Description of this paper

BBA 4751 Business Ethics




BBA 4751 Business Ethics;1. Conduct an online search of CEO salaries. If you search ?do CEO?s get paid too much? on your favorite search engine there is a wealth of information. Select an online article or blog. Take a stance on this subject and construct a brief argument of whether or not you believe CEO?s get paid too much. Please be sure to cite your source at the bottom of your essay.;2. Review pages 83 ? 86 in the course text that talks about virtue ethics. Do you believe that virtue (character) can be taught or acquired through a person?s lifetime? Give a specific example of a character trait to support your point;11. Conduct online research on monitoring employees in the workplace. Select an internet article and answer the following questions;1. Briefly summarize the article 2. Pick a side and agree or disagree with the article and elaborate on your point of view. Remember to cite your article in APA format at the bottom of your essay;12. Go to The Occupational Safety and Health Administration web site ( There is a section called ? News? where you can find multiple articles. Select an article relating to workplace safety and answer the following questions;1. Briefly summarize the article 2. What alternatives could the place of business have taken in order to avoid penalties. Remember to cite your article in APA format at the bottom of your essay;Attachment Preview;BBA 4751-ch3.pdf;Hartman: Business Ethics;DecisionMaking for;Personal Integrity and;Social Responsibility;Chapter;3. Philosophical Ethics and;Business;Text;The McGrawHill;Companies, 2008;3;Philosophical Ethics;and Business;Rules cannot substitute for character.;Alan Greenspan;Hell begins the day that God grants you the vision to see all that you could have;done, should have done, and would have done, but did not do.;Goethe;63;Hartman: Business Ethics;DecisionMaking for;Personal Integrity and;Social Responsibility;3. Philosophical Ethics and;Business;Text;The McGrawHill;Companies, 2008;Opening Decision Point;Social Benets and Personal Duties;Should Managers Value Supplier Loyalty?;64;Chapter 3 Philosophical Ethics and Business;The purchasing departments of major retail rms are responsible for deciding which;products their stores will stock and which suppliers will provide these products. In;many cases, retail stores develop long-term relationships with their suppliers that;can work in the best interests for both companies.;In the global economy, it has become increasingly attractive for major retail;stores to turn to foreign suppliers who can sell products comparable to those;produced domestically for much lower costs. This practice allows the retailer to;pass on savings to the consumer and remain competitive in the marketplace.;This choice has also resulted in a signicant loss of business for many domestic;suppliers, and, in some cases, suppliers have been forced out of business. Imagine;the following conversation between a supplier and the purchasing manager for a;large retail store.;Supplier: You cant cancel your order with us. If you do, Ill have to lay off;many of my employees and I dont even know if the company will survive. We;already have done as much as we can to cut costs, our employees have not had;a pay increase in years and some wages and benets have been reduced. Yet, the;costs of our own materials, especially our energy costs, have risen signicantly;and our taxes remain high. We have always been reliable, cooperative, and accommodating to your needs. Dont you feel any loyalty to us, to our employees, to fellow American citizens?;Purchasing manager: I am not happy doing this, but I do have a responsibility to my own company, to its stockholders, and to our customers. I have a;responsibility to purchase our products at the lowest costs. We have always been;loyal to you, too, but loyalty is not the issue. Our relationship is a business and;contractual relationship only. Besides, we both know what economists and politicians say about foreign trade. Our entire society will benet if we seek the lowest;cost products: Consumers benet from lower costs, our economy grows when;consumer purchasing power increases as a result, and this growing economy will;provide jobs to American workers. Further, economic growth in foreign countries;will increase their imports from the United States and, once again, lead to more;jobs domestically.;Supplier: That may sound good in theory, but I know my employees will not;think it is very fair for them to lose real jobs now for possible jobs for other people in the future. Besides, it is not as if your own company and its owners have;not already made billions of dollars. Maybe its time they reduced their prots to;keep loyal suppliers in business.;How would you describe the decision faced by the purchasing manager? Is it;an ethical issue at all? Why or why not?;Are there any factual questions that you would want to resolve before making;such a decision?;(continued);64;Hartman: Business Ethics;DecisionMaking for;Personal Integrity and;Social Responsibility;(concluded);3. Philosophical Ethics and;Business;Text;The McGrawHill;Companies, 2008;What alternatives are available for the purchasing manager?;What role, if any, should the principle of loyalty play in business decisions?;Do you agree that employees have a duty to seek the greatest prots for their;companies? What values are promoted by such a duty?;What duties does the purchasing