Give me a grade

[UnderseaLcpl]

I really hate having to ask for your opinions on school-related matters that are my responsibility, but I would like the opinions of my fellow subsimmers on an assignment. I am a very poor student. It isn't that I don't understand the material; I just have a tendency to go way outside the scope of the assignment in order to achieve a comprehensive understanding of things, and I sometimes offend teachers, neither of which is good.

The following is an excerpt from an assignment that I recently failed. I'm not sure what I did wrong, but the Prof. was quite mean about it. He said that I obviously had no idea what was going on, and that if I continued to have this attitude I would fail the whole course. You guys are the smartest gang I hang out with, so I'd like your opinions. I'd especially like August's opinion. I'm just not sure whether this problem is because I'm missing something or because I'm missing something else. :damn:

Here is the assignment, to be completed in essay form, at least 500 wds.
*citation means places where I later inserted a proper citation, I just had to put it into proper format. The minimum was 2, and the course is Business Ethics, with source material from "Moral Issues in Business" by Williams, Shaw, and Barry (if anyone already has a copy)

Did Ford act unethically in the Pinto case?
Is American industry at too much risk
for lawsuits to remain competitive? Should lawsuits such as the one against Ford be disallowed or limited? Why or why not? Should we try to restrain, in this and other situations, the litigiousness that seems to characterize American life? How might we do this?
Will your answers to any of the above change now that the US government (you, the taxpayer) are part owners of the car companies? Does your ethical stance change if the government (or a private company partially owned by the government) is the party under discussion rather than a totally private company?

And here is my essay:

Before it is possible to answer any of the questions presented in the assignment the question must be asked as to whether or not any of the theories of ethics presented in the text provide a satisfactory answer to all the questions. My opinion is that they do not.
The problem comes from trying to measure an act or intention as being "ethical", or "unethical" when noone can agree on what those terms mean, exactly. Even in the most seemingly simple cases, ethicality can be difficult to determine. The problem lies not so much with the theory as with the practice.
Utilitariansim, even in the deontological sense, is right out because no person has the knowledge to act in the best way for all of society. Such a thing is no basis for a system of ethics. Ford could well have claimed that it was acting in the best interests of the public in the Pinto case, and it did, as evidenced by pp.89-90 of the text (citation) of the text. Deontological Utilitariansim(citation ) gives an easy out for people by simply claiming that they had good intentions. Though that may sound like an observation from a social justice point of view, it is true for all individuals. People tend to believe what they want to believe, and they often want to believe that they are not guilty of any injustice. Rule utilitarianism is similarly futile, mostly for the same reasons, but with the added burden of "who makes the rules and why?".
Egoism, Kan'ts ethics, and every consequentialist and nonconsequentialist theory described lend themselves to the same faults. Without perfect knowledge, it cannot be possible to act ethically in every case, and the ethicality of an act cannot reasonably be judged in every case, no matter what the theory. People also have different ideas about what is ethical and what is not, even in the face of a well-defined theory. Personally, I find the philosophical nature of ethics in any field to be a wild goose chase.
And yet, we still have things that are considered ethical and unethical; moral and amoral. Assuming the above is reasonable , why is this so? The answer, I believe, lies in a normative theory of ethics that is not described as such by the text, but mentioned incorrectly under the section concerning theories of social justice. Social justice and ethics are inextricably entertwined, as without a social system consisting of at least two people, there is no reason for ethics to even exist (religion excepted, of course).
Libertarianism (citation) in both its deontological and consequentialist forms, which are not specifically mentioned in the text(pp122-128), hold that all ethical behaviour stems from the basic principle that no person may ethically initiate the use of force (in excess, in the case of the consequentialist view) fraud, or coercion. Of course, people do these things all the time and there are mitigating factors to be considered, but I believe that the libertarian theory of ethics does well to serve as a baseline for all ethical philosophy, as it is impossible to perform an immoral act while adhering to these principles. True enough, it is possible to allow an immoral act to take place through inaction without violating the aforementioned principles, but mitigating circumstances may well again put us at an impasse. For instance, if a safe was about to drop on a man's head, and you could grab the rope, but doing so may put you in jepoardy, what is the ethical course of action? Maybe you save his life and maybe you don't. Maybe you get killed instead. Maybe the man is a drug dealer or murderer. Even from a deontological perspective, these are difficult questions, but libertarianism gives us a baseline from which to judge. If you did not cause the safe to fall (force through neglect), you cannot be held accountable for your inaction, though other may hold you accountable preemptively without coercing you, and you may modify your actions based upon this (you force and coerce yourself).
It is from this perspective that I would like to evaluate the Ford Pinto case.
From a libertarian perspective, Ford acted unethically, without question. Presumably, the buyers of Ford products did not want a car that would explode, and presumably, Ford did not say anything about the risks. Therefore, Ford committed fraud and should be held accountable.
With regards to the question of whether American industry is too much at risk for lawsuits to remain competitive, and whether or not we should restrain lawsuits, I can say only this: A lawsuit is a use of state force, coercion, and occasionally fraud against another party. Therefore it is inherently immoral unless precipitated by an act of force, coercion, or fraud. The problem with litigiouness is that it is an unrestrained use of force. Therefore, the solution is to make the plaintiff pay if they are wrong, which is not the case with the current system.( I will not go into specifics on the justice system here, as it is well outside the scope of this assignment.) The defendant can initiate countersuit, but the need to do so could be interpreted as a use of force by the plaintiff, and the whole suit itself is already unethical if no offense can be proven.
My answers and my ethical stance have absolutely nothing to do with what the US government is doing with automotive manufacturers or any other entity. For one thing, I am not really a part owner of them at all. If I am, where is my dividend and can I sell my share? I do, however, consider the government to be an inherently immoral agent, as it is based upon the use of force to achieve whatever ends are deigned necessary by someone who is not me. Simultaneously, I consider the rule of law to be sacrosanct, but that's another subject.

edit-the format is messed up. Pretend I used proper block paragraphs.

[Snestorm]

There is nothing wrong with your paper.
You fulfilled the assignemrnt, and therefor (derfor) deserves a passing grade, at minimum.

The only one who failed this assignement is your prof.
He asked for answers based on personal perspective (opimions / values / stances), which means your answers can NOT be wrong. They are YOUR perspective, which is what he asked for.

You may have "failed" because your answer was based on What You Think, as opposed to How You Feel about the issues. Beware this Left Oriented prof. Your abilty to criticaly alalyse issues makes him nervouse (nervøs), and he will do his best to assure your failure.

A change of profs is recommended.

