Unformatted text preview: PHIL 1273 Ellis Final study guide The Final Exam will be on Tuesday, December 13, 2016
at 8:00 AM
. Scope: You are responsible for everything that we have covered since the second midterm, in both the readings and class. (To refresh your memory, by the exam date, we will have covered at least Orlando, Texas Supreme Court, Hochshild, “The Glass Floor,” Bok, Duska, Friedman, Stone, Freeman, Shaw, and Bonilla-Silva). There will also be a short section of objective questions 'recycled' from the previous Midterms. Materials: You will need to bring a scantron sheet (full-sized page;; not the narrow kind), a blank blue book (any size), a #2 pencil, and your favorite writing instrument(s). You will not need your book or any notes, as this is a closed book and note exam. Do not write in or on your blue book(s) before you come to class. Do not forget your scantron sheet or your blue book. Format: The exam will have two (2) sections - objective questions and an essay question. The objective section will be worth 60% of the grade (it will include a few questions from previous exams) and the essay section worth 40% of the grade. - The objective section will include multiple choice and true false questions. They are meant to test your philosophical understanding so they will not be simple. - The essay section will consist of one (1) essay. The actual test questions will be drawn from the study questions below. Two (2) of those questions, drawn at random, will be on the exam and you will choose one (1) of those two (2) to write on. Since you will have the questions before hand, I expect cogent, well-organized answers. I want to know what you think, but much more importantly, I want to know
why you think that way. Your essays should focus on arguments: those we are investigating and your own. As long as we – the teaching assistants and myself – can understand what you say, spelling, grammar, and even stylistic errors will be forgiven. Study hint: outline answers to (all but one of) the study questions before the exam. We are willing to review your outlines with you if you give us enough lead time. (Nothing after Saturday, December 10!) Essay study questions: 1. According to Orlando, employers should not be allowed to ignore employee interests when they make hiring and firing decisions. Of the arguments for ignoring employee interests that Orlando considers, which do you think is the strongest? Compare and contrast with Orlando's counter-argument. Is there any positive moral argument for Orlando's conclusion? If so, what is it? Do you find it persuasive? Why or why not? 2. According to Hochshild, employers owe employees a certain sort of respect as fellow human beings when setting working conditions. What sorts of working conditions fail to take into account an employee’s interests/worth/dignity? (Feel free to appeal to “The Glass Floor” document here.) Can such working conditions be ethically justified? If so, how? If not, what are employers required to do? 3. What, according to Bok, are the key interests to consider when someone is deciding whether to be a whistleblower? What advice does Bok give to potential whistleblowers that involves these features? Do you agree? Why or why not? Bok and Duska disagree about whether employees owe any loyalty to the firms for which they work. What does each claim? Why? Defend one of these positions. Be sure to take into account the arguments of the other in your defense. 4. Friedman provides a Libertarian argument for
shareholder primacy: the doctrine that managers should run a company in a way that maximizes shareholder value. What, on Friedman’s view, is the basis for managerial obligations to shareholders? I.e., if I am a manager, why should I work in the interests of stockholders as opposed to employees or bondholders or citizens of the United States? According to Friedman, when a corporate executive acts to promote social objectives she is illegitimately coercing or deceiving the stockholders of the corporation. Why does he say this? Evaluate this argument: would corporate executives really be doing the right thing if they were to pursue profit and the ultimate effect would be to harm the prospective well-being of others? (Stone’s criticism is relevant here.) Why or why not? 5. Freeman provides an argument for stakeholder primacy: the doctrine that managers should run a company in a way that benefits each group that plays an important role in the success of a company. What, on Freeman’s view, is the basis for managerial obligations to stakeholders? I.e., if I am a manager, why should I work in the interests of not only stockholders but also employees, bondholders, customers, suppliers, etc.? Freeman is not very clear on what it actually means to manage a company for the benefit of all stakeholders. Imagine you are the manager of a company that could marginally improve its profits by moving a manufacturing plant overseas but only at the cost of devastating a community. How do you think Freeman would approach this decision? Do you think this as a good approach? Why or why not? 6. How should someone respond when they benefit from an unjust system and the victims of the system try to rectify it? The evidence establishes that there are economic disparities between whites and non-whites, as well as between men and women. Shaw and Bonilla-Silva both argue that these disparities are the result of an unjust system. Why do they think race/gender relations in the US are unjust? Evaluate these arguments. If they work, how should people who benefit from the unjust system respond? If they don’t work, what accounts for the economic disparities? 7. Two of the goals for this course are to help students (1) form coherent moral evaluations about business situations and (2) act with
integrity in business situations. Consider one of these goals - formation or integrity - and explain what it is and how it has been addressed by the course content. What else do you think the course needs to address in order to advance the goal you are considering? ...
View Full Document