manager have? To whom does the purchasing;manager owe responsibility, who are the stakeholders involved?;Assume that it is true that foreign trade will produce greater long-term overall;economic consequences. Is it fair for some individuals to lose their jobs so that;other individuals will benet in the future?;Does a business have responsibilities to suppliers that are not specied in their;contracts? What other alternatives are available to the purchasing manager and;how do these alternatives impact each stakeholder or group of stakeholders?;Is it fair that loyal suppliers be treated this way?;Is there anywhere else you can look for assistance or guidance?;Chapter Objectives;After reading this chapter, you will be able to;1.;Explain the ethical tradition of utilitarianism.;2.;Describe how utilitarian thinking underlies much economic and business;decision making.;3.;Explain how free markets might serve the utilitarian goal of maximizing the;overall good.;4.;Explain strengths and weaknesses of utilitarian decision making.;5.;Explain principle-based, or deontological, ethical traditions.;6.;Explain the concept of moral rights.;7.;Distinguish moral rights from legal rights.;8.;Explain the Rawlsian theory of justice as fairness.;9.;Describe and explain virtue-based theories of ethical character.;Introduction: Ethical Theories and Traditions;Chapters 1 and 2 introduced ethics as a form of practical reasoning in support;of decision making about how we should live our lives. Ethics involves what is;perhaps the most signicant question any human being can ask: How should we;live our lives? But, of course, this question is not new, every major philosophical, cultural, political, and religious tradition in human history has grappled with;65;Hartman: Business Ethics;DecisionMaking for;Personal Integrity and;Social Responsibility;66;3. Philosophical Ethics and;Business;Text;The McGrawHill;Companies, 2008;Chapter 3 Philosophical Ethics and Business;it. In light of this, it would be imprudent to ignore these traditions as we begin to;examine ethical issues in business. In particular, several traditions in Western;ethics have had a signicant inuence on the development of contemporary;business and economics.;Nevertheless, discussions of philosophical ethics can appear intimidating;or too abstract to many students. Discussion of ethical theories often seems;to be too theoretical to be of much relevance to business. Throughout this;chapter, we hope to suggest a more accessible understanding of ethical theories, one that will shed some light on the practical and pragmatic application;of these theories to actual problems businesspeople face.;An ethical theory is nothing more than an attempt to provide a systematic;answer to the fundamental ethical question: How should human beings live;their lives? Not only do ethical theories attempt to answer the question of;how we should live, but they also provide reasons to support their answer. As;the previous chapter suggested, accountable decision making requires giving;reasons to justify our actions. Ethical theories seek to provide a rational justication for why we should act and decide in a particular way. Anyone can offer;prescriptions for what you should do and how you should act, but philosophical ethics answers the Why? question as well by connecting its prescriptions;with an underlying account of a good and meaningful human life.;Many people and cultures across the world base their ethical views on certain religious or theological foundations. The biggest practical problem with;this approach, of course, is that people differ widely in their religious beliefs.;If ethics is based only on religious principles, and if people disagree about;those religious starting points, then ethics would never escape the predicament;of relativism.;Unlike theological ethics, which explains human well-being in religious;terms, philosophical ethics provides justications that must be applicable to;all people, regardless of their religious starting points. Philosophical ethics;seeks foundations that all reasonable people can accept, regardless of their;religious convictions. Thus, for example, you should contribute to disaster;relief because it will reduce human suffering is a philosophical justication;for an ethical judgment, whereas you should contribute to disaster relief;because God commands it, or because it will bring you heavenly rewards;is not.;This chapter will introduce several ethical frameworks that have proven;inuential in the development of business ethics: utilitarianism, an ethical tradition that directs us to decide based on overall consequences of our;act, deontological ethical traditions, which direct us to act on the basis of;moral principles such as respecting human rights, a theory of social justice;that takes fairness as the primary social principle, and virtue ethics, which;directs us to consider the moral character of individuals and how various;character traits can contribute to, or obstruct, a happy and meaningful human;life.;Hartman: Business Ethics;DecisionMaking for;Personal Integrity and;Social Responsibility;3. Philosophical Ethics and;Business;Decision Point;Text;The McGrawHill;Companies, 2008;Who Is to Say What Is Right;or Wrong?;Chapter 3 Philosophical Ethics and Business 67;Are you an ethical relativist? Ethical relativists hold that ethical values are relative;to particular people, cultures, or times. The relativist denies that there can be;any