PHIL TEZ 3 - PHIL 106 TEST 3 REVIEW Discuss the distinction...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
PHIL 106 TEST 3 REVIEW Discuss the distinction between positive and negative rights. Give definitions, examples, and explain the problems involving in asserting each. Positive Rights imply that others have duties to do things for you. Examples of these are the right to an education and employment. The problem in asserting positive rights is that the society needs the resources and facilities to provide them. Negative Rights entitle you to be left alone and that they have to be respected in society. Examples of these include right to life, liberty, and free speech. These are easier to assert because they are clear cut and because there is only respect to these rights and not an obligation to them. Discuss Occupational Health and Safety from the points of view of Duska and Machan. Integrate the distinction between basic human rights and special employee rights as well as arguments for and against contract at will. Using Hartman, discuss the advantages and disadvantages of employee monitoring. By Hartman’s Standards, should Art let Alberta use LanScape in the way she wants? Why or Why Not? The advantage of employee monitoring according to Hartman is that emails and other personal information can be given so that the employer can comply with discrimination laws, giving out benfits, or placing workers in the correct positions. Also, she says that it can help curve performance and protect the systems from viruses, using the company’s letterhead , and to eliminate copyright infringement. The disadvantages of employee monitoring is that it shows a lack of trust and respect shown by the employer, which produces low morale and makes the employees less productive. Legally, it is offensive not telling the employer is being monitored in advance. How do DesJardins and Duska respond to the arguemuent that drug testing increases efficiency. How do they respond to the argument that drug testing prevents harm to innocent third parties. Do the two companies mentioned in Waldholz’s article meet the standards? Why or Why not? Desjardins and Duska argue that drug testing
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 3

PHIL TEZ 3 - PHIL 106 TEST 3 REVIEW Discuss the distinction...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online