Final Exam Study Flashcards
Relativism
- no absolute right or wrong, but we can say acts are morally acceptable as long as they conform to my society’s approved practices
moral standards often differ across cultures
leads to conventionalism (right to do whatever immediate social environment dictates)
Issues:
- however, moral views can differ in society (subcultures, individual dissent)
under relativism, everything can be justified as long as its justified in the time period you talk about (e.g. slavery obviously wrong, but if you were to argue about it in the 1700s, it could be viewed differently)
Consequentialism
acts are good if they have good consequences –>morality of action depends solely on the consequences it brings about, right thing to do brings about the best state of affairs when all things considered
Issues:
- what are the good outcomes we care about, and do we all agree –> it can differ depending on who you ask
Whose well-being do we want to maximize
Egoism
(type of consequentialism)
- acts are good if they benefit me
2 types: ethical egoism & psychological egoism
ethical egoism (objectivism)
- moral agents should do what is in their self interest
Smith: when we each pursue our own self interest, we are collectively better off –> when we try to help others it is unsatisfactory bc 1) we invasively impose our own preferences 2) charity is degrading and debilitating (e.g. giving money to homeless encourages their begging behavior and doesn’t help them in the long run)
Ayn Rand: the true source of value is in the individual (supreme value of each individual life) –> their inspiration, work, etc. so asking them to sacrifice for society is limiting their own ability (destroying the highest value)
psychological egoism
- self-interest is in fact what motivates people –> humans (may) be selfish by nature
no such thing as a selfless act –> everything you do brings you benefit (e.g. donating makes you feel better)
Argument against egoism
- There is scientific evidence that the evolutionary success of humans is largely due to cooperation and altruism (inconsistent with psychological egoism)
Insurance/sympathy –> bad luck is an important determinant in well-being, do we really want to be cold-hearted and not care about the unfortunate
in PD situations, both parties are worse off than if they collaborate
Utilitarianism
- acts are good if they can be expected to raise the sum of all human welfare (increase sum of all happiness)
issues:
- involuntary sacrifices –> the sacrificed have no rights
- justified torture –> can be ethical if outcomes are beneficial even if act is disturbing
- equal treatment of innocent and guilty, family and strangers –> utilitarianism says to always sacrifice less to save more no matter who
- breaking promises, lying for greater good depending on the circumstances is okay
- monetizes everything, even life itself –> quantify the effects of each decision
4 golden rules
1: golden rule = do unto others as you would have others do unto you
2: Kant’s 1st rule, the Categorical Imperative = act according to principles that are universalizable (generally agreed)
3: Kant’s 2nd rule, the Practical Imperative = do not treat people purely as a means (don’t use people for your own benefit)
4: Ethics of care = act according to duties of care
Issues with the Golden Rule
- differences in preferences –> what should a meatlover serve to his vegetarian dinner guest?
- acts where there is no “other” who would do the acts to you (e.g. suicide, gluttony, realization of one’s talents)
- lenient law enforcer –> golden rule of whether cop arrests a robber or not, cop doesn’t want to be arrested so they let the robber go
How to apply the categorical imperative (rule #2)
- Start by stating the action you are considering: e.g. “borrowing some money that I don’t intend to pay”
- devise a general guiding principle that would underlie the decision: “When I need the money I will borrow it even if I know I won’t be able to repay it”
- Imagine a universal law that requires everyone in all circumstances to act according to this principle: “Everyone who needs money should borrow it, even when they know they won’t repay it”
- If no rational person would impose such a universal law, then you have the moral duty not to do the action – no matter what consequence
- how to check if people would agree –> if the universal law was implemented, would the maxim ever occur? e.g. “don’t repay borrowed money = no one lends = can’t even borrow = can’t reach maxim”
What is a more practical approach than the categorical imperative?
rule utilitarianism = obey moral rules which if universally followed, would maximize social welfare
- the consequences of the act might be to lower total utility but everyone following the rule raises total utility
- e.g. voting in elections even though one person’s vote can’t influence the outcome
- e.g. Why the doctor shouldn’t slice up the traveller (ppl stop going to doctor = decrease in SW)
Practical imperative
- Treating people as a means is not always a bad thing –> e.g. treat server at restaurant as a means to getting our meal is not that bad
- making “not purely as a means” practical –> server chose to accept the job so we know they get something out of it
- principle of autonomy: informed consent (no deception of coercion)
- reformulated practical imperative: Never treat other human beings in a way that violates their autonomy
Moral Rules
- not dependent on outcomes or consequences
- you should follow principles or rules that you would want all people to follow
- must satisfy universality and reversibility
e.g. “always deal with people honestly”
- universality = I want everyone to be honest
- reversibility = I should be honest
- if you agree then it is a moral rule –> the duty to follow this moral rule establishes a right to expect honest dealings (you have the right to expect people to be honest with you and you have a duty to be honest to people) = deontological moral philosophy (rights based)
Universality Rule
- I want everyone to follow that rule
Reversibility Rule
- The rule should apply to me
Ethics of Care
- the most important thing to us is relationships, so it should be the foundation for our morality (compassion) –> duty of care/compassion to those who depend on us
- Carol Gilligan, Nel Noddings + other feminists: caring is the foundation of morality –> more compassionate basis for human interaction
- rational/deontological philosophies are seen to be born out of masculine values of competition/domination
Milton Friedman & CSR
- There is only one social responsibility of business –> use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game
- employees responsibilities are to their employer
- argues it is not the CSR of businesses to 1) hire workers struggling to find jobs 2) reduce pollution beyond requirements 3) buy domestic to help economy and create jobs 4) make donations
Argument for profit maximization
- a manager’s duty as an employee and an agent of principal overrides their alleged social responsibilities
- pursuing social responsibilities other than profit maximization is a form of “taxation without representation”
- pursuing profit leads to pareto efficiency (invisible hand argument) –> pursue profit maximization = decrease price of goods = more accessible
Milton Freedman’s points against CSR
corporate activity that aims to help the community but reduces profit are:
- undemocratic b/c these decisions should be made thru a democratic process
- unwise b/c the businessperson has no expertise to identify/fix social problems
- ineffective b/c a manager that acts contrary to profit maximization might be fired or have less customers
TLDR: leave social issues to social workers that specialize in helping society and those who need it. What’s occurring is just “mindless” social responsibility
Argument against Friedman’s points
- shareholders and board can vote on decisions = democratic
- firms know more about their product and production than any gov regulator = they know best way to fix problems they generate (e.g. firms have control over their pollution levels and how its generated)
- if shareholders and consumers endorse the firms goal it is effective
What very important issue does Friedman ignore in his argument, and who argues that he ignores it?