[TarJak]

I think you spent too much time on the analysis of ethics and putting forward your opinion that the ethical models are all flawed, (This could have been done in a single paragraph), which was defniately not within the scope of the assignment, and too little time discussing the actual questions raised in the assignment. Sorry mate but it would be a fail in my book too.:)

[Takeda Shingen]

Your answer is lovely, and well thought, but from the professor's standpoint, you did not answer the question. You played the hypothetical card and absolved yourself of taking a stance on the issue. Now, I know that this is because you are an exeptionally thoughtful and and a thinker who is outside the mold of the mainstream, as are most of history's great minds. This is a credit to you. However, to him, as he does not know you, and will likely never get to know you, you have mocked his question. Refusing to, in effect, take either stance has rendered his question farcical in his mind, and he did not take kindly to it.

I work in a university, and it pains me to say that truth of thought has no place in the university classroom. Take a stance, whether you belive it or not, and defend that point as tightly as you can. Make sure your points are referenced and completely thorough. You must play this man's [or woman's] game to pass the course. I am sorry to tell you that you will have to do this frequently. Sadly, the university is no longer a place for free thought.

[UnderseaLcpl]

The only one who failed this assignement is your prof.
He asked for answers based on personal perspective (opimions / values / stances), which means your answers can NOT be wrong. They are YOUR perspective, which is what he asked for. And yet....

A change of profs is recommended.
I'm thinking a change of schools may be more appropriate. Empire State just may not be the place for me to get these pre-reqs out of the way. Too bad for me.

I think you spent too much time on the analysis of ethics and putting forward your opinion that the ethical models are all flawed, (This could have been done in a single paragraph), which was defniately not within the scope of the assignment, and too little time discussing the actual questions raised in the assignment. Sorry mate but it would be a fail in my book too.:)

No worries, friend. That was one of the things I was concerned about. And....

However, to him, as he does not know you, and will likely never get to know you, you have mocked his question. Refusing to, in effect, take either stance has rendered his question farcical in his mind, and he did not take kindly to it.

I was afraid of this.

My problem is that I can't stop doing it. I'm working in a group learning environment and I cannot just BS my way through a course for a grade, I have to explain what my observations have been. If I didn't, I'd be committing fraud.:damn:

There are times when I think that I'm just not cut out for higher education, which is bad because there is so much learn.....

Oh, well. Thanks for the responses, and any future responses. Everyone is welcome to continue to weigh in. I already failed the paper anyway, but there are more to come. :DL

[Takeda Shingen]

There are times when I think that I'm just not cut out for higher education, which is bad because there is so much learn.....

This will depend on what your objective is. Yes, you can leave, and do so with your intellectual integrity intact [how's that for alliteration?]. Of course, you could play the game in the hopes of placing yourself in the professor's chair one day, and alter the climate from within. You may well have the propensity for the latter, and I think that you would excell in that role. I implore you to stick with this.

[AngusJS]

It seems like you answered the question that you wish you were asked, and not the question given.

How is force related to neglect? It sounds like force could mean anything and everything the way it's being used.

Also, how does not saying something indicate fraud? Isn't fraud possible only when false claims are made?

However, to him, as he does not know you, and will likely never get to know you, you have mocked his question. Refusing to, in effect, take either stance has rendered his question farcical in his mind, and he did not take kindly to it.Or it's an indication that you didn't do enough of the reading to answer the question, so you just went with what you already knew (thus going off on a huge tangent), which is just another form of BSing. Not that this is necessarily the case, but I could see how the prof might see it as such. Anyway, why don't you talk to him during his office hours. Maybe you can explain yourself and get a better grade in the process.

Oh, and I'd give it an F--- for excessive libertarian fundamentalism. :)

[thorn69]

C-


Hey, you asked! :rotfl2:

[CaptainHaplo]

OK.... 3 problems here.

First, I have to say that I would have failed you if I were the Prof. - even though I mostly agree.

While I agree with your sentiments, you really didn't deal with all the questions. Lets look at it:

Did Ford act unethically in the Pinto case? This one you answered, so you get credit for it.

Is American industry at too much risk for lawsuits to remain competitive? You didn't even attempt to answer this in any kind of yes/no fashion, with reasoning to back it up. You went badly off topic into basically what lawsuits are from your perspective. Sorry - at this point your batting 50%.

Should lawsuits such as the one against Ford be disallowed or limited?
OK, again you totally missed this one. I mean, there wasn't even a mention of this question in your response. Can't give you credit if you don't answer.

Why or why not? Well, without answering the disallowed or limited question, you really can't be giving your reasoning for the answer itself.

Should we try to restrain, in this and other situations, the litigiousness that seems to characterize American life? Again, no answer to be found.

How might we do this? Now this one I am going to give you a pass on - because its is a leading question - it intimates that your answer for the question prior SHOULD be "Yes". Questions that lead or point to a specific thought or outcome are flawed - regardless of my or the Prof. personal opinion. While I agree with the premise - this question should be striken from the assignment on the grounds it is not neutral.

Will your answers to any of the above change now that the US government (you, the taxpayer) are part owners of the car companies? You answered this, so you get credit, though its funny the Prof. is not aware that it is company, not companies.

Does your ethical stance change if the government (or a private company partially owned by the government) is the party under discussion rather than a totally private company? I would say your answer in the prior question suffices for both of these, so you get credit.

So, based on the assignment, you answered 3 questions, get a free pass on one other, out of a total of 8. Best case scenario for you - is a 4/8 - equating to 50%. Given that your Prof. gave you the questions, that person won't give you that fourth one - so your actually looking at a 3/8 score.

Sorry - but that just won't pass. The fail is justified.

Now - to the second problem. The Professor's remarks that you "Obviously had no idea" what was going on could be taken two ways. Either that your political viewpoints are unwelcome - or that your lack of focus on the questions put to you make him think you take this (the educational experience) as a joke. Neither are good, but as a professional he needs to approach it with you differently.

The last problem is really the stickler.

You guys are the smartest gang I hang out with, so I'd like your opinions.

I don't know whether to be honored, tell you to get out more, or just advise you that your situation is now hopeless. :rotfl2:

[August]

Sorry i'm a bit late to the thread but Hap and the others pretty much nail it. You went badly off topic right from the start and didn't even get around to answering any of the assigned questions until the last three paragraphs.

Ask yourself this, if this was something you had to do for a job instead of just a school assignment would you have gone on such a tangent?

[thorn69]

Best thing to do is break down the questions and answer them one at a time. This way you don't miss anything. But I'm pretty liberal when it comes to grading because I think you at least put forth the effort on this. You didn't really answer the questions though so at the college level I can see where many prof will fail you for something like that. If you want an "A" on any assignment, just remember that the school system is very liberal-minded and teachers and prof just LOVE liberal presidents. So, just put some BS footer at the bottom that says, "I support Obama" or something to that effect and you'll get an "A" for sure. Sometimes you have to lie a little to get a little know what I'm sayin?! ;)

[em2nought]

"The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" is the answer to your problem.

