Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
53 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
About how much do both individuals and corporations pay in bribes per year?
|
Around the world--paid in bribes per year is $1 trillion.
|
|
|
When is a payment a bribe as opposed to a tip?
|
Tips (grease payments) given to ensure that someone carries out their normal duties. Gifts/entertainment (not necessarily bribes but line is fuzzy).
Bribes: involve an intention to cause someone to betray trust in the performance of their official duties. |
|
|
What are some harms of bribary (Part 1):
|
Money could support illegal activities:
* United Self Defense forces of Columbia (1997-2007)= 4,000 murders/62 massacres. Chaquita made 100+ payments of $1.7 million total for the group to leave them alone. Also, allowed them to use their dock to import rifles and ammunition. Went to court and was fined $25 million and company worth $4.5 billion--did this to protect their employees and businesses in Columbia. Their reason was that "everyone was doing it"--social pressure has impact on your decisions but if you decide to pay them off solely to not get involved, will use money to kill other people/villages. If you support illegal actions, then can lead to nasty legal mess. |
|
|
What are some harms of bribary (Part 2 and 3)
|
2. Corruption spreads: If bosses do it, employees do it. Example: if employee wants a raise, boss says no, employee can threaten boss with police about illegal activities.
3. Undermines Market Mechanisms: Artificial barriers to competition--paying bribes (to be monopoly) will hurt free enterprise and other companies. If you already have a gov't that is corrupt, discourages investment. You are partly responsible for poverty. |
|
|
What are some harms of bribary (Part 4 and 5)
|
4. Long term- it's counterproductive: Paying bribes begin to snowball--demand more money or just taking on more bribes just keeps damaging you. Staley example: long term (by not paying bribes) helped them. Shut down for short term to eliminate bribe requests. Good for long term.
5. Moral problem: Always morally wrong--should never be done. |
|
|
Would Nozick's liberatarian view allow for voluntary slavery? Why or why not?
|
In America, it is illegal, but Nozick believes it is legit, as long as there is no fraud.
|
|
|
What are the three strategies corporations use to gain political power? (Part 1)
|
1. The Information Strategy: gain by providing information that is in the best interest of the company to certain people. Can do this by lobbying, expert testimony = can present their own information favorable to their cause and can discredit contrary information.
|
|
|
What are the three strategies corporations use to gain political power? (Part 2 and 3)
|
2. Financial Incentive Strategy: political contributions/economic leverage--like someone says I'll give you $10 million for your campaign, but can you do this?!
3. The Constituency-Building Strategy: organizes grass root coalitions (astroturfing), PR efforts, lawsuits, etc. |
|
|
What are the three capitalist values Haslett believes are undermined by inheritance, and why does he believe they get undermined? (Part 1 and 2)
|
1. Distribution According to Productivity: rewarding productivity motivates people to be productive. Hassler said that if you receive the inheritance, then you won't be rewarded for productivity--may never have to work. If we believe in productivity, then shouldn't have inheritance--gov't gets the $ in this case.
2. Equal Opportunity: everyone has an equal shot of wealth/success. Problem: wealth (due to inheritance)=greater opportunities (better education, start business, make $). Conclusion: inequality of opportunity is created by inheritance. (Not everyone reaks the benefits of inheritance) |
|
|
What are the three capitalist values Haslett believes are undermined by inheritance, and why does he believe they get undermined (Part 3)
|
3. Liberty:
A. Freedom in the Narrow Sense: invisible hand of supply and demand. Problem: inheritance doesn't promote supply/demand because there is no exchange of goods. Conclusion: If everyone just started giving away stuff, supply/demand would fall apart. 2. Freedom in the Broad Sense: Everyone has the opportunity to do what they want with money. Problem: For this one, freedom gain, many freedoms lost. Example: If a billionaire dies, if he gives it to his kid = 1 freedom---but if he splits it and gives it to a thousand = 1000 freedom. |
|
|
Know Haslett's proposal regarding inheritance and the objections to it discussed in class regarding loss of motivation and violations of property rights (Part 1)
|
Inheritance should be abolished because it's inconsistent with capitalism. Exceptions:
* Marriage--all wealth to spouse. * Dependents: children (only enough to become self sufficient). * Decendents: can buy market at fair market value. |
|
|
Know Haslett's proposal regarding inheritance and the objections to it discusses in class regarding loss of motivation and violations of property rights. (Part 2--objections)
|
Objections:
* Loss of motivation to earn money (if you can't bequeath it "give to children") Haslett replies= people who have no children are still motivated to gain money. *Abolishing inheritance violates people's property rights (their money and property rights)--have a right to give to who they want: Haslett replies= Agree with ownage of property, but if use it to pollute environment, society has an interest in limiting the right to use your property. Similarly, inheritance undermines capitalist mechanisms and equality of opportunity. So, society has an interest in preventing this--restricts property rights. |
|
|
What is legalism?
