Give me a grade

[gimpy117]

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

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

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]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

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"

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

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/ec...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]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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

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

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)