[thorn69]

I say you get payback on your professor for the crappy grade. Fill his house up with popcorn and let the US Air Force do the rest.:yeah:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jHtLMBBbMk


:rotfl2:

[UnderseaLcpl]

Sorry i'm a bit late to the thread but Hap and the others pretty much nail it. You went badly off topic right from the start and didn't even get around to answering any of the assigned questions until the last three paragraphs.
That does it, then. Final nail in the coffin. Damn.:nope:

My intent was to go off topic right from the start. I just don't see any point in proffering a solution to anything until the underlying mechanisms are understood, first. If you don't know exactly how a thing works, you can't very well do much with it, can you? I always thought that kind of mindset was a virtue, but it has come back to bite me in the butt time and time again.

My other problem is that I continually exceed text limits. I lost 10 points on this assignment just for that, but what good is ananswer if it is only a partial answer? I have enough trouble just keeping my posts around here within reasonable tolerance, and now I'm supposed to discuss a case study onm ethical theory in 500-700 words? I just can't do that. It would be unethical.

Ask yourself this, if this was something you had to do for a job instead of just a school assignment would you have gone on such a tangent? Yeah. I've done it many times. It's a little different when you're talking to a person face-to-face in a specific context, of course, but I always presenet the same kind of attitude. The usual response is "We think you're management material", or "Welcome aboard", but damnit, I just cannot seem to get over this higher-education hurdle.

<sigh> Have you ever read Flowers for Algernon? There are times when I feel like I'm seeing the academic world through a keyhole, while everyone inside has a complete view. I just don't understand how I can be so wrong when many people think I am so right. Perhaps I need a complete re-evaluation of my perspective. I just don't know.

I don't know whether to be honored, tell you to get out more, or just advise you that your situation is now hopeless. :rotfl2:

:haha:
Well I certainly hope that my situation isn't hopeless, but since my usual peer groups consist of lazy union workers and Marines, I can say with confidence that this is the most intelligent group of people I am exposed to on a regular basis.

Oh, and I'd give it an F--- for excessive libertarian fundamentalism. :) Blow me:DL People have won Nobel prizes for the same junk I espouse on a regular basis. I would know, I copied most of it from them.

You're right about me going with what I already knew, though. Maybe that's my problem. But damnit I did a lot of reading to get where I am today! I certainly don't owe most of my education to public schools. Especially not Texas public schools. Most people here can't even spell correctly. My only solace is that there are better-funded states that perform even more poorly.

I swear, I just don't know anymore. This university crap is the military all over again. I'd better stop before I go off on a more of a rant than this thread already is.

Thank you all for the advice, I really appreciate it. I'll try to put it to good use, but I can't promise anything. I'm a person of principle, and I worked hard to obtain those principles. I'm not about to sacrifice everything I beleive just because some professor who doesn't even know me says that I'm a failure because I "have the wrong attitude" or that I "have no idea what is going on". If that is the case, he can explain why, rather than simply give me a failing grade. If a handful of subsimmers can be bothered to explain where I was wrong and why, then I certainly expect a paid academic professional to do the same.

I think I shall write him a very courteous and professional e-mail detailing my concerns, and we'll see where it goes from there. In the meantime, I'm off to go punch something, or maybe up my post count.

Thanks again, y'all.

[TarJak]

I don't know whether to be honored, tell you to get out more, or just advise you that your situation is now hopeless. :rotfl2:
At the risk of turing this thread into a spam tin, I assume you forgot the sign at the door when you signed up at SS: "Abondon all hope ye who enter here!"

Speaking purely for myself here, if we are the smartest people you know then you really do have a problem.:D

[UnderseaLcpl]

Speaking purely for myself here, if we are the smartest people you know then you really do have a problem.:D

Y'know, for an alligator-hunting Aussie with a large knife between your teeth, you sure talk alot. :DL

edit-oops, I meant croc-hunting

[August]

Yeah the attitude comment should raise some flags here. You should definitely get to the bottom of that.

Y'see if I have a student that does not understand an assigned task then I attempt to make them understand. His attitude doesn't become an issue unless I feel he is creating obstacles to understanding.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Yeah the attitude comment should raise some flags here. You should definitely get to the bottom of that.
How? It's a state university and the professor has tenure. Armies of lawyers fall before such obstacles. What could I even do?

Y'see if I have a student that does not understand an assigned task then I attempt to make them understand. His attitude doesn't become an issue unless I feel he is creating obstacles to understanding.

Would you say that I have created an obstacle to understanding? That was not my intent at all. I only wished to get down to the basics of ethics philosophy. That's it. In retrospect, it would have been better to have sought consultation, rather than simply presenting a contrarian view, but isn't higher education supposed to be about broadening horizons? Why would a person decide that another is a failure simply because of an attitude?

The more I learn, the less I understand. If understanding the key concepts behind something is wrong, then I do not know what is right. I feel like the world made a quantum leap at some point and I missed it somehow. My prof has a master's degree, and he apparently thinks I'm an idiot......

Ah, well. I wrote to him during my brief hiatus from subsim this evening, so I'll wait to see what he says.

[Skybird]

As Takeda already hinted, it is in parts something like a "Themaverfehlung" (=an essay missing the subject). You start to lay out a line of thought that is not too directly related to the questions, and this sideline of thinking you then embark on - in strength. That is a bit like this old joke about a schoolboy who for the exams has learned everything about worms, but then get asked about elephants, and so he starts answering: "The elephant is a big animal with a trunk. This trunk is formed loike a big,m giant worm. There are flatworms, roundworms...etc"

You did not care enough for the question, because you had something on your mind you wanted to focus on - which unfortunately had not too much to do with the question.

This can happen for two cases: first, like in your case, the student has something on his mind he is too fixiated on so that he misses the question, or ignores it to a too wide degree. This is what has happened to you. Second, he does not stick to the original subject because he lets himself carried away in arguments and side-arguments and additions to sidearguments, and he gets lost in a growing flood of details and loses the central thread. This is my special hobby. :) Sometimes I must struggle hard not to excel in it. :lol:

School or university papers likes this are no ideological battleground. If you are not able to separate your "agenda" :) from the real subject of an academical excercise, then you will run into trouble.

Stick to the thread, don't turn it into an opportunity to run a "crusade" - that you can do on GT forum. ;) I really think that your personal challenge is to think beyond your established personal schemes.

It's not about me agreeing with your answer or not, in principle you make your stand and then defend it - I see that for sure. But that stand of yours happens to be only loosely related to the subject. Too loosely, for my taste. I would expect the prof not to be too happy.

From your economic disucssions in GT I see you are a stubborn defender of your ideas, and it is very difficult to reach you with details or ideas that first need to break through this armour of established answers you surround yourself with. My subjective perception, but that's the way I see you. I think your challenge really is to become able to establish a greater mental openess for different concepts as well, in order to really compare your own answers to these and check the validity of the one - or the other. Like in this essay you quote above, you often seem to somewhat fall back by reflex to that fortress of ideas about how things are, and I cannot help but sometimes have the impression that the defence of this fortress is quite unflexible, static and depending on always falling back onto the same reaction schemes, like a spring. I think that somehow this pattern is what got you trapped again in that essay of yours.