|
Corporate managers/executives are contracted agents of their employees, and therefore, to maximize profits within the confines of the law.
|
|
|
Know Friedman's taxation argument and the replies given to it (Argument for Legalism).
|
It's the gov't's responsibility to promote social causes: not that of a business--everyone in society should have input (vote, etc.). Since there is no public input, then it undermines the gov't's role (in effect!). Could tax stockholders benefit social needs and Friedman's view doesn't support this:
Reply 1: Social issues aren't just the province of the gout, but to some extent are everyone's responsibility. By being a part of society, everyone has some responsibilities in social situations (like reporting crimes). Reply 2: Friedman assumes a very neat division of labor btw. gov't and business corps are often responsible for getting laws passed. |
|
|
Know Friedman's expertise argument and the replies given to it (Arguments for Legalism)
|
Businesses lack the expertise to prioritize or solve social problems:
Reply 1: Businesses can rely on the expertise of charities and the business may be the expert. Reply 2: Many social issues don't require much expertise. Common sense is sometimes enough |
|
|
Objections to Legalism (Part 1)
|
1. The First Generation Problem: the government often only learns of a serious problem after it has occurred. Often only businesses are in a position to prevent a problem. Example: BP oil spill
|
|
|
Objections to Legalism (Part 2)
|
2. Legal Actions May Be Morally Wrong: IBM example = Denomay- supplied punch cards to Nazis. Made it efficient to require large amounts of information: used it for census, inventory, etc. for Nazi gov't. Also used it for to know who was getting killed in concentration camps, etc. None of it was illegal. IBM gave this to all other 3rd party--legal but probably wrong thing to do. Still wrong. According to Friedman, it wouldn't be wrong.
|
|
|
Objections to Legalism (Part 3)
|
3. The Limits of the Law: It isn't practical for the government to regulate all moral activity. Lying that causes harm--not illegal (violating rights)
* Difficult to write effective laws * Difficult to regulate= too heavy a burden * "to regulate..." = insider training |
|
|
Objections to Legalism (Part 4)
|
4. Corporations as Psychopathic: Mafia is in business to make money. Business is in business to make money, but obey law (can find loop-hole).
* Why follow laws? If it's a just law, morally obligated to follow. * Legalism encourages corporate psychopathy. * PSYCOPATH= Business who want the maximum profit by ignoring the law: they will be morally irresponsible--take risks, superficial, and manipulative to customers, grandiore in image projected, lack of empathy/remorse, routinely violate law (if profitable)---just a cost of doing business. * Same for some individuals: some people are very money oriented. Sometimes people do very well with this attitude called corp. psychopaths. They are non-violent and do very well in business. They tend to treat employees badly and tend to ignore social responsibility. CSR may help to discourage all this. |
|
|
Know what the stakeholder theory says, and know why employees, customers, and communities are considered stakeholders?
|
It's basically a reaction:
Stakeholder=someone who has some legitimate claim to have input regarding what a business does. Properly supported by a correct moral principle. Have a stake in what a company does. Stakeholder groups: may have legitimate claims (strength of moral claims determine which is more important): * Employees: jobs at stake * Customers: benefits/harms from product(s) * Communities: citizens and environments at stake |
|
|
Know the 4 advantages of the Stakeholder Approach: (Part 1)
|
1. The Corporation is a Social Entity: Don't inevitable exist. They have a nominal right to exist. Corporations were invented because it was thought they would be good for society. Society/stakeholders invest in each business or in business in general. So, society has a right: on a return taxes, concern for the welfare of the community, etc.
|
|
|
Know the 4 advantages of the Stakeholder Approach: (Part 2)
|
2. Power requires responsibility: Large corporations have a lot of power. May effect everyone in society:
* GE example: Can't make decisions solely on the basis of economics because whatever they decide may effect everyone in society. However, have an obligation to be concerned with those they effect, which gives stakeholders a claim of what the company does. We're often effected by their decisions daily. |
|
|
Know the 4 advantages of the Stakeholder Approach: (Part 3)
|
3. Morality requires consideration of stakeholders: Taking everyone into account equally--arbitrary to place stockholders above all others.
