Give me a grade

UnderseaLcpl · 06-20-10, 05:58 PM

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.

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.

06-20-10, 06:29 PM

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.

UnderseaLcpl · 06-20-10, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snestorm

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....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snestorm[/quote

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

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.

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.

Takeda Shingen · 06-20-10, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

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.

CaptainHaplo · 06-20-10, 07:51 PM

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.

Quote:

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.

August · 06-20-10, 08:39 PM

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?

TarJak · 06-20-10, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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

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.

Torvald Von Mansee · 06-23-10, 04:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 06-24-10, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Torvald Von Mansee

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

Already learned that one the hard way

-----------------------------------------------------

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:

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

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.

And yes, we are all nuts.

August · 06-24-10, 02:06 PM

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

Sailor Steve · 06-24-10, 05:51 PM

Quote:

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.

Tchocky · 06-24-10, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

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 · 06-24-10, 03:59 PM

Good observation, Tchocky.

I must remember that one.

edit

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

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.

TarJak · 06-20-10, 06:34 PM

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 · 06-20-10, 06:34 PM

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.

06-20-10, 05:58 PM	#1
UnderseaLcpl Silent Hunter Join Date: May 2008 Location: Storming the beaches! Posts: 4,254 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Give me a grade 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. 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. __________________ I stole this sig from Task Force

06-20-10, 08:39 PM	#6
August Wayfaring Stranger Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 23,197 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	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? __________________ Flanked by life and the funeral pyre. Putting on a show for you to see.

06-24-10, 02:06 PM	#10
August Wayfaring Stranger Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 23,197 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Yeah it does sound like bull. I suppose under that theory laws against homicide restricts ones freedom to murder right? __________________ Flanked by life and the funeral pyre. Putting on a show for you to see.

06-20-10, 06:29 PM	#2
Snestorm Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	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.

06-20-10, 06:34 PM	#14
TarJak Fleet Admiral Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 17,052 Downloads: 150 Uploads: 8	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.

06-20-10, 06:34 PM	#15
Takeda Shingen Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2000 Posts: 8,643 Downloads: 19 Uploads: 0	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.