This answer goes a bit beyond a fact-oriented reply, and is even a bit personal. I only do so because of our long PM disucssions some months back, since that gave me a bit more of a personal impression of you. This, and the several very long essays you have produced in GT when it was a topic about economic theory.

In that essay of yours you maybe failed because you lack the flexibility to step away from yourself and your own convictions, by that you drew the answer you gave to that preset position of yours, ignoring that that maybe had little to do with the question being asked. If that would be true, the challenge set up to you is not so much about intellect, knowledge and mind, but maybe a personality feature of yours. And in that case it would be a mistake to change courses or even schools. Start exploring yourself instead.

If there are any docents/profs whom you trust, ask them about their impression about you personally, how they perceive you.

My old - and much liked - prof who had a major share in leading me through university, used to say something like this: "most problems students have with learning, come from just two issues in most cases: they either have never learned how to efficiently learn, or they are so fixiated on what they already have on mind that this hinders them to think beyond their own brainworld, may it be for understanding a different argument than theirs, may it be focus on something they were not focussed on before". And when I look back to my time at university and the guys I knew there, I must say that he was right.

Don't change school so easily. Don't give up that course and prof too early. Consider to ask him for a personal conversation about yourself, and the problems you feel confronted with. If he is fair in his business, he will allow that. Don't tell him about yourself, but ask him about yourself, his perception. And consider for some moments that maybe he sees you right even if he violates your self-definitions.

:up:

[Skybird]

Would you say that I have created an obstacle to understanding?

the quote by august to which you answered here seems to point at the same direction like what I try to say. It is very possible that yoiu indeed create obstacles to understanding - by yourself standing in your own way in the way I tried to explain above.

consider our recent 5 moves chess match. that terrible 2nd move of yours, and you said something like that you wanted to try something different from the standard openings. As if you really have a valid, terrain-covering impression of the wide range of chess openings! ;) By denying to use the established knowledge about openings, you denied yourself the opportunity to use their good to your advantage. In a way here you stood in your own way indeed, because you favoured your own idea about how openings could be played over the needs of the situation (position on the board) and the long-known, experience-soaking, well verified basics and principles of elemental theory. And this, becasue you wanted to try soemthing. See my reply back there, about how to learn juggling: many balls only later, few balls first.

The more i think about you and this thread, the more I am convinced that you are not dealing with a challenge to your intellect, but your personality. No, not in the meaning of a disorder, but a feature of being a stubborn man who finds it hard to change his attitude and long held convictions. Long-held convictions - this I say from a psychologist's perspective - are not so much a question of intellect or arguments and discussing them and convincing somebody, but they are more often an issue of attitudes and habits.

If not listening to me, listen at least to August and Takeda. I think both have a valid points.

[NeonSamurai]

I pretty much agree with what has been said by Sky, August, Hap, etc.

You are going to have to learn how to work from within the system and stop trying to break out into directions that you want to go or hold personal interest to you. I know it's hard, I often face the same problems of staying on the topic. University (especially undergrad university) is all about rote learning and regurgitation of that learning, and you have to learn how to supply what the profs want if you want to do well.

I know you have a rebellious streak, probably because you know you are smarter than most other people you encounter or deal with. I think you like playing with, toying, and testing others to see how they measure up (and to stave off boredom). But that sort of behavior only harms you in the end. You gotta play the game if you are going to get anywhere. No matter how much you dislike it, and no matter how stupid the system is.

I also have to agree with Sky's assessment of you being locked in your own world view. But then again who isn't. Almost everyone is locked in their own world view which from their perspective seems right, but if taken from a broader scope is deeply flawed. It is very hard to be truly open minded, to really consider the arguments of others and honestly weigh them against your own. You need to break free of that, and stop trying to direct every paper deep into the realms of your own knowledge and beliefs.

If you want to crusade, do it here, or join a debate club or something where you are more free to express yourself (though a good debater can hold any position, even those they fundamentally disagree with). Class assignments and papers are not the place.

[August]

How? It's a state university and the professor has tenure. Armies of lawyers fall before such obstacles. What could I even do?

I didn't mean try to get the guy fired or disciplined UL. I meant go to him and ask what he meant by it, and what he thinks you should do to fix it.

Would you say that I have created an obstacle to understanding? That was not my intent at all. I only wished to get down to the basics of ethics philosophy. That's it. In retrospect, it would have been better to have sought consultation, rather than simply presenting a contrarian view, but isn't higher education supposed to be about broadening horizons? Why would a person decide that another is a failure simply because of an attitude?I don't know. Based on his comment I'd say you might have. That's why I suggest that you talk to him and try to understand what he's looking for out of you.

The more I learn, the less I understand. If understanding the key concepts behind something is wrong, then I do not know what is right. I feel like the world made a quantum leap at some point and I missed it somehow. My prof has a master's degree, and he apparently thinks I'm an idiot......This all comes down to the assignment you were given. You weren't asked to critique key concepts, you were asked to apply them to a particular scenario so that, and only that, is what you should have done.

As for your professor thinking you're an idiot, nothing you've said he told you implies that. It sounds to me like he was trying to motivate you.

Ah, well. I wrote to him during my brief hiatus from subsim this evening, so I'll wait to see what he says.Keep us posted as to what he says if you would.

[OneToughHerring]

http://www.hollow-hill.com/sabina/images/weakest-link.jpg

:DL

[UnderseaLcpl]

Ouch. Seems like the opinion is pretty unanimous except for OTH's, which is a cat. Still, I appreciate the honesty and thoughtfulness that was put into the replies. Thank you.

The good news is that I have been given another chance to do this essay, though this time I've been assigned Kant's theory of ethics as a position. I was also given the helpful advice of not bothering to try to prove how a person following Kant's theory could do something immoral, lest my maximum possible grade become a "C".:shifty: The good professor also explained that he has an academic duty to fail me if I do not satisfactorily complete every step of the learning process, or as he put it, "You have to take the stairs like everyone else. I won't give you credit for trying to ride the elevator." Damn.

I was going to thank everyone individually with a multi-quote, but there is just too much to respond to. I hope it will suffice that the message has been received and that I am grateful to everyone who took the time to help. That said, I believe I will take the repeatedly proffered advice to use this forum as a place to crusade. To use the context of Sky's analogy; The guns are loaded, the walls are sound, and the broad stripes and bright stars will be visible at dawn's early light:DL

[Tchocky]

As Takeda already hinted, it is in parts something like a "Themaverfehlung" (=an essay missing the subject). You start to lay out a line of thought that is not too directly related to the questions, and this sideline of thinking you then embark on - in strength. That is a bit like this old joke about a schoolboy who for the exams has learned everything about worms, but then get asked about elephants, and so he starts answering: "The elephant is a big animal with a trunk. This trunk is formed loike a big,m giant worm. There are flatworms, roundworms...etc"
It took me most of my first year of uni to get rid of that habit, it's a tough one to break.