rationally justied or objective ethical judgments. When ethical disagreements;occur between people or cultures, the ethical relativist concludes that there is no;way to resolve that dispute and to prove that one side is right or more reasonable;than the other.;Do you believe that there is no way to decide what is right or wrong? Imagine;a teacher returns an assignment to you with a grade of F. When you ask for an;explanation, you are told that, frankly, the teacher does not believe that people;like you (e.g., women, Christians, African Americans) are capable of doing good;work in this eld (e.g., science, engineering, math, nance). When you object that;this is unfair and wrong, the teacher offers a relativist explanation. Fairness is a;matter of personal opinion, the professor explains. Who determines what is fair;or unfair? you ask. Your teacher claims that his view of what is fair is as valid as any;other. Because all people are entitled to their own personal opinions, he is entitled;to fail you since, in his personal opinion, you do not deserve to succeed.;Would you accept this explanation and be content with your failing grade? If;not, how would you defend your own, opposing view?;Are there any relevant facts you would rely on to support your claim?;What values are involved in this dispute?;What alternatives are available to you?;Besides you and your teacher, should any other people, any other stakeholders;be involved in this situation?;What reasons would you offer to the dean in an appeal to have the grade;changed?;What consequences would this professors practice have on education?;If reasoning and logical persuasion do not work, how else could this dispute;be resolved?;Utilitarianism: Making Decisions Based on Ethical Consequences;1;OBJECTIVE;OBJECTIVE;The rst ethical tradition that we will discuss, utilitarianism, has its roots in 18thand 19th-century social and political philosophy. Utilitarianism was part of the same;social movement that gave rise to modern democratic market capitalism. Much of;neoclassical economics, and the model of business and management embedded in;it, has its roots in utilitarian thinking. (See the Reality Check that follows.);Utilitarianism begins with the conviction that we should decide what to do by;considering the consequences of our actions. Utilitarianism tells us that we should;act in ways that produce better overall consequences than the alternatives we are;considering. Better consequences are those that promote human well-being: the;happiness, health, dignity, integrity, freedom, and respect of all the people affected.;67;Hartman: Business Ethics;DecisionMaking for;Personal Integrity and;Social Responsibility;68;3. Philosophical Ethics and;Business;Text;The McGrawHill;Companies, 2008;Chapter 3 Philosophical Ethics and Business;Reality Check Adam Smith, Utilitarianism and the Invisible Hand of Free Markets;The roots of contemporary market capitalism are;commonly traced to Adam Smiths book, The;Wealth of Nations (1776). Smiths ethical goals were;decidedly utilitarian: Economic institutions should;be arranged in ways that would promote the overall;wealth of a nation, rather than the personal wealth;of the monarch or the aristocracy. Smith argued that;if society adopted certain economic principlesthe;principles of what we have come to understand as;market capitalismthen the pursuit of individual;self-interest alone would, as if led by an invisible;hand, result in greater overall prosperity. Smith;was a utilitarian who concluded that a free market;economy was the most efcient means to attain the;utilitarian goal.;In what is perhaps the most famous passage from;Smiths Wealth of Nations, he writes;As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much;as he can both to employ his capital in the support;of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry;that its produce may be of the greatest value;every individual necessarily labours to render;the annual value of society as great as he can.;He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote;the public interest, nor knows how much he is;promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic;to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own;security, and by directing that industry in such;a manner as its produce may be of the greatest;value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in;this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible;hand to promote an end which was no part of;his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the;society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his;own interest he frequently promotes that of society;more effectually than when he really intends to;promote it. I have never known much good done by;those who affected to trade for the public good. It;is an affectation, indeed, not very common among;merchants, and very few words need be employed;in dissuading them from it.;Contrary to what is often thought, Smith did not;believe that humans were selsh nor did he believe;that self-interest alone was sufcient to secure;the ethical ends of maximum overall happiness.;Sympathy, empathy, fellow-feeling were just as;basic human motivations as self-interest. Human;nature is such that we naturally imagine ourselves in;the place of others, we agonize with their suffering;and feel joy at their happiness. These motivations;are as real and as effective as self-interest. Smiths;economic conclusion was simply that we do not;need