J. Blair

Fall 09

PHIL 305: STUDY GUIDE #1

Short Answer (one or two sentences minimum):

  1. What is an argument? What are two ways to evaluate/critique an argument?
  2. What's the difference between income, costs (expenses), and profit?
  3. For Freeman, what is a stakeholder (narrowly defined)?
  4. For Freeman, what is a stakeholder (broadly defined)?
  5. What is the principle of "minimally decent samaritanism"? What's an example illustrating it?
  6. What's an example of whistleblowing?
  7. In the Borland case study, how did Kahn bluff the salesman from BYTE?

Medium Answer (one or two paragraphs minimum):

  1. What is taxation without representation, and why is it thought to be morally wrong? Why does Friedman think that a corporation being socially responsible can be analogous to taxing customers and employees without representation?
  2. According to Freeman, what is the stockholder theory, and what is the stakeholder theory? Why does the stockholder theorist think that unregulated business leads to the most amount of good for the most amount of people.
  3. Freeman says: "The concept of stakeholders is a generalization of the notion of stockholders, who themselves have some special claim on the firm. Just a stockholders have a right to demand certain actions by the management, so do other stakeholders have a right to make claims." Explain this quote. Besides the stockholders, who are the particular stakeholders in a corporation? What does each stakeholder have a right to demand of corporate management and why do they have a right to demand it?
  4. Most people think that if an act is either morally obligatory or supererogatory, then it is also morally permissible in that by doing the act you're not doing anything wrong. However, most people also think that the converse doesn’t hold true. That is, if an act is morally permissible, it doesn't automatically follow that it is also either morally obligatory or supererogatory. What's an example of an act that is morally permissible but neither morally obligatory nor supererogatory? What makes an act a permissible one but not an obligatory or supererogatory one?
  5. Discuss Bok's view concerning the nature of whistleblowing. (Your answer should include, but not be limited to, a discussion on: the inherent risks that any whistleblower faces, what it means to be loyal to one's company, and how whistleblowing is a breach of that loyalty).
  6. Discuss three conditions (mentioned by Bok) that when present make an act of whistleblowing unfair to the person(s) being accused.
  7. In class we said that on the traditional conception of lying, one lies only if two conditions apply. Discuss these two conditions; be sure to use examples.
  8. What is Carson's conception of lying? How does Carson's conception of lying make it so 'hardened' negotiators (e.g. real estate agents) aren't lying when they state their bargaining positions?
  9. De George thinks that when the following three conditions apply, whistleblowing is morally permissible, but not obligatory: (1) the firm, through its product or policy, will do serious and considerable harm to the public, (2) the employee has made his moral concern known to his immediate superior, who has not acted on the information, and (3) the employee has then exhausted all other internal procedures within the firm (managerial ladder, board of directors, etc.). Why does De George think that these three conditions only establish moral permissibility? Do you agree with him? Given what De George says concerning why these three conditions only establish permissibility and not an obligation, do you think a would-be whistleblower, who provides for a family, is permitted to blow the whistle when only the three conditions apply?

Long Answer (one page minimum):

Friedman:

What is a shareholder? How does a company making profit translate into shareholder wealth? What does it mean to say that a corporation is being 'socially responsible'? What's an example? Explain why it's thought that being socially responsible makes a company unable to maximize profit (utilize one or two examples in your explanation). Why is it thought that a CEO is (or executives in general are) obligated to shareholders to maximize company profit? If CEOs (or executives in general) are obligated to shareholders to maximize company profit, and if being socially responsible makes a company unable to maximize company profit, then what follows concerning whether CEOs (or executives in general) are obligated to be socially responsible? Do you think CEOs (or executives in general) are obligated to shareholders to maximize company profit? Explain.

Carr:

For Carr, what does it mean to bluff in business? Discuss at least three examples of bluffing (be sure to say how they are instances of bluffing for Carr). Discuss in as much detail as possible Carr's 'poker argument' (what's the argument supposed to show and how does it show it?) Recall Carr's example of the insurance agents overcharging their customers based on outdated actuarial tables. How is this an instance of bluffing? Do you think the poker argument is able to show that this instance of bluffing is permissible? Explain. If the poker argument is unable to show that this instance of bluffing is permissible, how else might one justify the acts of the insurance agents?

1