Chap ter 0 2 - B usiness E thics
Dynamic Business Law 3rd Edition Kubasek SOLUTIONS MANUAL Full clear download (no error formatting) at: http://testbanklive.com/download/dynamic-business-law-3rd-edition-kubaseksolutions-manual/ Dynamic Business Law 3rd Edition Kubasek TEST BANK Full clear download (no error formatting) at: http://testbanklive.com/download/dynamic-business-law-3rd-edition-kubasektest-bank/
Ch ap t er 2 - Bu sin ess Et h ics C HA PTER OVE R VIE W C h ap ter T wo ex p lain s th e fu n d amen tals of b u sin ess eth ics an d social resp on sib ility. It also p rovid es a framework th at allows stu d en ts to en gage with eth ics an d social resp on sib ility material. This framework is imp ortan t b ecau se it takes away stu d en ts’ ten d en cy to b elieve q u estion s of eth ics are simp ly matters of op in ion . C on sid er askin g you r stu d en ts to u se th e “ WP H framework” th rou gh ou t th e cou rse.
LEA R NING OB JE C TIVE S A fter read in g th is ch ap ter, stu d en ts w ill b e ab le to an swer th e followin g q u estion s: 1. Wh at are b u sin ess eth ics an d th e social resp on sib ility of b u sin ess? 2. H ow are b u sin ess law an d b u sin ess eth ics related ? 3. H ow can we u se th e W P H framework for eth ical b u sin ess d e cision s?
LEC TUR E NOTES WITH D E F INITIONS
Chap ter 0 2 - B usiness E 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:
Wh at are b u sin ess eth ics an d th e social resp on sib ility of b u sin ess?
“ 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 E th ics cigarettes? 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. 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,is su ch as teen agers? Business ethics 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
Chap ter 0 2 - B usiness E 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.
H ow are b u sin ess law an d b u sin ess eth ics related ? H ow can we u se th e WP H framework for eth ical b u sin ess d ecision s?
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 cod e of con d u ct p yramid con T h e legality ofsthinethd eecision is th e min imal stan d parudt th at su mumer st bneeed met.s an d h on esty at th e forefron t of th e b u sin ess’ s obj ectives. 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 legal resu obedresp ien on ce to T eawh ch at in is g tip : Hwith ow wh areatthise eth conical. cep E ts th of ics ethpics an mes d social T h e W P H framework p rovid es p rac tical step s for resp on d in g to an eth law. sib ility d ifferen t? D o th ey overlap ? 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
Chap ter 0 2 - B usiness E 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.
A p p en d ix on T h eories of B u sin ess E th ics
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 E th ical relativism—A sserts th at morality is relative. th e righ ts of n ews agen cies to p rotect th e in formation th ey S itu ation al eth ics—A sks th e th in ker to p u t h erself in th e p gath er again st th e righ t of th e govern men t to imp rove n ation osition of th e p erson facin g an eth ical d ilemma . al secu rity, th ereb y p rotectin g U .S . citizen s. 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 T ea ch in g tip : C h oose a cu rren t eth ical d ilemma from th e n ewsp ap er eon action stoarethrigh t or wron g, n o an dDask stutology—R d en ts to ecogn ap p lyizes th ethWatPcertain H framework e d ilemma. 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
Chap ter 0 2 - B usiness E 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:
Chap ter 0 2 - B usiness E 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.
Chap ter 0 2 - B usiness E 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
Chap ter 0 2 - B usiness E 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
Chap ter 0 2 - B usiness E thics
P ra ctice a sking questions encourage the rea d er to : “ R ed u ce� th e d ocu men t th ey are read in g.
E valu ate reason in g.
C on sid er an u n familiar id ea.
U se th ese q u estio n s a s m o d els: 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 stractatissu Wh sort e? 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 ethaue th oror j uten stify tion s? Wh at are maj etshoferthassu is bmp elief system? Th atWh is, at whassu at asp oth er b to elief ilosoplar h ies d mpects tionof s (related th ep ph articu d iscip lin e)oes th is p h ilosop h y accep t? th is of b eliefs ex an tendsion of an dIsoes th system e argu men t su p an p ort /or call in oth to qeru system? estion ? 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 ?
Chap ter 0 2 - B usiness E 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?
In vestigate th e au th or/ex p ert.
P rob e our in d ivid u al u n d erstan d in g or kn owled ge.
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 p ersp Wh oonisvariou th e aus th or, anectives? d wh ere is sh e "comin g from"? Wh at factors con fou n d th e issu e an d p reven t a con H as sh h ad su fficien t ex p erien ce an d ex p crete an eswer? 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?Wh at d o I alread y know ab ou t th is issu e? H ow can I A re th e ex p erts’ opin ion s b ased on a p articu lar b con ect th is to en n ew ge?th at d eliefnsystem orin is formation it an in d ep d enknowled t opin ion Wh I "comin g from"? H ow d ofeels I fit isinrelevan to eals ere witham evid en ce th at th e ex p ert th t? e au th or's view of th e world ? d opI ert feeld read g th A n gry? mu sed IsHthowe ex efen in d in g ais? p articu lar A b elief or ? A mb ivalen t? W h y d o I feel th is way? makin g an h on est attemp t to come to an ap p rop riate Wh th e ?b est p ossib le argu men t you cou ld con con at cluission 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?
Chap ter 0 2 - B usiness E 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 afterward s? 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 s, h ave we ackn owled ged th at we cou oth er word ld 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 le. C HING TIP A B E S T PRA C TIC Eeop S TEA “ 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
Chap ter 0 2 - B usiness E 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
Chap ter 0 2 - B usiness E 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 78.