|
|
|
Know the 4 advantages of the Stakeholder Approach: (Part 4)
|
4. Practical Concerns:
A. Strong stakeholder relations (strong financial performance and faster recoveries) Firm's performance in relation to corporate strategy (5%) and ethical culture (30%). B. Ethical culture: Decreased employee misconduct. Strong ethical values play a primary role in setting policy and procedure. Weak: get the job done, forget ethics. Employees strong 62%. C. Angry Stakeholders: can have a negative impact on company (politician, activist). D. Business interest and stakeholder interests may coincide--CSR can involve more than just generating goodwill. Advanced skills in computing ethical problems, environment problems, and in house training--may be too expensive. |
|
|
Know the economic benefits argument and the autonomy arguments in favor of sweatships, and the point of the greedy rescuer example. (Part One)
|
1. The Economic Benefits Argument: Sweatshops are the first step in economic development.
* Taiwan/South Korea: started with simple manufacturing jobs to increase job network in countries. So, shut down of sweatshops would just leave the country/workers worse off. * Reply: There are more alternatives besides having current sweatshops and shutting them down. Like improving pay and safety. |
|
|
Know the economic benefits argument and the autonomy arguments in favor of sweatshops, and the point of the greedy rescuer example (Part Two)
|
2. The Autonomy Argument: These workers have chosen their jobs and the jobs benefit them. So, it's wrong to interfere with their choices.
* Best preferred option: probably only good job available. * Wrong to deprive workers of their best option or to violate their autonomy (right to self gov't)--opponents to sweatshops: a. It's morally permitted for corporations to not benefit workers at all by not outsourcing b. It's not morally permitted to benefit works by outsourcing jobs to them |
|
|
Know the economics benefits argument and the autonomy arguments in favor of sweatshops, and the point of the greedy rescuer example (Part 3)
|
3. Reply to The Autonomy Argument--The Greedy Rescuer Example: Person stranded- car comes by and you ask them to give you a ride. They give you an option:
a. Take you to the next town, but you will have to give them all of your money at the time (in your pocket) and you'll have to give 75% of your wages for 20 years. b. Or, leave you here to die. * Harm is pointless: Deprive of money and deprive of decent wage. |
|
|
Know the Harm objection and the exploitation objection against sweatshops.
|
1. The Harm Objection: harms people pointlessly. Unnecessary to make a decent profit.
2. The Exploitation Objection: involves a failure to benefit others in a way that fairness requires: * Example: Nike Sweatshops= In 1997: $16 billion ads, endorsed Michael Jordan for $45 million, made $800 million in profits. Workers in sweatshops: $10 a week/65 hours a week (unsafe conditions). *Cost of Double Wages: $20 million--same as sponsoring--soccer team: $2.50 a day/16 hours. Would cost so little. Great benefit to workers if paid more/etc. and unfair for workers to work in these conditions. *Labor Costs: 1 pair of Nike shoes to make is $1.50--sold for $80-120 (price gouging) |
|
|
Explain the 4 guidelines for company decision makers faced with threat of a boycott. (Part One)
|
1. Gather the relevant information: meet with and listen to stakeholders and determine if they are correct. Moral issue=good character to listen to others who seriously believe you've done wrong. Corporate Image Issue= indicates that a company takes its stakeholders seriously. Example: KKK meet with business who support interracial--meeting with a group can seem to legitimize them. Tough Call: gay groups may view AFA as KKK (including prejudice)--AFA same way about gay groups. Ford decided to meet with AFA and gay groups
|
|
|
Explain the 4 guidelines for a company decisions makers faced with threat of a boycott (Part Two)
|
2. Consider the cultural role of the company: large companies disproportionate power to influence the media (protect free speech and pull ads).
*Contagion of Others: Taking their cues from larger companies, but show gets cancelled and they start self-censoring their ads. This begins to dampen free speech. * AFA keeps corporation of the culture wars? It's impossible to stay neutral. |
|
|
Explain the 4 guidelines for a company decision makers faced with threat of boycott (Parts 3 and 4).
|
3. Consider your past commitments: Ford had 10 year history of supporting gay rights in the workplace. No previous commitment to support AFA.