Good luck with the repeat, Lance

[Skybird]

To use the context of Sky's analogy; The guns are loaded, the walls are sound, and the broad stripes and bright stars will be visible at dawn's early light:DL
My analogy...? :06:

[Skybird]

It took me most of my first year of uni to get rid of that habit, it's a tough one to break.

Whom you tell! :DL

I wrote very good free essays at high school both in German and English, usually only A and B grades - the only "themaverfehlung" (missed subject) I have ever produced in my school life at school was during the final Abitur-paper (=final exams) in English, the very last paper I ever wrote for school. - "E". :dead:

And at university, the final written diploma report I wrote together with a girlfriend, we had to restart again from scratch and with a new topic - after having spend 5 months on the old one, because I managed to bring us into a plethoray of distracting details until we did not had any clear understanding anymore what our project originally had been about and the supervising prof threatened to give us a "fail". Learning that frustrating lesson inside out, the new work became much better, "A".

If there is one golden rule for written works at university, then this: stay on topic, and keep the line of argument simple.

[UnderseaLcpl]

My analogy...? :06:
Yes....:DL


I cannot help but sometimes have the impression that the defence of this fortress is quite unflexible, static and depending on always falling back onto the same reaction schemes, like a spring


Good luck with the repeat, Lance
Thanks! As you can see, I'm off to a great start - posting on subsim:haha:

[Skybird]

Yes....:DL

Ah! Hard to believe what nonsense I am sometimes writing...:D

[Tchocky]

Yes....:DL




Thanks! As you can see, I'm off to a great start - posting on subsim:haha:
Tell me about it! Exam in the morning, ach :DL

[CaptainHaplo]

Undersea - I am going to offer one last piece of advice, along with some encouragement. First - it seems the Prof. understands you more than you think, your really "ahead" - aka the elevator - vs the rest, but he needs you to establish the curriculum foundation. Work with him - his statement indicates he is willing to let you fairly. That should lighten your mind considerably.

Now - to the advice. Whatever the assignment, make the commitment to go back over it after your done with 2 specific goals in mind. The first, and most critical goal is to look back at the questions that were asked, and in reading your responses, determine if it is CLEAR whether your answer was a yes or a no to each question. If you can't find those answers clearly - aka spelled out - then you need to redo it so that you can. Second, limit yourself to no more than 5% over on the words. If they say 500 words, then you can get away with a max 525, to complete the last thought. If you can't get it under that, then you need to find another way to convey your thoughts, or change the points.

This episode is a great learning opportunity for you. Let me see if I can help you on the "tangents" bit. You are now in college. You mentioned that this was alot like the Marines. In many ways your right. Every student in that class has completed "basic" in a sense, each of you have the foundation already. He doesn't want you to explain the foundation - he wants you to build on it as he teaches you to. Just like when a platoon gets a few new bald heads from Ellis, there is an expectation that you already know some things. Go from that point. Don't explain what you already "know" - don't build the foundation all over again. In essence, don't go through "basic" again every time.

Remember the difference between when you were fresh out of your initial training and hit your first assignment? Then compare that to when you were years in, comfortable and established. Right now your in that initial phase, everything needs to be crystal clear. But that is making you lose the focus. So always - ALWAYS go back and look at the original assignment and then at your work and verify you answered every point put to you, even if you didn't do them each as clearly as you would have liked. Remember, your not in a debate with this, he wants to see you understand the lessons and the process, he isn't keeping score on whether you "win" an arguement.

[Snestorm]

The situation looks 110% better.

He gave you a second shot, which means we can't use the opposite politics stance.

He's already come BETTER THAN half way for you.
Now it's your responsability to show him a return on his investment.
You can do it. And I'm confident that you can do it well.

[Platapus]

I pretty much agree with what has been said by Sky, August, Hap, etc.

You are going to have to learn how to work from within the system and stop trying to break out into directions that you want to go or hold personal interest to you. I know it's hard, I often face the same problems of staying on the topic. University (especially undergrad university) is all about rote learning and regurgitation of that learning, and you have to learn how to supply what the profs want if you want to do well.

I know you have a rebellious streak, probably because you know you are smarter than most other people you encounter or deal with. I think you like playing with, toying, and testing others to see how they measure up (and to stave off boredom). But that sort of behavior only harms you in the end. You gotta play the game if you are going to get anywhere. No matter how much you dislike it, and no matter how stupid the system is.

I also have to agree with Sky's assessment of you being locked in your own world view. But then again who isn't. Almost everyone is locked in their own world view which from their perspective seems right, but if taken from a broader scope is deeply flawed. It is very hard to be truly open minded, to really consider the arguments of others and honestly weigh them against your own. You need to break free of that, and stop trying to direct every paper deep into the realms of your own knowledge and beliefs.

If you want to crusade, do it here, or join a debate club or something where you are more free to express yourself (though a good debater can hold any position, even those they fundamentally disagree with). Class assignments and papers are not the place.


Good sound advice

Cooperate and graduate

Don't fight the system. The key objective of college is to expose your brain to other ways of thinking. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are wrong.

Many people enter college thinking they understand everything, but end up leaving college knowing what they don't know. :D

Good luck with this.

[TarJak]

Many people enter college thinking they understand everything, but end up leaving college knowing what they don't know. :D
Sounds a lot like life in general. I've spent the last 45 years trying to gain an understanding what I don't yet know; I doubt it will be finished by the time I kark it. One thing I do know is that I won't be karking it at the hands (or mouth) of a crocodile. Or alligator for that matter.:D

You've got yourself some good advice and a great opportunity to work with your prof to get a much better outcome than if you just sat back and said "Oh well I failed."

Grasp this opportunity with both hands and give it a good shake and you may find that your professor may be one of your greatest benefactors and supporters rather than your greatest enemy.

I won't go into details but I have had several similar circumstances in both learning and work life and finding out that the guy you thought was trying to kill you was really trying to rescue you from yourself.

[Platapus]

I am finishing up my doctorate and all I can think of is "man, there is a cubic butt-load of stuff I still don't understand about my area!"

Life was a lot easier when I was getting my Bachelor's degree. :woot:

[Snestorm]

I am finishing up my doctorate and all I can think of is "man, there is a cubic butt-load of stuff I still don't understand about my area!"

THAT, is a very good sign.

The more one knows about a subject,
the more one realizes how much they don't know.

Knowledge opens doors, revealing yet more doors with secrets to be revealed.

The day we run out of doors, is the day they plant us.

[NeonSamurai]

Its also a sign of growing up. I always laugh when listening to 15-25 year olds talk. Think they know everything, so sure about themselves and their opinions. Always right and never wrong. Too bad what they know hardly amounts to a thimbleful, and most of it is wrong or shallow at best. But it's not their fault, we were all like that :DL

[UnderseaLcpl]

Ah, even more good advice, though some of it is a bit late in coming. I submitted my paper based on Kant's theory like three hours ago. I guess we'll see how it turns out.