sympathy and altruism to achieve benecial;overall consequences;It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the;brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but;from their regard to their own interest. We address;ourselves, not to their humanity but to their selflove, and never talk to them of our own necessities;but of their advantages.;If a basic human value is individual happiness, then an action that promotes more;of that than an alternative does is more reasonable and more justied from an ethical point of view. A decision that promotes the greatest amount of these values;for the greatest number of people is the most reasonable decision from an ethical;point of view.;The emphasis on producing the greatest good for the greatest number makes;utilitarianism a social philosophy that provides strong support for democratic;institutions and policies and opposes those policies that aim to benet only a;small social, economic, or political minority. Therefore, it could be said that the;Hartman: Business Ethics;DecisionMaking for;Personal Integrity and;Social Responsibility;3. Philosophical Ethics and;Business;Text;The McGrawHill;Companies, 2008;Chapter 3 Philosophical Ethics and Business 69;economy and economic institutions are utilitarian in that they exist to provide the;highest standard of living for the greatest number of people, not simply to create;wealth for a privileged few.;For a business-related example, consider the case of child labor, discussed in;further detail in Chapter 6. In judging the ethics of child labor, utilitarian thinking would advise us to consider all the likely consequences of employing young;children in factories. Obviously, the practice has many problematic consequences;Children suffer physical and psychological harms, they are denied opportunities;for education, their low pay is not enough to escape a life of poverty, and so forth.;But these consequences must be compared to the consequences of alternative decisions. What are the consequences if children in poor regions are denied factory;jobs? These children would still be denied opportunities for education, they would;live in worse poverty, and they would have less money for food and family support.;In many cases, the only alternatives for obtaining any income available to young;children who are prohibited from joining the workforce might include crime, drugs;and prostitution. Further, we should consider not only the consequences to the children themselves, but to the entire society. Child labor can have benecial results;for bringing foreign investment and money into a poor country. In the opinion of;some observers, allowing children to work for pennies a day under sweatshop conditions produces better overall consequences than the available alternatives. Thus;one might argue on utilitarian grounds that such labor practices are ethically permissible because they produce better overall consequences than the alternatives.;This example highlights several important aspects of utilitarian reasoning.;Because utilitarians decide on the basis of consequences, and because the consequences of our actions will depend on the specic facts of each situation, utilitarians tend to be very pragmatic thinkers (but not egoistic, see the Reality Check that;follows). No act is ever absolutely right or wrong in all cases in every situation;right and wrong will always depend on the consequences. For example, lying is;neither right nor wrong in itself, according to utilitarians. In some situations, lying;may produce greater overall good than telling the truth. In such a situation, it would;be ethically justied to tell a lie.;Utilitarian reasoning also usually supplies some support for each competing;available alternative. For example, the utilitarian might argue for banning child;labor as harmful to the overall good or allowing child labor as contributing to the;overall good. Deciding on the ethical legitimacy of alternative decisions requires;that we make judgments about the likely consequences of our actions. How do;we do this? The utilitarian tradition has a strong inclination to rely on the social;sciences for help in making such predictions. After all, social science studies the;causes and consequences of individual and social actions. Who is better situated;than a social scientist to help us predict the social consequences of our decisions?;Consider, as an example, how the elds of economics, anthropology, political science, sociology, public policy, psychology, and medical and health sciences could;help determine the likely consequences of child labor in a particular culture. We;will return to examine this example further in Chapter 6.;Hartman: Business Ethics;DecisionMaking for;Personal Integrity and;Social Responsibility;70;3. Philosophical Ethics and;Business;The McGrawHill;Companies, 2008;Text;Chapter 3 Philosophical Ethics and Business;Reality Check Is Utilitarianism Egoistic?;While the imperative to maximize pleasure or;happiness sounds selsh and egoistic, utilitarianism;differs from egoism in important ways. Egoism is also;a consequentialist theory, but it focuses on the;happiness of the individual. In other words, instead;of determining the greatest good for the greatest;number, egoism seeks the greatest good for me!;Utilitarianism judges actions by their consequences for the general and overall good. Consistent with the utilitarian commitment to democratic;equality, however, the general good must take