Abubakar Binji Week 5 - Homework

Case 5.2: 3, 4 Case 5.3: 5, 7, 8 Case 5.4: 10, 11 Case 5.5: 14 Case 5.7: 17, 18, 22, 24 3) The idea of acting by mistake is certainly different from that of a purposeful action (exercise 3 of chapter 4). It is totally understandable that a mistake is not a mistake when learned; it is like going to school and learning from that mistake. The only time a mistake is a mistake is when repeated. I used to work at one of the Wal-Mart stores here in Kansas City as a cashier and believe me; sometimes the lines get very long and crowded. As a cashier, you have a responsibility for yourself (as an employee) and for your customers (as a driving force of your employer). In addition to these responsibilities, a cashier has to be able to accurately ring up items and charge customers accurately. According to the generalization test, my presuppose reason for not bringing back the un-ring item (i.e. Sony DCR-HC46 MiniDV Digital camcorder with Optical Zoon) is ungeneralizable, therefore failed generalization test. If my reason for not returning the camcorder is generalized for all persons alike, then my purpose would not serve itself. The retail store would have to come up with a solution to make similar mistake not repeated. The issue of utilitarianism is that it supposed to maximize the overall satisfaction for both the customers and the company. A loss of $599.95 is certainly a great deal for a local

electronic store who struggles to maximize profits. If I refuse to return the unpaid camcorder, I will have to fail the utilitarian test and virtue ethics. 4) Well, if the cashier forgot to ring up a 50 cents pack of gum, the ethical reasoning will appear to be different. Firstly, a company can afford to lose 50 cents more than $599.95. Generalization test failed as previously discussed. Although, I would say, because of the value difference and due to creating my own satisfaction (self-happiness), utilitarian test pass (i.e. if I decided to keep the gum). 5) If my boss invited me along with my wife at companys expenses, I would reject the offer only until legal agreement is made in place. This legal contract will allow me to bring along with my wife. As a result, my wifes airline ticket and accommodation fees may have to be deducted from my paycheck. The reason being so is that the deceptive is unethical and failed generalization test. 7) The ethical dilemma is whether or not it is my responsibility to sign off on risk reports and take care of the issue myself. New York Stock exchange and other stock exchange communities have regulations that companies have to abide by. Failure to do so and to keep up with the related updates can result in many fines and difficulties leading to rating relegation. There is an argument that if I refuse to speak out, and if whenever similar issues arise and no one else speak up, then generalization is failed. I can draw scope narrowly by stating that I volunteer myself, out of my spare time. Therefore, I have no obligation to do someone elses job. Utilitarian test looks into the net satisfaction between volunteering and not volunteering. Volunteering to reveal the lapses would embitter my manager and teammates and perhaps invite reprisals (exercise 7). Therefore, refusing to volunteer does not obligate me to speak up, therefore pass utilitarian test.

There is an obligation as a human being and as team member of retail brokerage firm. In this exercise, there is a conflict of virtues, and virtue ethics provided no clear judgment. One of the rational obligations is to make sure the firm is not liable to paying hundreds of thousands of dollars of customer losses. In the case of honesty and inner obligation to ourselves and to our managers, I would say virtue ethics pass, if I dont speak up. 8) The students conduct for cheating on an exam is ungeneralizable, therefore failed the generalization test on the ground. Refusing to turn them during the exam failed generalization test as well. Since this case does not have much to do with my own utility maximization, I would say utilitarian is inconclusive, may need further study, and therefore pass the test for reporting or not reporting purpose. There is a problem of balancing the integrity. Not turning them during the exam is considered a breach of loyalty: toward denying the virtue ethics. Although, the most important, inner duty is to either report them during the exam or let it pass and talk to them about it later. Refusing to do any of the above is a ground for failing virtue ethics in its entirety. 10) I personally think it is up to the supplier representative to offer my wife and I the ticket benefit. The question of whether is ethical or not depends on whether supplier representative is legally consented (i.e. based on the companys policies and contract) to purchase tickets for my wife and I. if that is the case, then it is ethical for me to accept his offer. The timing of the purchase makes a difference in the sense that it allows for timely attendance of the game (so that we cannot miss the game). To maximize my happiness of not missing the game, utilitarian test pass if I accept the offer.

11) A breach of contract is ungeneralizable on the ground. If I was to break any contract regardless of the time when I sign it, my reason for doing such and if all were to do the same, it would be irrational and unethical. As a result, I wont go along with them according to the generalization test. I would have to stick with that contract notwithstanding of the time factor. Hooker stated, An action is ethical only if no other available action creates greater total net utility (16). In this situation, utilitarian test pass if I was to break the contract and go along. My net utility is based on whether I and my wife can be able to attend the game or not. My argument is that breaking the contract will result in my net happiness, so be as it may. 14) Is making a mistake ethical or unethical? I personally think there are not enough explanations of ethicality in making mistakes. No one is above mistake. As in the exercise, the mailman mistakenly placed a sealed envelope on someone elses mailbox. If the mailman remembers that he place an envelope on a wrong mailbox, his responsibility would be to go back and place it into the right mailbox. Assuming to be the owner of a mailbox, I mistakenly opened a seal envelope and read the content before realizing who the owner was. My obligation without using rational choice is to put back the note or place it back into my mailbox or drop it at the post office or inform the mailman, or deliver it the recipient. By using rational choice as a condition for explaining this exercise, I say it is OK to tell his wife, based on generalization test. First of all, I will have to come up with my reason because in any action there is a reason behind it. My reason is that cheating for your spouse is bad. If my reason was to be generalized and if everybody has the same reason whenever they mistakenly receive passionate message, it will satisfy its purpose; pass the generalization test. The reason for telling his wife does have an end result; so he cannot have an affair outside his marriage, and so that others can learn from his footsteps. My net utility