4. Consider the Financial Consequences: Ford "flipped flopped" his decision so both groups were unhappy. |
|
|
About how many dollars are spent every year on ads? How many does a person (average) see per day? Which do children recognize more: Ronald McDonald or Santa Claus?
|
US: $280 billion a year is spend on ads--$1000 per person
1,600 ads daily, 1200 noticed, and 12 response to ad More children recognize Ronald McDonald, than Santa Claus, Mickey Mouse, or the President. |
|
|
Know the three kinds of indirect marketing discussed. (Part 1)
|
Indirect Marketing: show people ads without them realizing it's an ad.
1. Undercover Marketing: fake conversations intended to advertise, strategically placed empty boxes of product (Ipod), leaners (send 1/2 dozen people to order certain product--influence other people), and product reviews (write reviews for company to pay you to show that their product is better---not showing their true opinion). All of these agree to not state they are advertising for the company and can't say there were paid, etc. |
|
|
Know the three kinds of indirect marketing discussed (Part 2 and 3)
|
2. Product Placement: For example, in movie ET, Reese's Pieces was featured in the movie. 66% rise in sales within 3 months (don't realize being marketed to).
3. Misleading Cues: International Flavors and Fragrances sells aerosal sprays such as fresh cookies for cookie companies. For example, they spray around cookie shop to lure in customers (thinking fresh cookies are being made) and they can sell boxed cookies. Illusion/smell are everything. |
|
|
What percentage of people need to be deceived by an ad for the FTC to require that it be changed?
|
Federal Trade Commission (FTC): prohibits deceptive ads and practices. If 20-25% of people are likely to be deceived, then FTC will change it. (or modify or even eliminate it). No fines usually, but can if don't follow FTC rulings.
|
|
|
Know some of the positive and negative social effects of advertising.
|
1. Positive:
* Informs customers * Some say just like fine arts--tells public improves life 2. Negative: * Popularizing stereotypes * Manipulation of children * Artificially increases cost of items with no added value * Annoys people * Helps to create a materialistic society: Focus (ads) on creating superficial needs (need for new car, big TV, cellphone, etc). Products prove satisfaction for such needs. However, more fundamental values not advertised (ex: not for public services--such as impt issues like schools, etc.) They don't get advertised like products. Superficial culture with superficial desires=try to get people to understand important stuff. |
|
|
Know the "caveat emptor" and Minimal Information rules regarding salespersons and the problems with them. (Part One)
|
"Caveat Emptor" (buyer beware): assumes consumers are very knowledgeable, shrewd, and skeptical of salespeople, and it's buyer's fault if product is unreliable/unsafe--prior to Industrial Revolution. At time, products are simple--easy for anyone to become an "expert" of the product. Problems:
A. Customers may not return: Problem with that= it may not apply because some, not many, businesses don't require repeat customers. B. Morally wrong to lie to customers without good reason= right to an honest interaction C. Sales practices now may be illegal: In view of law, unreasonable to expect people to be experts regarding the products they buy--salespeople don't know all the details about an iPhone (tech). |
|
|
Know the "caveat emptor" and Minimal Information rules regarding salespersons and the problems with them (Part 2)
|
Minimal Information Rules: salesperson has no obligation to provide information the buyer does not specifically ask about. If do ask, answer honestly. Problem= product may be dangerous--consumer ends up taking physical risk they did not agree to.
|
|
|
Be able to explain the Mutual Benefit Rule
|
Mutual Benefit Rule: salespersons are responsible for giving the buyer any information needed to make a reasonable judgment as to whether to purchase the product. Puts a lot of responsibility in salesperson--everyone benefits from this.
|
|
|
What is the function of the Consumer Product Safety Commission?
|
They can recall products, make public warnings about products, and reinstate refunds.
|
|
|
What are the free market, due care, and strict liability views of business' duties to consumers and the problems discussed. (Part One)
|
1. Free Market Criterion: no need for government regulation of society or quality of goods. Problem=naive view of the effectiveness of markets.