I had a fairly difficult time of it. I usually have an easy time writing things, but I had to struggle to find the words with this essay. Kant's philosophy is regarded more as a landmark in ethical philosophy than a practicable theory, even the text says so. As such, it was like the whole paper was a lie. I thought about posting it for review, but I'm almost ashamed of it. It is disjointed, self-contradictory, and generally rubbish. In a word, it is pure BS. I still think I have a problem with my mindset, and that is why this is so difficult for me.

I generally regard anything that is not an irreducible concept as being wrong, at least in this field. I may not know what is right, but I know logical dodgeball when I see it, as I have engaged in it a few times myself (I usually end up getting hit and learning a lesson), if that makes any sense. In this case, however, I feel like I have sacrificed my integrity for the promise of a reward. Ironic, considering this is an ethics course.:-?

Anyhow, thanks for all the good advice, perspectives, occasional joke, and the cat. There are papers yet to come, and even if I screwed this one up I can still pass. I just hope it isn't like this for too much longer. I'd rather be proven wrong than simply told that I am wrong, and here, at least, I have been proven wrong......concerning protocol, of course.

I have only one more thing that I'd like to address..........

I think you like playing with, toying, and testing others to see how they measure up (and to stave off boredom).

This worries me. There have been times when I've been told that I appear condescending, but I don't try to manipulate people like that. I fear that I may be doing it inadvertently. I tease people from time to time, and I enjoy a lively discussion, but it is not my wish to be manipulative or condescending. I try not to judge people too harshly. I've been the idiot enough times in my life to understand how people can get muddled up without having a personal fault. Heck, just look at this thread.

One thing I can say for sure is that I am not concerned with how others measure up, save for in the occasional friendly challenge. One can hardly be a proponent of an individualistic system without having faith in the individual, yes? I think most people are smarter than most people give them credit for, and I have detailed reasons for that belief, though I will not discuss them at length here.

[NeonSamurai]

I don't think you do it from a malicious, manipulative, or self superior stance (though some may perceive it that way). But I do think you do a bit of it. Lots of intelligent people like to do that (I know I certainly do), as we like to gauge who we are talking to, to see if they are worth really talking to or engaging with. Some of it is done just for fun (verbal sparring and nudging), other times cause we may find the topic of conversation dull or uninteresting (I for one can not stand idle chatter).

Anyhow I think it does express itself in your academic writing from what little I have seen of it. I tend to get the impression that you think the assignments beneath your intellect and not worthy of your time and energy. Which is a partial reason as to why you sidetrack.


As to the last bit, I have to say I, in general, do not have much faith in the individual (and especially the individual amongst a group), particularly when they start blindly spout party/faith/ism rhetoric with out the slightest bit of thought behind it. My experience has taught me repeatedly that most people prefer not to have to think (or do as little thinking as is possible), and as a (constantly) thinking person I do not much care for brainless reflexive behavior. But I am also convinced that most of the species is utterly nuts.

[TarJak]

If you subscribe to Dr. Martha Stout's theories, then 4%, (that's 1 in 25), of the population are sociopaths so having faith in the individual is statistically dangerous.:DL

That statistic in itself makes ethics quite an interesting field. On the whole the problem with ethics are that for some they are not even an issue and for others they are what they live by. Everyone else is arrayed across the spectrum and for every one person's ethical dilema is another person's no brainer.

Unfortunately a lot of ethics has gotten caught up in social ettiquette which depending on the society and community you live in will be different again.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

There is nothing wrong with your paper.
You fulfilled the assignemrnt, and therefor (derfor) deserves a passing grade, at minimum.

The only one who failed this assignement is your prof.
He asked for answers based on personal perspective (opimions / values / stances), which means your answers can NOT be wrong. They are YOUR perspective, which is what he asked for.

You may have "failed" because your answer was based on What You Think, as opposed to How You Feel about the issues. Beware this Left Oriented prof. Your abilty to criticaly alalyse issues makes him nervouse (nervøs), and he will do his best to assure your failure.

A change of profs is recommended.

I remember I once got a B in a class for which I should have got an A for what boiled down to my not be left wing enough for the prof, which is pretty amazing as I can be pretty damn left wing. I made sure I never had another class with him. I suppose I could have raised a stink about it, but it wasn't worth it.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I could have raised a stink about it, but it wasn't worth it.

Already learned that one the hard way:shifty:
-----------------------------------------------------

I finished the revised paper and earned a "B", which I suppose is not so bad. How I got a "B" on a Frankenstein of a paper stiched together from bits I copied out of the text eludes me, but it worked. Now we move on to theories of social justice and economic distribution, which is going to be a real pain in the butt for me because the text bashes libertarianism at every turn. Take the following, for example:

Imagine, for example, that having purchased the forest in which I occasionally stroll, the new owner bars my access to it. It would seem that my freedom has been reduced because I can no longer ramble where I wish. BUt libertarians deny that this is a restriction of my liberty. My liberty is restricted if and only if someone violates my Lockean rights, which no one has done. Suppose that I go for a hike in the forest anyway. If the sherriff's deputies arrest me, they prevent me from doing what I want to do. But according to libertarianism, they do not restrict my liberty, nor do they coerce me. Why not? Because my hiking in the woods violates the landowner's rights.

Here libertarians seem driven to an unfamiliar use of familiar terminology, but they have no choice. They cannot admit that abridging the landowner's freedom to do as he wants with his property would expand my freedom. If they did, their theory would be in jepoardy. They would have to acknowledge that restricting the liberty or property rights of some could enhance the liberty of others.

Is it just me, or does this seem like absolute nonsense to anyone else? I ask because this may be another case where I need some perspective. It seems to me as if the authors completely misinterpret libertariansim, which has never advocated maximum freedom at all costs, whilst simultaneously undermining basic human rights in an attempt to sap libertarianism's defenses. After all, let's say we did let the little bastard go hiking in the woods because we don't respect property rights. What's to stop someone from hiking through his home and collecting his valuables?

The whole point of libertariansim, Nozick's theory, and the assorted offshoots is that there is a system by which minimal restriction of liberty can maximise ethicality and social justice, but the text later pits liberty against utilitarianism, claiming that they cannot coexist. If I had the time to type other examples I would, but one of my favorites is the text's critique of what libertarians would do with a homeless man. According to the text, it is ethical for a libertarian to leave a man to starve to death. I don't think anyone would consider that to be ethical, though libertarians may not consider it to be unethical. For all you know, the man may take the money you saved him or gave him to push or buy drugs. Maybe he'll spend it on booze and die faster. The judgement, and the consequences thereof, are left to the individual.

Libertarianism may not be a perfect system of ethics or social justice, but as I argued in my paper, it is the baseline for determining ethicality, and because of its honesty, is the only true theory of ethics. I think that's a reasonable perspective.

