all as equal. Therefore Freeman would oppose to moving a manufacturing plant overseas to maximize profits even if it only negatively impacted the community. Freeman may attempt to compare the benefits of everyone involved such as suppliers, employees, shareholders and managers and compare them to the losses of those who live in the community. If more people do benefit Freeman would probably consider moving the factory but the deciding factor would be if out of everyone involved in the company a majority benefited. Freeman has a good approach that is seems ethical since it incorporates all those involved and considers their wellbeing and not just analyzing the shareholders income and profit like Freidman would. Although Freeman's approach could be timely and costly when making a business decision since all inputs of the company are being evaluated and this may cause slow growth for many businesses.The stakeholder primacy theory says that shareholders aren't the only ones who deserve considerations from the managers. Groups being considered should also include bondholders, customers, suppliers, management, employees and the local community. For example, a plant moving overseas would benefit bondholders, shareholders, customers, some employees, and some customers, and management. The stakeholders at risk for that situation would be the local community and some employees. Telogical reasoning would ask what the gain on the institution was, because flourishing is the goal. A manger should ask themselves what their duty is. Consequentialist reasoning would analyze the consequences and say that it is morally wrong to hurt others to benefit the mass; a utilitarian would do what is best for the most amount of people.

4. Friedman provides a Libertarian argument for shareholder primacy: the doctrine that managers should run a company in a way that maximizes shareholder value. What, on Friedman's view, is the basis for managerial obligations to shareholders? I.e., if I am a manager, why should I work in the interests of stockholders as opposed to employees or bondholders or citizens of the United States? According to Friedman, when a corporate executive acts to promote social objectives she is illegitimately coercing or deceiving the stockholders of the corporation. Why does he say this? Evaluate this argument: would corporate executives really be doing the right thing if they were to pursue profit and the ultimate effect would be to harm the prospective well-being of others? (Stone's criticism is relevant here.) Why or why not?

Friedman holds a libertarian argument for shareholder primacy. He believes the basis for managerial obligations to shareholders is to maximize profits. He believes in individual responsibility; businesses and managers can't be socially responsible. He basis this off the principle/agent relationship in which managers are agents of the owners—they act on behalf of their principle (shareholders). If a manager acts on social responsibility or social objectives they would be spending someone else's money (the stockholders). The promissory argument states managers promise to maximize shareholder's profits, so they are obligated to do so, but Stone says there is no such literal promise. Another argument is the principle agent argument which states that managers are the agents of their employers. Stone says there are lots of legal limits on manager's agency for owners and most firms are not set up like that. Third is the role based obligation argument in which roles come with responsibility; the role of a manager brings the responsibility to maximize shareholder profits. Stone says the role of a manger comes with competing responsibilities. The role of managers to shareholders is not sacred, managers are also responsible for employees and customers. Lastly is the polestar argument which is managers acting as if they are responsible only for maximizing profits for shareholders but also stating that this would be beneficial for everyone. Stone says there are too many exceptions, corporations get out of control when they are regularly aiming for the polestar. All in all, Friedman believes managers are obligated to seek profits to respect their deal with shareholders and Stone believes there is no such deal; no way to justify shareholder primacy.

1. According to Orlando, employers should not be allowed to ignore employee interests when they make hiring and firing decisions. Of the arguments for ignoring employee interests that Orlando considers, which do you think is the strongest? Compare and contrast with Orlando's counter-argument. Is there any positive moral argument for Orlando's conclusion? If so, what is it? Do you find it persuasive? Why or why not?

