Ethics Quiz 1 - Notes from lectures for first quiz PDF

Preview

Summary

Notes from lectures for first quiz...

Description

Part I: Morality & Neurobiology: A. Introducing Ethics 1. 2. 3.

What is the big question of ethics? In business there are three distinct types of responsibility. What are they? How are they different from one another? T/F: Because different people have different values in business, this means that values must be private.

i. Explain your answer. ●

●

Leeds Model for Values-Based Decision Making 1. What are the six steps of this model? 1) framing (why is this issue so important?) 2) consideration (weighing the options? Use an ethical decision making model 3) decision (determine the right act behind a “veil of ignorance” 4) action 5) communication 6) reflect (do your actions reflect your values?) 2. Can you apply each step of the model to the case of Chiquita? Psychological Tendencies: 1. Jonathan Haidt and the Rider/Elephant Model i. Does our Emotion (elephant) or our Rationality (rider) control our moral decision making? Explain. ii. What are the three keys to behavioral change in the Rider/Elephant Model? Direct the rider, motivate the elephant, shape the path iii. What does the example of Rick Rescoria and the evacuation of Morgan Stanley employees from the World Trade Center exemplify about our elephants and their riders? ● Ability to calmly rationalize under stress? ● Our tendencies to ignore rational thought and obey? ● Power of habit, preparation, and ‘path clearing’ to influence actions in crisis? 2. What does the Milgram experiment teach us about conscientious decision-making? People will do things just because they are told to do so even though they morally may not agree… most people obey… there was more obedience when the authority was close… respected organizations have credibility and this credibility makes it seem like its ok even when its not… some people justify themselves… some people blame themselves i. If 80% of us freeze, but 67%+ will obey another authority figure (albeit not blindly), how does this explain Nazi Germany? Members of german society weren’t all horrible people/law abiding people and were compelled to do awful things because of this idea ii. Explain how the Milgram Experiment did not prove that people blindly obey authority. Obedience is entrenched, but not blind… those who obey void personal ethics ● What do most people do? obeyed ● Why should this concern us if we work for someone other than ourselves? yes 3. Arieley and Dishonesty: Why do people lie, cheat, and steal? i. True economic cost of treating doesn't come from a few cheaters who cheat big, but it comes from a large number of little cheaters ii. Most of us cheat in small ways iii. People cheat in ways that fit a “personal fudge factor”... pushing things to a certain point iv. People cheat when there's a distance between us and the thing we are getting

v. vi. vii. viii.

People steal things more than money Promotes honesty: pledge, signatures, moral reminders, supervision No impact on honesty: amount of money being gained, probability of getting caught Increases dishonesty: ability to rationalize, conflicts of interest, creativity, one immoral act, being depleted, others benefiting from dishonesty, watching others behave dishonestly, culture that gives examples of dishonesty

i. Which of the following were NOT ideas supported by Dan Arieley’s research? a. The largest economic cost of cheating comes from the ‘big cheaters,’ often featured in the news, who try to get away with major fraud

Part II: Ethics & Philosophy ● ●

Descriptive vs. 1. 2. The Relevance 1. 2. 3.

Normative Ethics: how people should act, how human life ought to be, philosophy Descriptive Ethics: social science, accounts for how people actually do act What is the different between descriptive ethics and normative ethics? How are each relevant to business? Normative is how people should act and descriptive is how people actually do act of Values Why are values valuable? How can normative ethics help when values come into (apparent) conflict? What is an ethical dilemma? When two or more values conflict… there is no clear right or wrong i. ii.

● ● ● ii.

How is this different than identifying an ethical wrong or right? What was the dilemma for the female executives in the Nike c-suite who exposed the bad corporate culture there? ● How would a utilitarian evaluate their decision? ● How would a deontologist evaluation their decision? Most of us think of ourselves as mostly honest—but end up being frequently dishonest in small ways that we can justify to ourselves Most of us have a ‘personal fudge factor’ that defines how much we can bend the rules before we start to feel ‘dirty’ or like we’ve lost our integrity People cheat in ways that track the rules of ‘economic rationality’: more when the reward is bigger and risk is smaller, less when the reward is smaller and the risk bigger Which of the following are NOT things that Arieley found to effectively reduce cheating? ● Signing an honor pledge ● Remembering a moral code like the Ten Commandments ● Being watched ● Reducing the reward of cheating