into;consideration the well-being of each and every individual affected by the action. In this way utilitarianism serves the ultimate goal of ethics: the impartial promotion of human well-being. It is impartial;because it considers the consequences for everyone;not just for the individual. People who act in ways;to maximize only their own happiness, or the happiness of their company, are not utilitarians, they are;egoists.;Utilitarianism and Business: Prot Maximization versus Public Policy;Approaches;2;OBJECTIVE;OBJECTIVE;3;OBJECTIVE;Utilitarianism answers the fundamental questions of ethicswhat should we;do?by reference to a rule: Maximize the overall happiness. But another question;remains to be answered: How do we achieve this goal? What is the best means for;attaining the utilitarian goal of maximizing the overall good? Two answers prove;especially relevant in business and business ethics.;One movement within utilitarian thinking invokes the tradition of Adam Smith;claiming that free and competitive markets are the best means for attaining utilitarian goals. This version would promote policies that deregulate private industry;protect property rights, allow for free exchanges, and encourage competition. In;such situations, decisions of rationally self-interested individuals would result, as;if led by an invisible hand in Adam Smiths terms, in the maximum satisfaction;of individual happiness.;Given this utilitarian goal, neoclassical free market economics advises us that;the most efcient economy is structured according to the principles of free market;capitalism. This requires that business managers, in turn, should seek to maximize;prots. This idea is central to one common perspective on corporate social responsibility. By pursuing prots, business insures that scarce resources go to those;who most value them and thereby insures that resources will provide optimal;overall satisfaction. Thus, these economists see competitive markets as the most;efcient means to the utilitarian end of maximizing happiness. For an example of;this applied in practice, see the Reality Check that follows.;A second inuential version of utilitarian policy turns to policy experts who;can predict the outcome of various policies and carry out policies that will attain;utilitarian ends. These experts, usually trained in the social sciences such as economics, political science, and public policy, are familiar with the specics of how;society works, and they therefore are in a position to determine which policy will;maximize the overall good.;This approach to public policy underlies one theory of the entire administrative and bureaucratic side of government and organizations. From this view, the;Hartman: Business Ethics;DecisionMaking for;Personal Integrity and;Social Responsibility;3. Philosophical Ethics and;Business;The McGrawHill;Companies, 2008;Text;Chapter 3 Philosophical Ethics and Business 71;Reality Check Utilitarian Experts in Practice;Consider how the Federal Reserve Board sets interest rates. There is an established goal, a public;policy good, that the Federal Reserve takes to be;the greatest good for the country. (This goal is something like the highest sustainable rate of economic;growth compatible with minimal ination.) The Fed;examines the relevant economic data and makes a;judgment about the present and future state of the;economy. If economic activity seems to be slowing;down, the Fed might decide to lower interest rates;as a means of stimulating economic growth. If the;economy seems to be growing too fast and the ination rate is increasing, the Fed might choose to raise;interest rates. Lowering or raising interest rates in;itself is neither good nor bad, the rightness of the;act depends on the consequences. The role of public;servants is to use their expertise to judge the likely;consequences and make the decision that is most;likely to produce the best result.;legislative body (from Congress to local city councils) establishes the public goals;that we assume will maximize overall happiness. The administrative side (presidents, governors, mayors) executes (administers) policies to fulll these goals.;The people working within the administration know how the social and political;system works and use this knowledge to carry out the mandate of the legislature. The government is lled with such people, typically trained in such elds as;economics, law, social science, public policy, and political science. This utilitarian approach, for example, would be sympathetic with government regulation of;business on the grounds that such regulation will insure that business activities do;contribute to the overall good.;The dispute between these two versions of utilitarian policy, what we might;call the administrative and the market versions of utilitarianism, characterizes;many disputes in business ethics. One clear example concerns regulation of;unsafe or risky products. (Similar disputes involve worker health and safety, environmental protection, regulation of advertising, and almost every other example;of government regulation of business.) One side argues that questions of safety;and risk should be determined by experts who then establish standards that business is required to meet. Government regulators (for example, the Consumer;Products Safety Commission) are then charged with enforcing safety standards;in the marketplace.;The other side argues that the best judges of acceptable risk and safety are;consumers