*In a perfect market, everyone has perfect information about everything. *Impractical for people to get all of this information--too many ways to deceive people about products. * Response:Consumer products (maybe)--can pay another company off for information (info might not be reliable won't find you out til too late) or create your own company (or put a different label on this new product to "compete" against yourself). |
|
|
What are the free market, due care, and strict liability views of business' duties to consumers and the problems discussed (Part 2).
|
2. The Due Care Theory: take all the steps a person could reasonable foresee would be necessary to avoid consumer injury. If don't respond to this, then company is negligent--3 factors in determining if company is negligent:
1. probability of harm 2. severity of the harm 3. the costs of protecting against harm. Problem= Proving negligence is very difficult and finding a balance. |
|
|
What are the free market, due care, and strict liability views of business' duties to consumers and the problems discussed (Part 3).
|
3. Strict Liability: manufacturer liable if product is defective and unreasonably dangerous.
*Negligence not an issue * Difficult to weasel way out of--so they're motivated to make safe products. * Cost of injury: spread out among employees. *Doesn't look at: if they intended to harm people, etc. In general, this way is probably the best. |
|
|
Know the motivated business, indirect business, and slippery slope methods by which we subconsciously deceive ourselves into believing that doing the wrong thing is okay, and how to avoid each (Part 1)
|
1. Motivated Blindness: is a subconscious process in which people ignore information because it's in their interest to ignore it. Easy to ignore problems if you're doing well in process, etc.
*Basically, like, if you see $100 on road. Pick it up (don't think about person who lost it/what's right)--continue on with life. (Push away thoughts). Can avoid this: notice when something is in your interests, assume you're -> motivated blindness |
|
|
Know the motivated business, indirect business, and slippery slope methods by which we subconsciously deceive ourselves into believing that doing the wrong thing is okay, and how to avoid each (Part 2)
|
2. Indirect Blindness: our tendency to not hold companies or individuals responsible for actions carried out by 3rd parties working for the company or individual. Example: you're working for a manager and manager tells you what to do. People are going to hold you responsible, not manager, because you actually did it. Don't care if manager told you to do it. One way to avoid this: "Have manager write out clear instructions to have physical proof, so you can't get blamed."
|
|
|
Know the motivated blindness, indirect business, and slippery slope methods by which we subconsciously deceive ourselves into believing that doing the wrong thing is okay, and how to avoid each (Part 3)
|
3. Slippery Slope: small commitments -> gradually increase. Like for example: took a pamphlet, went to meeting, bought a product, shaved your head....can become extreme and hard to stop.
* Hard to pick a point when you'll stop. Avoid this: stop before you get started. If they have interest or corrupting (gift you gifts)--reject. If you get sucked in, get out. |
|
|
Cumulative Section
|
Cumulative Section
|
|
|
Know what truth is, as defined in class
|
Truth: a statement is true if it makes up with the way things are.
|
|
|
What is cultural relativism and what were the objections to it? (Part 1)
|
Cultural Relativism: if the majority of people within a society believe that an action is morally right or wrong, then it is--take public poll.
Objections: 1. The Mixed Cultures Objection: For example: Fred belongs to both organizations. One says that the KKK is right and the other says it's wrong. Makes it self-contradictory. If cultural relativism is self-contradictory, then it doesn't apply. |
|
|
What is cultural relativism and what were the objections to it? (Part 2 and 3)
|
2. The Moral Disagreements Objection: Mike Tyson believes that violence isn't always wrong. Most people in my culture believe that it isn't always wrong. Gandhi and his culture believes that violence is always wrong. In cultural relativism, there could be no disagreements, but obviously disagreements do exist.
3. The Repugnance Argument: If anything is morally wrong, it's Nazi genocide, but if cultural relativism is true, Nazi genocide would be a good thing. |
|
|
What is cultural relativism and what were the objections to it? (Part 4 and 5)
|
4. The Moral Progress Objection: cultural relativism believes there is no such thing as progress.
*Since 1850, no slavery/better rights. But according to CR in 1850, slavery was good--now it is wrong, it is wrong. So, CR believes if people were satisfied with slavery, then it was right. 5. CR is arbitrary: Arbitrary=unfair...Morality can't be arbitrary so CR can't be the right account of morality |
|
|
What is cultural relativism and what were the objections to it? (Part 6)
|
6. The Consequences Objection: For example: if you're in a society that believes that it's always wrong to lie. So if a man comes up to you with a gun and says if you answer yes to my question, I'll check into a mental hospital, but if you say no, I'll kill you/more. The question is Do you have a sandwich? You don't have one. The obvious answer is to lie to save yourself and everyone, but according to CR, you shouldn't lie because your society believes it is wrong to lie. CR ignores the consequences of our actions. Thus, CR IS FALSE!
|
|
|
What is Distributive Justice concerned with?
|
Distributive Justice: how should goods, services, and burdens within a society should be distributed--concerned with how an economy is structured.
|