Arrow argues that Friedman ignores market failure –> profit maximization may fail to yield efficient results in these scenarios
1) negative externalities: pollution caused by firm
2) asymmetric (imperfect) information: firm knows more than the customer about the quality of the product. They also know more than the worker about the safety of the workplace (e.g. cars, pharmaceuticals, mining, etc.)
- e.g. Cars = Ford Pinto –> compressed 2 yr manufacturing to compete against Japanese cars, the manufacturers were aware of the issue but lobbied to delay rear end testing + other so they could sell the car model, resulting in deaths from the explosion of rear ending
What is Kenneth Arrow’s perspective?
markets don’t always get things right (as Friedman argued), so things like ethics can play a role in making markets work better
What are potential solutions to market failure
- regulation: production standards, maximum emission levels, safety inspections, competition policy, etc.
- taxes and subsidies: tax pollution, subsidize abatement, etc.
- legal responsibility: damage suits or “torts”, legislation for labour and consumer protection, etc.
- Government produced goods when there are public goods or externalities (defense, healthcare, education, etc.)
- Industry-led solutions such as guarantees, warrantees, voluntary labelling for signalling, etc.
- Social responsibility: moral obligation to obey ethical codes
CSR
Concept that captures the responsibility of businesses to the environment, its stakeholders and to broader society
Questions about CSR:
1) To what extent should firms have this responsibility considering the typical tradeoffs that there are
2) Should firms focus on CSR which is closely related to their operations or CSR initiatives which are potentially very different from their business
Shared value
firms have benefit to their (financial) bottom line from CSR initiatives –> consumer brands find it easier to create shared value than others
- e.g. Unilever training women in rural communities to sell their product
- e.g. Arc’teryx workers making ponchos for the homeless
ESG Investing
investors invest in equities of firms that score highly on an ESG index –> important means of incentivizing firms to engage in CSR
Greenwashing
firms appear socially responsible but without having an actual impact –> e.g. glorified CSR reports released for annual reporting
Triple Bottom line
people/plant/profit (equal weight)
- firms expand their objectives beyond just making money to include having a positive impact on the environment and community
4 Justifications for CSR by Porter
- Moral obligation - companies have a moral duty to do the right thing
- Sustainability - companies should operate in ways to secure long-term economic performance by avoiding detrimental short term behavior (alignment with triple bottom line)
- Freedom to operate - pragmatic approach where companies look to satisfy stakeholders, common in mining, chemicals, etc. (e.g. big company in small rural town –> big company needs the townspeople approval to work there and townspeople gain jobs + income –> interdependence between the two)
- Reputation - companies do CSR to improve image, strengthen brand and enliven morale
Issues with 4 Justifications for CSR
- moral obligation = difficult to balance competing values, interests, and costs
- sustainability = hard to balance short term costs with long term benefits –> uncertainty in long-term benefits and advantages to companies who remain vague
- Freedom to operate = agenda is ceded to outside groups, stakeholders often don’t understand the firm, its tradeoffs, and importance of different issues –> different stakeholders cant see each other’s perspectives
- reputation = social impact and benefit to firms can be hard to measure/determine
TLDR: CSR is not likely to be enough on its own to achieve better equity and sustainability, individual and gov action is also critical
What is the solution to the problems with the 4 justifications for CSR
strategically integrate CSR initiative’s that effect society with the impact that society has on the firm
Different Economic systems
Private ownership + decentralized supply/demand decisions = market capitalism (private enterprise)
- majority of the world follow this
private ownership + centralized supply/demand decisions = monopoly capitalism
public ownership + decentralized supply/demand decisions = market socialism
- current China
public ownership + centralized supply/demand decisions = state-directed socialism
- USSR 1950s
Different political systems
democracy = citizen participation in the political system –> leaders normally elected
- representative democracy
republic = government is subject to the people and leaders can be recalled, often democratic but can also be a monarchy (crowned republic)
monarchy = monarch head of state, can be constitutional (Canada, Australia –> gov makes decisions on behalf of citizens) or absolute (monarch actually makes decisions)
communism = system based on ideology of communism –> often combined with centrally planned economic system
despotism = rule by an individual (autocracy or dictatorship) or group of individuals (oligarchy)
What would the world be like if (liberal) economists were kings
1) minimal DWL –> no market failure - no interventions (e.g. price floor/ceiling, taxes, etc.), market failure = corrective policies (pigovian taxes, subsidies for abatement)
2) DWL only from a) taxes to finance transfers to the poor b) disincentives associated with the safety net (e.g. unemployment insurance, disaster relief)
Normative analysis
describes what should be implemented as policy based on our theories of economics and fairness
Issues with normative analysis
- many gov policies/actions hard to explain on the basis of normative analysis
- individual/small group interests can outweigh normal justifications
- gov failure = gov acts in a way contrary to what normative analysis prescribes
