Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4


What are the distinctions among philosophy, ethics, morals, and values, and why are these important concepts for modern-day business managers? (based on Business Ethics text Chapter 1; tied to course competencies 3 and 4) Philosophy is the study and analysis of deeply problematic and fundamental questions for example the nature of reality and existential questions. (pg 4) Ethics is the study of morality. (pg 4) Morals are beliefs or views as to what is right or wrong, good or bad. (pg 6) Values are priorities that a person establishes for ones norms and beliefs. (pg 7) These concepts are important as they relate to the intrinsic benefit to certain business practices and behavior, and also the extrinsic benefits. These concepts are relevant because they benefit a person who subscribes to the idea that doing good is good in and of itself, and to those who believe that doing good and behaving ethically, morally and with values, results in positive extrinsic results.


What is the difference between an intrinsic or terminal value and an extrinsic or instrumental one, and why is the differentiation important for legality, morality, and social responsibility? (based on Business Ethics text Chapter 1; tied to course competencies 3, 4, 5, and 6) As implied by the prefix of each term the intrinsic is value relates to what is IN-side the extrinsic relates to that which is EX-ternal. The intrinsic value is something that has value in itself, or for its own sake,. Extrinsic value is value that is not intrinsic and that which is for the sake of something else to which it is related in some way. Satisfying a persons need or demand for a product and providing said product or service to them is related to extrinsic value.


Where do you stand, and why, in the debate between the Sophists and Socrates as to the relativity v. the permanence of values, especially the value of morality? (based on Business Ethics text Chapter 1; tied to course competencies 3 and 4) According to our text Socrates believed that it was very important to use specific terms when discussing moral ideas. Socrates also believed that personal relativism was dangerous. (pg 17) Socrates also believed that the sophist emphasis on rhetoric and persuasion created confusion. I stand with Socrates. Relativism is a cowardly philosophy and easy way out. It is much easier to talk in circles, and not commit to a solid result, and therefore avoid the result of decisiveness. The slippery slope vis--vis relativism in business and global politics has been the cause of much pain and suffering in our world. I suppose that when discussing simple issues of real taste, such as music or preference in food, relativism is not harmful, but in discussions of issues such as slavery, pollution, animal cruelty, and anything that causes pain to others, be it physical or emotional, there is a true danger of applying relativism. Certain values and morals are permanent and universal in mammals and the social creatures of the earth. Brutality does occur, but even in the simplest primates the

idea of fairness exists. An example of this is the Grape/Cucumber fairness experiment conducted by the Emory University primatologist and ethologist, Frans de Waal. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK8Mp3OJYjk

What is Platos Doctrine of the Forms, and does it have any relevance to the modern-day corporation? (based on Business Ethics text Chapter 2; tied to course competencies 3 and 4) The doctrine of the forms is a direct response to two related tendencies that are intellectual skepticism, and the other is ethical relativism/subjectivism. (pg 29) The latter was promoted by the Sophists who denied the existence of permanent, objective and universal moral truths. (pg 29) Platos doctrine maintained that reality did exist and that knowledge and goodness could in fact be defined. These defined parameters are called the forms. (pg 29) According to our text, the Forms are perfect, permanent, unchanging, and absolutely true entities. These forms exist outside of and independently from our minds. There is relevance to the modern-day corporation because corporations operate in a world with various legal and ethical dilemmas. The case of bribery is an example, a common practice in many countries, particularly the less developed. Some believe that bribery of local government officials is unethical by any standard, regardless of legality and jurisdiction. Even the term bribery itself is a word that has a negative connotation, in several languages. The etymology of this word supports to the basic ethical dilemma, and supports the argument that it is in itself a universal, permanent, and unchanging, absolute truth. Perhaps even a form that exists outside of our minds.

How does Aristotles Ethics of Virtue differ from an Ethics of Principle? What is the distinction important to being a moral person? (based on Business Ethics text Chapter 3; tied to course competencies 3 and 4)

According to the text (pg 44) Aristotles conception of ethics emphasizes the virtuous traits of character that a moral person should have and strive for. These virtuous traits are made evident and manifest through a persons conduct and behavior. It is not simply the intent but the execution of said intent. Legally speaking this could be compared to what is called mens rea and actus rea. (http://legaldefinitions.co/mens-rea.html) Actus rea relates also the ethics of principle, in that we apply a utilitarian and Kantian perspective to determine the value of a particular act through the lens of prescribed moral rules. The distinction important to being a moral person necessitates requires an ethics of virtue and ethics of principle. These two ideas compliment each other, and are linked in practice. (pg 45)


What is Aristotles Doctrine of the Mean ethical principle and how can it be used to make moral determinations in business? (based on Business Ethics text Chapter 3; tied to course competencies 3 and 4) Aristotles Doctrine of the Mean holds that the virtuous or moral choice is a rational determined mean between two extremes of deficiency and excess. (pg 41) One determines the mean by making the choice that lies in the middle of the two extremes. (pg 41) This doctrine can be simplified as a practice and application of moderation. However this assumes both extremes are valid. For example if we lived in the pre-Civil War US, or the time of Aristotle human slavery was an accepted business practice. If we assume that the two extremes needed to calculate Aristotles mean, then slavery being legal and practiced with slave-owners holding many slaves, and on the opposite end, slavery being illegal, then the Aristotelian mean would be a moderate ownership of slaves. This is repugnant by todays standards for good reason and illustrates that the extremes may sometimes cause a false mean. A more relevant standard today could be the application of bribery in dealing with foreign governments.


Compare and contrast common law v. civil law legal systems. Which system is preferable as an international business manager? Why? (Based on Legal Challenges text Chapter 2; tied to course competencies 1 and 2) Common law legal systems are based on English common law. This legal system uses judicial precedent to influence outcomes in legal decisions. Examples of common law systems are the US federal and state legal systems except for the state of Louisiana that applies civil law due to its history of being a former French and Spanish colony. Civil law is based in Roman codified law and the Napoleonic code. These legal systems use codes to determine the principles to be applied in particular cases. The question of which system of laws is preferable (common law vs. civil law) for an international business manager is overly simplified. It is also very important to consider treaties and laws around the world. (pg 28) There are many other issues to consider including the type of economy, and ethical standards. It is difficult to make a determination with the information given, however since the United States is a common law legal system, with a constitutional government, with the largest economy in the world, I believe that this is evidence of our legal system being superior for an international business manager. While the civil law legal system may seen more predictable, therefore easier to navigate for international business managers. However having to apply very specific rules to very unique legal issues is not always practical.

What are the concepts of jurisdiction and venue in the U.S. court system? How do they differ, and why are they critical components to resolving disputes in the U.S. court system? (based on Legal Challenges text Chapter 3; tied to course competencies 1 and 2)

Jurisdiction is the power each court has to try cases and to decide certain types of legal issues. (pg 20) Original jurisdiction is the power of a court to hear a case when it is first brought. Appellate jurisdiction is the power of a higher court to review the ruling of a lower court or agency. In contrast the term venue of a lawsuit usually is the geographic location of the court nearest to where the defendant to the lawsuit resides or where the incident or transaction at issue occurred. The Venue of a particular case assumes jurisdiction and authority to hear a case. They are critical components to resolving a dispute because diversity of citizenship and geographic location will determine legal principles, statutes, and precedent applied.