A NSWE R S TO QUE S TIONS A ND PROB LEMS 1. 2. 3. 4.
5.
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 eth h igh er guid aimselin for accep tabaslethb eehgold avior. C lassical ical es su ch en ru le, p u b lic d isclosu re test, an d u n iversalization test always p rovid someh sort of guid ce. O n set e bof ehruavior is rarely as good as th easnthexeyt. sort ou t T h e WP H ap es p roac p rovid es a an p ractical les for th in kers to follow h ow to resp on d to an eth ical d ilemma. 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 The Supreme ourt rul in a 5vior, - 4 dec in fa vor of Wa lpotentia ma rt. The s isdefor this rul was the change most cCompa niesed,’ beha butision, its media a ttention l l ybama peopl e a ing t minimum Court’s viewing tha t the pl a intiffs did not ha ve enough in common to constitute a class. While Walmart 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 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 isions. 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.
Chap ter 0 2 - B usiness E thics
6.
7.
T h e cou rt ru led th at th e F irst A men d men t d oes n ot give med ia agen cies th e righ t to record or b road cast an ex ecu tion from with in a p rison . If E N I h ad ap p lied th e G old en R u le, it migh t h ave d emon strated more sen sitivity to T imoth y McV eigh ’ s family. It is u n likely h is family wou h ave wanted tedathsuemmary world to th et in exfavor ecu tion T h eldcou rt gran j uwatch d gmen of th. e d octors, p h armacies, an d d ru g man u factu rers. P rice’ s wron gfu l con d u ct p reclu d ed h im from mo vin g forward again st th e d octors,
Chap ter 0 2 - B usiness E thics
p h armacies, an d d ru g man u factu rers. In p articu lar, h e obtain ed th e d ru g th rou gh h is own frau d , d ecep tion , an d su b terfu ge. H e misrep resen ted h is med ical h istory in a q u est to get O x ycon tin . If th e cou rt h ad allowed P rice to move forward , it wou ld h ave reward ed h im for h islanb ad b eheravior couaraged er ose d ecep ru g seekers 8. A d own d oesann dotenowe d u tyoth to th wh tive o ared lawfu lly u p to onfile h islawsu or h erits.p rop erty to warn th em again st d efective or d an gerou s con d ition s wh ich eman ate from outsid e th at p rop erty. H owever, it is likely th at C lark h ad a moral d u ty to warn G alin d o. U n d er an eth ic of care, C lark cou ld h ave focu sed on main tain in g h is h u man relation sh ip with G alin d o. A lso, th e 9 . gold en ru le su p p orts th e id ea th at you sh ou ld d o you r b est to look out for oth ers. T h e S u p reme C ou rt ru led in favor of C ap erton on grou n d s th at C E O con trib u tion s to th e camp aign of J u stice B en j amin p rob ab ly created in a b ias th at wou ld resu lt in J u stice B en j amin lean in g toward s M assey C oal C omp an y. T h e C ou rt imp licitly d id seem to accep t th at th e in volvemen t of J u stice B en j amin was u n fair. O n e reason for b ein g u n eth ical is tied to th e p rin cip le in th e legal system th at everyon e is en titled to a trial govern ed b y reason . In th is case, rath er th an opp osed to ap p ealin g to reason , on e cou ld en vision th e J u stice ru lin g in favor of th e C E O as essen tially a rep aymen t for h is camp aign con trib u tion s. T h is was h ow th e C ou rt reason ed . H owever, it is imp ortan t to n otice th at, like most eth ical issu es, th ere was a cou n terargu men t again st th e maj ority ru lin g in two d issen tin g opin ion s. In one, J u stice S calia seems to argu e th at if su ch a b ias ex ists, th en it is likely th at in all states in wh ich J u stices are elected th ere is p rob ab ly a b ias. B u t on p ractical grou n d s, th ere are ad van tages gain ed in electin g J ias may cost worth e b en e lastruqlin u estion 1 0 uT stices, h e cousortbgran ted absue ammary j u d th gmen t inefits. th e dWith efenregard d an t’tos th favor, g th at,Gthuou ingh ’ sn . comp lain t d etermin ab le, it is p ossib le th at th e C E O p u rp osely con trib u ted to th e J u s ot en tirely sh ou ld b e daign ismissed . Greuru in lin failed at Bcou razos ed abdoost u tyhtoishcomp im. an y’ s p tice’ s camp as fu tu gs btoy pthrove e J uthstice ld bd reach efin itely Legally, rofits. B razos was n ot req u ired to en cryp t d ata stored on th e h ard d rive of a comp u ter. B razos acted with reason ab le care in h an d lin g G u in ’ s p erson al in formation . A d d ition ally, G u in d id n ot su ffer an in j u ry. F in ally, th e lap top th eft was n ot reason ab Dynamic Business ly foreseeab le to B Law razos. 3rd Edition Kubasek SOLUTIONS MANUAL
Full clear download (no error formatting) at: http://testbanklive.com/download/dynamic-business-law-3rd-edition-kubaseksolutions-manual/ Dynamic Business Law 3rd Edition Kubasek TEST BANK Full clear download (no error formatting) at: http://testbanklive.com/download/dynamic-business-law-3rd-edition-kubasektest-bank/ dynamic business law 3rd edition pdf free dynamic business law 3rd edition access code dynamic business law 4th edition dynamic business law 3rd edition ebook dynamic business law the essentials 3rd edition pdf dynamic business law 4th edition pdf
Chap ter 0 2 - B usiness E thics
dynamic business law kubasek pdf download dynamic business law 2nd edition free pdf