themselves. A free and competitive consumer market will insure that;people will get the level of safety that they want. Individuals calculate for themselves what risks they wish to take and what trade-offs they are willing to make in;order to attain safety. Consumers willing to take risks likely will pay less for their;products than consumers who demand safer and less risky products. The very;basic economic concept of efciency can be understood as a placeholder for the;utilitarian goal of maximum overall happiness. Thus, market-based solutions will;prove best at optimally satisfying these various and competing interests and will;thereby serve the overall good. The following Decision Point tests the efcacy of;this approach with regard to consumer safety.;Hartman: Business Ethics;DecisionMaking for;Personal Integrity and;Social Responsibility;3. Philosophical Ethics and;Business;Text;The McGrawHill;Companies, 2008;Decision Point;Should Consumer Product;Safety Be Left to Individual Bargaining?;72;Chapter 3 Philosophical Ethics and Business;The free market version of utilitarian decision making would conclude that;standards for consumer product safety are best left to the workings of the market.;From this perspective, individual consumers should be left alone to bargain for;the level of safety in products that they nd acceptable and to make trade-offs;with other benets such as price or convenience. According to free market theory;the result of this policy would be an optimal distribution of risks and benets.;This recommendation underlies the traditional policy of caveat emptor, or let the;buyer beware. Do you agree that such decisions are best left to the market?;What facts are relevant in answering this question? Does it matter what type of;consumer product is involved? Does it matter who the consumer is? Why?;What values support a policy of caveat emptor? What values count against it?;Other than consumers and producers, what other stakeholders might be affected by product safety issues?;What alternative might there be to a policy of caveat emptor and what impact;would your alternatives have on each stakeholder?;Problems of Utilitarian Ethics;4;OBJECTIVE;OBJECTIVE;72;Because utilitarian thinking is so common in business settings, it is important that;we are aware of some of its problems. For instance, if utilitarianism advises that we;make decisions by comparing the consequences of alternative actions, then we must;have a method for making such comparisons. In practice, however, some comparisons and measurements are very difcult. How, after all, can we count, measure;compare, and quantify happiness? One problem that follows is that, because of;these difculties, there will be a tendency to ignore the consequences, especially;the harmful consequences, to anyone other than those closest to us.;This problem is intensied when we recognize that our actions may impact the;happiness not only of ourselves and those people surrounding us, but unknown;and untold people in distant places and in the distant future. The action of the;purchasing agent described in our opening Decision Point will affect not only her;own business and the employees of her supplier, but workers and their families;living in distant countries. Some utilitarians argue that the happiness of future;generations ought to be considered, others include animals and all living beings;capable of feeling pleasure and pain. The more expansive the list we should consider, the less practical utilitarian thinking becomes.;A second challenge goes directly to the core of utilitarianism. The essence;of utilitarianism is its reliance on consequences. Ethical and unethical acts are;determined by their consequences. In short, the end justies the means. But this;seems to deny one of the earliest ethical principles that many of us have learned;The ends do not justify the means.;This challenge can be explained in terms of ethical principles. When we say;that the ends do not justify the means, what we are saying is that there are certain;Hartman: Business Ethics;DecisionMaking for;Personal Integrity and;Social Responsibility;3. Philosophical Ethics and;Business;Text;The McGrawHill;Companies, 2008;Chapter 3 Philosophical Ethics and Business 73;decisions we should make or certain rules we should follow no matter what the;consequences. To put it another way, we have certain duties or responsibilities;that we ought to obey, even when doing so does not produce a net increase in overall happiness. Examples of such duties are those required by such principles as;justice, loyalty, and respect, as well as the responsibilities that ow from our social;or institutional roles as parent, spouse, friend, citizen, employee, or professional.;Several examples can be used to explain why this is a serious criticism of;utilitarian reasoning. Since utilitarianism focuses on the overall consequences;utilitarianism seems willing to sacrice the good of individuals for the greater;overall good. So, for example, it might turn out that the overall happiness would;be increased if a small minority of a population were held as slave labor. Utilitarians would object to slavery or to child labor, not as a matter of principle, but;only if and to the degree that it detracts from the overall good. If it turns out that;slavery and child labor increase the net overall happiness, utilitarianism would;have to support these practices. In the


Paper#33747 | Written in 18-Jul-2015

Price : $57