iii. According to Arieley, people are more likely to cheat for tokens than dollars. What does this show us about how to reduce dishonesty in business? iv. According to Arieley, which of the following conditions make us more likely to cheat? ● Being tired ● Having already made a small mistake ● Having a conflict of interest ● Being in a position to benefit someone else by cheating ● Working in a culture in w ● hich lots of other people are cheating 4. Does Nina Mazar’s Self-Concept Maintenance Theory focus more on internal or external costs/benefits in describing how people decide whether to do something? a. Self-concept maintenance: people will act dishonestly enough to benefit themselves but will only do so up to the point where they still feel good about their integrity b. internal 5. According to Jonathan Haidt, what do we know about the psychology of morality? Harm (responsibility), fairness (integrity, honesty), loyalty (affinity), authority (respect), purity (sanctity) a. Philosophy helps us account for and coordinate our values if there is an ethical conflict i. Is it just selfishness limited by considerations of harm/fairness? ii. What are the 5 core morals/values that all share to varying degrees? iii. Which of the 5 dominate the decisions of very liberal thinkers? iv. Which of the 5 distinguish (albeit without dominating) very conservative thinkers from liberal ones? v. Are loyalty and justice two values that are inherently in tension with one another? Why or why not? vi. Most people would move a lever to kill one track worker and save five—but most people would not push someone onto the track to achieve the same outcome. According to research in moral psych and neurobiology, what might account for this difference? vii. T/F. There is a genetic basis for moral characteristics like psychopathy, conscientiousness, and agreeableness.

2 c. How would a virtue ethicist evaluate their decision? 4. What is the value in considering each of the “big three” philosophies when facing a dilemma? C. Philosophical Frameworks for Ethical Decision-Making: 1. What are the ‘Big Three’ normative ethical frames? i. What matters most for each framework? ii. Who were the key intellectual representatives of each framework? iii. Which of the three ethical theories is probably most prominent in business? 2. Utilitarianism: focus on ENDS… good outcomes make actions right i. ii.

What is its primary criterion for decision making? The end justifies the means What are potential benefits of the utilitarian approach to decision-making?

iii. What are potential drawbacks of the utilitarian approach to decision-making? Shallow view of life… should we do things because they are the right thing to do not simply out of pleasure iv. A utilitarian would be open to the idea of an apparel company outsourcing its jobs to a country with unsafe working conditions and low wages in order to maximize shareholder value while offering lower cost goods to customers. Why? 3. Deontology: focus on the MEANS… right actions and intentions make agents good i.

What is its primary criterion for decision making? Doing things for the right reason, rather than for the right outcome… respecting the rights of others even if it leads to outcomes that are not the best outcomes ii. What are potential benefits of the deontological approach to decision-making? iii. What are potential drawbacks of the deontological approach to decision-making? What if doing what is right does damage? (hiding jews in basement from nazis the “right” thing to do is tell the truth if they come to door but that may cause damage) iv. A deontologist would insist on a founder simply telling the truth about her startup without violating any client confidentiality agreements, even if doing so might lead to the collapse of her company. Why? A deontologist believes that right actions and intentions make agents good. Since the founder would be telling the truth therefore having the right actions would make her a good agent. v. What would Rawls say about the gender pay gap? Why? He would not agree with it, because he believes that each person is to have the most extensive basic liberty compatible with the liberty of others, and that social and economic positions are to be to everyone’s advantage and open to all. 4. Virtue Ethics: HABIT/CHARACTER… good actions make good agents, and good agents do good actions i.

What is its primary criterion for decision making? A theory focused on excellent character, not just the right procedure or good outcomes… the ends do NOT justify the means… simply doing one’s duty is NOT sufficient for acting well… fake it till you make it (morally)... once we have a virtue, we tend to think and act naturally in ways that express it ii. What are the potential benefits of the virtue ethics approach to decision-making? Allows people to maintain personal and interpersonal connections important for the good life. iii. What are potential drawbacks of the virtue ethics approach to decision-making? Not everyone has the opportunity to live happy, virtuous lives. Fails to determine which virtues are more significant. Non-action guiding. iv. A virtue ethicist might say that refusing to pay extortion money would have been the virtuous thing for Chiquita executives to do. Or, such an ethicist might say that paying the money was the virtuous choice. Which considerations might sway executives one way or the other?...