is inconclusive, because I am not sure if my (only) reason can create a total net utility for myself. Virtue ethics is slightly vague in this case. It is the right thing for me to tell his wife, because as a human being, I have a responsibility, that is honesty and integrity. I dont have an obligation, but is Ok for me to inform her even if Brad was my best friend (it turned out he is just a coworker). Virtue ethics is leaning to failing, if I do not inform her. 17) It is a morally acceptable to think rationally when making decision. My reason to print electronic notes at home is rationally acceptable. It is nice thing that I am using my printer (with my ink) to help in reducing ink consumption, wear and tear on the school printer. It also reduces ink cost by the school. Remember one thing though, you pay tuition, and anything such as using school printer, computer, school books, etc. is freely (because I paid for it in some ways) provided by the school. Just as how I have decided to rationally use my ink and printer, I can also decide to buy my own printer paper. It is ungeneralizable to use school printer papers for my printer. School printer papers are designed for school printers only. The school has not specified in the students policy booklet that students are allowed to take home a pack of school printer papers. An action of taking a pack of school printer papers must pass all the tests in order to satisfy the condition for rational choice. Failing one test, failed all the tests for rational decision. 18) It is not OK to use personal vacation days for leisure purposes when in fact their tenacities are for emergency occasions such as sick child care, attend a funeral, or complete the sale of real estate. It is ungeneralization to use personal days for different purposes, and therefore irrational and unethical---it will not serve its purpose after all.

22) Well, your analysis does not proof the fact that if you taught him enough to upgrade the poultry operation, he would use the same knowledge to commit fraud. Teaching him a little could also allow him to self-upgrade leading to committing fraud. Therefore, the question is whether you should teach him or not. If you were to discontinue your efforts and generalized your reason, the action would serve it purpose (i.e. it would disallow him from committing fraud). Hence, discontinuing your efforts pass generalization test. There is a conflict of virtue in this case. Teaching him how to use Excel has its ups and downs. Therefore, one has to weigh the balance between discontinuation and continuation efforts. The best compromise for your honesty and loyalty maybe to discontinue the efforts. However, there is already an argument in place since he had already learned little. There is a chance that he can self-upgrade leading to committing fraud. But I have to be able to discontinue any action, upon realizing its negative effect. Even though I inspire to help increase Armenian employment by 300, I also do not want my country (United States) to be defrauded. Virtue ethics: the reason for my continuation efforts is inclusive, but leaning to failing. I am trying to help the Armenians; nevertheless I have to balance out the ethicality behind it. Utilitarian test for discontinuation is inconclusive and therefore pass the test. My net utility is to disallow fraud in the society and the world at large. And to maximize such utility I have to discontinue the effort of teaching him how to use Excel. 24) Martin had risen steadily through the Verband Company due to his reliable judgment and sweet talks. He is the head of investor relations. The company had a character of covering its mistakes which is unethical. If a company is not admitting its mistakes and correcting it, there is a problem of irrationality. Verband had also lied to its stockholders about its overseas operations.

Lying to his stockholders is considered unethical and ungeneralizable, therefore failed generalization test. It has also failed the virtue test because its action is considered a breach of loyalty and honor. The action of Mr. Martin in diverting any reality about the company is unethical and failed the generalization test. According to utilitarian test, his action does not have an end result, and the means is unethical on the ground, therefore failed the utilitarian test. Anything that comes out of Martin is irrational since is professional ethics is unethical. He lacks understanding of a purely, ethical professional ethics. As Hooker mentioned, the generalization test plays a central role in analyzing professional obligation (12); even though business individuals have obligation of making sure profit margin is achieved, there still remains the fact that rational decision is as crucial as any other decision making process. It is falsely explained that a fiduciary duty to stockholders is any loyalty that will make stockholders happy. There still a rational responsibility upon which Martin can follow to advance the financial interests of stockholders. Martins acts have failed all the tests. From being the head of investor to becoming a head of insider was like transferring from bad to worse. Martin should not have been hired by the EuroBank if they realized multiple violations committed at Varband. Martin does not have a moral lucidity to make rational decision, therefore virtue ethics failed. After all, his judgment should not have been infallible especially when looking into the root that Martin was just a meager businessperson.

Work cited: Hooker, John. Business Ethics as Rational Choice. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2011. Print.