As to the last bit, I have to say I, in general, do not have much faith in the individual (and especially the individual amongst a group), particularly when they start blindly spout party/faith/ism rhetoric with out the slightest bit of thought behind it. My experience has taught me repeatedly that most people prefer not to have to think (or do as little thinking as is possible), and as a (constantly) thinking person I do not much care for brainless reflexive behavior. But I am also convinced that most of the species is utterly nuts.

A little pessimistic for my taste, but I do agree with your observations about people in groups (None of us is as dumb as all of us) and people preferring to do as little thinking as possible, for the most part. The trick, though, is to refrain from systems that encourages such things. If people don't have a legion of people who promise them things to fall back on, they will have to think for themselves, and I do have faith in the intelligence, morality, and resourcefulness of most people. You just gotta be on guard for the bad ones.:03:

And yes, we are all nuts.

[August]

Yeah it does sound like bull. I suppose under that theory laws against homicide restricts ones freedom to murder right?

[Tchocky]

Libertarianism may not be a perfect system of ethics or social justice, but as I argued in my paper, it is the baseline for determining ethicality, and because of its honesty, is the only true theory of ethics. I think that's a reasonable perspective.
Dropped in to see how it turned out for you (glad), and saw this paragraph. You may want to leave yourself some wiggle room here, especially if you disagree strongly with the premise of the base text (and, in fairness, the forest story is loopy). Get your argument against the premise together, because it looks pretty convincing from what I see here. A phrase like "the only true theory" can inadvertently colour the surrounding text, and give you another hurdle to get over with the professor.

Example from this morning. I got chewed out by an instructor for a procedure that I thought was fine, and I wasn't taking any sort of criticism on board. Afterwards, I was leaving and another instructor catches my elbow, he says "I agree with you, I think even he would agree with you after a proper conversation, but you'll never convince him arguing like that"

[UnderseaLcpl]

Good observation, Tchocky.:up: I must remember that one.

edit
Yeah it does sound like bull. I suppose under that theory laws against homicide restricts ones freedom to murder right?

That's kind of what I was getting at. The argument presented against the theory is taken from the assumption that libertarians value liberty above everything else, so they're hypocritical if they support any restriction of freedom. I'm just concerned that there is some sort of philosophical basis for this reasoning that I don't understand or am blind to.

[gimpy117]

how many pages is it supposed to be? looks kinda short...

[Sailor Steve]

Yeah it does sound like bull. I suppose under that theory laws against homicide restricts ones freedom to murder right?
I actually encountered that one once. In a conversation I explained that my reading of basic rights is that I have the right to do anything I want, as long as it doesn't infringe anyone else's right to do the same. The person I said it to immediately said "So you have the right to kill someone then?"

I had to go back and repeat myself very slowly three times before it sank in. My right to do what I want doesn't supercede your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

As for that text, it's true that restricting the rights of some would enhance the rights of others (i.e. the landowner vs the person who wants to walk there). As a philosophical point I see no problem there - obviously you have one or the other. The problem the author seems to be ignoring is the question of who gets to make these judgements. Of course restricting the one enhances the other, but restricting the landowners rights raises the danger of all rights of ownership. Is this an appeal for communism? The author fails to see the end of that argument. If my right to walk where I please supercedes the property rights of the landowner, does that mean I can walk into his house in the middle of the night and turn on his television? He would like answer that no, my suggestion was extreme; but to me it comes down to a question of degree, just like the "sleep with me for a million pounds/sleep with me for twenty pounds" joke.

I would say that yes, the author of the text is pushing an agenda, and claiming to be centrist while trying to prove Libertarians are on the extreme. I have no problem with someone calling someone an extremist. My problem is with the pot calling the kettle black.

[UnderseaLcpl]

how many pages is it supposed to be? looks kinda short...

300-500 words,IIRC. One of my main problems is having my assignments run into too many pages, not too little. What I posted isn't even close to what I would have written had I been allowed the space.
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the meantime, I have another assignment (same class)that I'd like opinons on. I tried to take into account some of the feedback and argue from a different perspective and be respectful. This one doesn't require citations, though I provided two. Now it is a game of "guess what grade I will get" :DL

My guess is another "B" I'm bound to get counted off for going way over the limit of 500 words. I couldn't help it:oops:

Module 03
I have chosen to examine the questions from the rule utilitarian perspective. Excepting some details mentioned later, my tenative answer to all questions save the last is yes. Experience has shown us that, generally speaking, it is not wise to constrain business because doing so constrains business. That may sound both obvious and redundant, but what is not so apparent is that minimally-restrained business in a market economy generates prosperity. The correalation between PPP per capita http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_ppp_percap-economy-gdp-ppp-per-capita and economic freedom http://heritage.org/index/ points to a fairly consistent pattern of business freedom being equal to prosperity.

1) Should business be allowed to export capital for production abroad?
My answer from the utilitarian perspective is an unequivocal yes. There is a lot of evidence and logic to support that conclusion. From a logical standpoint, exporting capital for production both allows business to generate greater profit and, more importantly, distribute resources where they are needed most. Investment and production abroad has helped to raise the standard of living in what were among the world's poorest nations just a few decades ago, including India and China. Cheaper wages in those areas mean that more people can be employed for the same amount of capital, and the lower living standard means that the money can be used to greater effect.
By contrast, limiting export of capital abroad harms not only the potential beneficiaries but also domestic industry. One needs look no further than the sorry state of many once-great US export industries to see this. As competition worldwide grew stiffer, many lobbied for protectionist tariffs and quotas on imports. The countries against which these were imposed responded in kind, and the US suffered a drastic drop in exports. American goods are expensive enough as is without the burden of foreign tariffs and domestic taxes. The result was that these industries shot themselves in the foot by making their products too expensive for any market, and are now a shadow of their former selves.
The rule that one should avoid interfering in such practices is sound from a utilitarian standpoint.
　
2)Should business be allowed to export commodities which have been banned from sale in the United States?
Again, the answer is an emphatic yes. The alternative is to let some other country export the same commodities and simply lose out on the business. Presumably, countries that allow such goods don't see them as being harmful, so we commit no moral crime by providing them unless someone can make an ethical case for us knowing what is best for the rest of the world. The case could be made for the proper rule utilitarian stance to be the negative, seeing as how some exports could actually hurt more people than they help, as in the case of drugs, but the point is a moot one as the goods will arrive at their intended destination anyways, albeit from a different source, or from an illegal source here.
Turning my own sword against myself, I will suggest that the nation where such exports are permissable would benefit more from the trade than the US would. This is very true, but if the goods can be obtained at lesser cost from another supplier who would also benefit more, they will be obtained from that source and not from us, and there will be no trade in banned goods save where supply falls short, potentially providing jobs in this country at best and resulting in no change from the status quo at worst.