I think the strongest argument Orlando makes against ignoring employee's interests is in his evaluation of risks taken between the employees and the shareholders. Orlando argues that employees take major risks based off of legitimate expectations from the company. Employees base important life choices on these expectations such as investments, major purchases, where to live and raise a family, and which job to take. With the heavy risks that employees undertake when committing to a job their interests must be accounted for. I think that this argument is Orlando's strongest justification for weighing in employee's interest because it highlights all the commitment and trust that employees invest into a company while uncovering the minimal commitment or sacrifices investors have to make. When comparing the two also calculating the negative outcomes of not considering employees interests which are much more detrimental than downsizing in favor of the investors. This argument is very persuasive because it rejects the strongest counter argument that utilitarian's propose that layoffs provide a majority benefit. Some argue that there are implied contracts among corporate investors, managers and employees. Orlando argues an implied contract would require a balance of power, which doesn't exist. The positive moral argument that Orlando provides is that he assesses the individuals input into the company not only as a matter of finances, which is important in business ethics. Comparing the inputs and outputs portrays putting employees interests superior. I find it persuasive because if they are equal, you cant harm some employees to benefit the higher up employees because you arent treating them like they have equal rights.It is not morally justifiable to downsize a business to increase profits. Downsizing leads to a drop in employee earnings, larger gaps between the rich and poor, depression, drug use, and suicide. Shareholders are the legal owners with property rights but that is all they should be, investors. Corporations are not for personal use. Shareholders take the risk on the capital investment, but this is not grounds for downsizing and jeopardizing employee's livelihood. A risk is also taken by the employees that invested time and money into school to obtain a job that might not always be there. A utilitarianism view would say that downsizing is unethical because it is morally wrong to harm others to benefit the shareholders. Management and shareholders receive benefits from downsizing but employees get the downside of downsizing. Orlando believes that management has all responsibility in moral and ethical decisions. He believes in all these issues, management should take the blame after looking at shareholder, public, and employees viewpoint.

6. How should someone respond when they benefit from an unjust system and the victims of the system try to rectify it? The evidence establishes that there are economic disparities between whites and non-whites, as well as between men and women. Shaw and Bonilla-Silva both argue that these disparities are the result of an unjust system. Why do they think race/gender relations in the US are unjust? Evaluate these arguments. If they work, how should people who benefit from the unjust system respond? If they don't work, what accounts for the economic disparities?

Job discrimination is an employment decision that harms or disadvantages an employee, is based on group member ship not merit, and rests on prejudice and false stereotypes. From a moral status it is wrong from all perspectives. Bonilla-Silvas problem is that lots of white people think the old days of racism are over. The thesis of Bonilla-Silva is that color blind racism insulates white people from racial inequality. Colorblind racism is not overt or biological. Racial inequality is due cultural differences and natural tendencies to segregate. The fundamental attribution error is split into in-group and out-group mistakes. In-group mistakes are flaws due to circumstances, out-group mistakes are flaws due to character and fundamental nature. What we can do about colorblind racism is non discrimatory actions and affirmative action. As an individual you can attend to bias, learn your psychology and be aware, and as a group we can act well individually and speak out to influence people.

3. What, according to Bok, are the key interests to consider when someone is deciding whether to be a whistleblower? What advice does Bok give to potential whistleblowers that involves these features? Do you agree? Why or why not? Bok and Duska disagree about whether employees owe any loyalty to the firms for which they work. What does each claim? Why? Defend one of these positions. Be sure to take into account the arguments of the other in your defense.

Key interests to consider when deciding to be a whistle blower is the (1) fairness of the accusation, (2) exploring alternative ways to cope that minimize breaching of loyalty and (3) checking on accuracy and judgment of dissent. He advises that whistle blowing should be avoided because it has destructive outcomes but if there is no other alternative one should be aware and consider. A unnecessary or invalid whistle blow could cause the company to face financial harm that they do not deserve and also place the whistle blower at risk. I agree and disagree with his advice because i think it depends on the situation. Bok views whistle blowing as an act that violates loyalty to the company. Duska disagrees; he fails to see the obligation of loyalty to the company because companies are not things that deserve loyalty. I defend Duska because I think that it is more important to have loyalty to society than to your company. Strict loyalty to companies could result in corruption. And companies should not get away with unethical actions that negatively impact society due to employees feeling obligated to remain loyal to their company.Whistleblowing is like sounding an alarm from within an organization to spotlight neglect of or harm to public interest. For example, a nurse telling the public that doctors at the hospital are recommending unnecessary surgeries. Bok spotlights 3 aspects of whistleblowing. The first being dissent, which is when whistleblowers expose their employer's negligence or abuse. The second is accusation which is when whistleblowers accuse specific parties of specific acts of neglect of or harm to public interest. The third is a breach of loyalty which is when the whistleblower "calls foul" on their "own team." According to Bok, whistleblowing is bad if the accusation is false or private and bad if done for personal gain. Whistleblowing is good if it concerns important matter of public interest. Bok and Duska are in agreement about employees never being morally obligated to commit immoral acts but they don't agree on where the lines should be drawn on employee loyalty. Bok thinks there is a defeasible presumption of loyalty, and Duska thinks there is no such presumption. Duska is against loyalty because he thinks individuals and groups of individuals are united by a common purpose of who to be loyal to. He believes you cannot be loyal to companies.