3) Should business be allowed to downsize in the face of economic difficulty?
From any realistic ethical perspective, the answer is always a yes. A company that provides no jobs and no benefits has a net worth of absolutely nothing at best, and is harmful at worst, as people have invested their lives in the venture, and will have to seek employment elsewhere, presumably from a similar industry, which is probably also suffering in most cases.
I don't mean to be offensive or contrarian or critical, but I think a better question would be: "Should a business be allowed to downsize in the face of economic difficulty if it could afford to do otherwise?" In that case the answer from a rule utilitarian perspective becomes much more difficult, and depends upon a number of factors. Is nonprofitability sustainable for an acceptable length of time? Is there some way the resources could be better-directed? Is the potential for investment and growth going to provide greater benefit than downsizing? Who decides whether the risk is worth it?
I'm not sure that rule utilitarianism can even answer this question. I think act utilitarianism would be more well suited, and in the case of the second question my answer would be a tenative "no".

4) Should business be allowed to break union contracts in the face of economic difficulty?
Like (3), this is a tough one for rule utilitarianism. From the level of the contract, it is not acceptable, as it violates the rules presumably set forth for the greatest benefit of all. Then again, if breaking the contract can save jobs, rule utilitarianism has defeated itself.
From the rule perspective, my answer would be "no", as there are indubitably provisions for negotiation that can be used to redefine the rules in case of a crisis. American Airlines renegotiated their union contract after 9/11, so there is little reason to believe that a compromise could not be reached. A lesser-paying job is better than no job at all under either form of utilitarianism.
　
　
　
　
　

[CaptainHaplo]

Undersea - you can get this under 500 words easily.

But I am going to counter you on some things and see what you think on this.

2)Should business be allowed to export commodities which have been banned from sale in the United States?
Again, the answer is an emphatic yes. The alternative is to let some other country export the same commodities and simply lose out on the business. Presumably, countries that allow such goods don't see them as being harmful, so we commit no moral crime by providing them unless someone can make an ethical case for us knowing what is best for the rest of the world.

Ok - so if Thailand decides that they want to legalize child pornography, it would be ok for the US to export it? That's what you seem to be saying here. How about meth, or crack, or less "dangerous" drugs like hashish - which are legal in various countries? How about assault rifles - true automatic weapons - should Colt Arms be developing civilian machine guns to sell in other countries?

Many things ethically have no black and white answer.

I don't mean to be offensive or contrarian or critical, but I think a better question would be: "Should a business be allowed to downsize in the face of economic difficulty if it could afford to do otherwise?" In that case the answer from a rule utilitarian perspective becomes much more difficult, and depends upon a number of factors. Is nonprofitability sustainable for an acceptable length of time? Is there some way the resources could be better-directed? Is the potential for investment and growth going to provide greater benefit than downsizing? Who decides whether the risk is worth it? I'm not sure that rule utilitarianism can even answer this question. I think act utilitarianism would be more well suited, and in the case of the second question my answer would be a tenative "no".
Take this out!!! Take this out NOW! Seriously - it may be valid - but your not being asked "what question would be better". This is how you go off on tangents. You have one goal here - answer the question that was asked - nothing more. To say "the question should have been" makes you appear like you know it all better. Yes, you may be right - but the comment and statements after have nothing to do with what you were asked.

This deletion will also likely get you alot closer to that 500 word mark......

Now - a couple of questions.

Is it ethical for a company to outsource - or as it puts it export capital overseas - to help "more" people over there, as compared to the people here? Does a company not have an ethical responsibility to the society that it services?

Regarding unions - is it ethical for a company to oppose unionization entirely, and in the case where organized labor and the business make a contract, who is entitled to make the determination that business finances dictate a breaking of that contract?

[Platapus]

Ok - so if Thailand decides that they want to legalize child pornography, it would be ok for the US to export it? That's what you seem to be saying here. How about meth, or crack, or less "dangerous" drugs like hashish - which are legal in various countries? How about assault rifles - true automatic weapons - should Colt Arms be developing civilian machine guns to sell in other countries?

That example would not apply. The question is should a company be allowed to export products that have been banned for sale in the United States.

Child Pornography is not only banned for sale in the United States, it is banned for production, transportation, storage, etc. Since a company can not even produce the product (Child Pornography) without breaking the law, the chain stops there.

What the question was referring to is should a company be allowed to export a product that while it is legal to produce in the United States, it is not legal to sell in the United States.

An example might be a child car seat that does not meet the requirements for sale in the United States. A company can make the seats, but they can't sell them in the United States. They might be able to sell them to another country that does not share our requirements.

Cigarettes can be another example. Candy flavoured cigarettes will soon be banned for sale in the United States. But an American cigarette manufacture can still make them and sell them overseas where it is legal.

It all has to do with products that can be legally made in this country but not sold in this country. Just because a product can not be sold in the United States does not automatically mean that it can't be produced. Hence the instructor's question.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Ok - so if Thailand decides that they want to legalize child pornography, it would be ok for the US to export it? That's what you seem to be saying here. How about meth, or crack, or less "dangerous" drugs like hashish - which are legal in various countries? How about assault rifles - true automatic weapons - should Colt Arms be developing civilian machine guns to sell in other countries? The child porn thing aside, which Platapus addressed for me, yes it should be legal for us to do those things from a rule utilitarian perspective. Rule utilitatiranism isn't necessarily about our own moral conduct, but what law benefits everyone most.

From this perspective, there is a black and white answer. It's only about what course of action benefits the most people the most. This is why I don't like doing assignments from the normative theories presented.

Many things ethically have no black and white answer.
That was my point earlier and I failed:cry:


Take this out!!! Take this out NOW! Seriously - it may be valid - but your not being asked "what question would be better". This is how you go off on tangents. You have one goal here - answer the question that was asked - nothing more. To say "the question should have been" makes you appear like you know it all better. Yes, you may be right - but the comment and statements after have nothing to do with what you were asked.
Too late. I already submitted it. I'm not going to use input here to affect a current assignment. That would be cheating. I can only use it to better refine my next assignment. And in any case, how am I supposed to answer that question? It has to be one of the dumbest questions I have ever seen in its present form. It's almost rhetorical. Should a company be allowed to downsize if it has economic hardships!? What kind of question is that? What's the alternative? To go out of business? That's even worse than downsizing.

If I had to do it again, I'd stick with that one. It's better than the alternative answer (above) and I just can't BS enough to generate a plausible BS answer. I've been a debater and that question is just asking to get torn apart, even if one doesn't try.


Is it ethical for a company to outsource - or as it puts it export capital overseas - to help "more" people over there, as compared to the people here? Does a company not have an ethical responsibility to the society that it services?
What I would give for questions like that! My short answer is "no", because I'd have to write another essay for the long answer but good question:up:

Regarding unions - is it ethical for a company to oppose unionization entirely, and in the case where organized labor and the business make a contract, who is entitled to make the determination that business finances dictate a breaking of that contract
"Yes" and "the company", repsectively, from my view. The union doesn't actually own anything besides the occasional share.(libertarianism) One might as well ask why we shouldn't let "stakeholders" vote. If we let everything a company touched have a say it would be a lot like the government, and go under just as quickly.(utilitarianism fail)