discussion. Don’t try to write a book report or to summarize everything that we discussed in class.-Raise only one objection, and develop it fully. If you try to raise more than one separate critical point, you won’t be following the prompt, and it is unlikely that any of your points will be well developed.-You’ll probably need at least half of the paper for exposition, but save some room to develop your own position fully. Your defense of your own position shouldn’t be limited to a concluding paragraph; you’ll probably need at least one-fourth of the paper to do it. -If you quote the text, explain the quotation in your own words.-Don't make up empirical facts—claims about how the world is that can only be known by observation or experiment. (What claims are not empirical? Math is not empirical. Value claims are not empirical, though defending themsometimes involves using empirical facts.) If you think that the resolution of an ethical question depends on the answer to an empirical question, either cite a source about the empirical question, or say how the ethics depends on the empirical question and leave it at that.
LGST 100 Second Paper Prompt LGST 100 Fall 2020 (Hughes) Topics for the Second Paper Please choose one of the following four claims to write about: 1. In “Money, Morality, and Motor Cars,” Norman Bowie argues that businesses should refrain from lobbying against environmental regulations that would apply equally to all firms in an industry. 2. In “Environmental Damage and the Puzzle of the Self-Torturer,” Chrisoula Andreou argues that there is no optimal level of pollution. 3. In “Sweatshops, Choice, and Exploitation,” Matthew Zwolinski argues that “All else being equal, it is wrong to take away the option of sweatshop labor from workers who would otherwise choose to engage in it.” (695) 4. In “Wrongful Beneficence: Exploitation and Third World Sweatshops,” Chris Meyers argues that sweatshops may be wrongfully exploitative even if they benefit their employees and even if employees consent to the working conditions. In a 1500-1800 word essay, please do the following things with the claim you chose: a. Explain what this claim means. b. Explain the main argument that the claim’s author makes in support of it. The class handout will help you identify the argument, but your exposition shouldn’t quote the handout. Use your own words. c. Present one, and only one, objection to the argument. d. Assess the objection: i. If the author you are discussing considers and addresses this objection, discuss the author’s reply. Then critically assess that reply. Find one way that someone might find the reply inadequate, and either explain why this is a serious problem for the author’s argument, or say how the author could address the worry. ii. If the author you are discussing does not consider this objection, either explain why it is an effective objection or explain how the author could reply. 2 Papers are due on Friday, November 13 at 2PM via Canvas. Papers should be in Word or RTF format. Unexcused late papers will be penalized one third of a letter grade per day late, including weekend days. In evaluating your papers, we will ask: - Is the paper clearly written, well organized, and easy to follow? - Is the paper's exposition of the author’s conclusion and argument accurate, on-topic, and charitable? - Does the critical discussion raise a thoughtful objection, develop it well, and accurately assess how powerful it is? Some specific advice for these topics: - If you write on Bowie, focus on his positive argument for an obligation to refrain from certain forms of lobbying. (Arnold and Bustos discuss some problems with Bowie’s negative argument that corporate responsibility is limited to responding to the market, obeying the law, and respecting the political process. I don’t want your paper to merely rehash these objections.) - If you write on Andreou, you may find it helpful to say something about the further ethical or policy implications of her argument. But you don’t have to. - If you write on Zwolinski, grant Zwolinski his assumption that at least some ways of regulating sweatshops would result in sweatshops shutting down, rather than improving their wages and working conditions. (This will help you focus on the value questions.) - If you write on Meyers, grant Meyers the assumption that at least some companies could pay sweatshop workers higher wages without going out of business. - If you write on either of the articles about sweatshops, do not make any sweeping assumptions about the educational level of sweatshop workers. Do not assume that for all sweatshop workers, the only alternative to sweatshop work is death by starvation. 3 Some general tips on writing your paper: - When explaining abstract concepts, simple language is usually best. - It may help to imagine that your audience is an intelligent person who has never taken an ethics class before, including this class. Can you present the argument and your own assessment of it in a way that this person could understand? - Your first paragraph should make clear what claim you are discussing and what position you will take. - Try to interpret the text you are discussing charitably. If it seems to be saying something weird, consider whether it could be interpreted in another way. - Focus your exposition on what is needed to address the prompt and to prepare the reader to understand your critical discussion. Don’t try to write a book report or to summarize everything that we discussed in class. - Raise only one objection, and develop it fully. If you try to raise more than one separate critical point, you won’t be following the prompt, and it is unlikely that any of your points will be well developed. - You’ll probably need at least half of the paper for exposition, but save some room to develop your own position fully. Your defense of your own position shouldn’t be limited to a concluding paragraph; you’ll probably need at least one-fourth of the paper to do it. - If you quote the text, explain the quotation in your own words. - Don't make up empirical facts—claims about how the world is that can only be known by observation or experiment. (What claims are not empirical? Math is not empirical. Value claims are not empirical, though defending them sometimes involves using empirical facts.) If you think that the resolution of an ethical question depends on the answer to an empirical question, either cite a source about the empirical question, or say how the ethics depends on the empirical question and leave it at that. 4 A style point: Your paper may talk about unnamed individuals of unspecified gender. What singular pronoun should you use for these unnamed people? I think “he,” “she,” and singular “they” are all fine. It’s best to pick one pronoun for each unnamed person. Writing out “he or she” is clunky. An important reminder about academic integrity: Any time you use someone else's words (including the words of the author you are discussing), those words must be clearly identified as a quotation, and you must identify the source. Any time you use someone else's ideas (including ideas you get from talking with classmates, friends, or family), you must identify the source. I recommend these websites about how to write about ethics: Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html American Philosophical Association Guidelines for Non-Sexist Use of Language http://www.apaonline.org/?page=nonsexist http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html http://www.apaonline.org/?page=nonsexist September 21, 2020 Value and non-moral fact - The difference - Value judgments/ statements/claims are about how the world should be - Judgment/ statements/ claims of non-moral fact are about the world is, was, or will be - Are value judgments “subjective”? This is controversial. Prof. says no. - There are questions of non-moral fact people can reasonably disagree about - Difficult medical diagnosis - Difficult Scientific questions, generally. - Some of the questions we ask juries. - Disagreement does not indicate that all opinions are equally true or equally valid. Where we are on corporate purpose - Milton Friedman argued: managers of publicly traded corporations should maximize profit within the limits of “the rules of the game - His argument for this claim faces serious objections - The false premise about the law; shareholders do not, in fact, own corporations. They own stock - The empirical premise about what most shareholders want is questionable - The key-value premise has obvious counter-examples - The theory is difficult to apply in cross-cultural contexts or divided cultures Alternatives to Friedman’s account 1. A modified version of shareholder primacy with a. A refined motivating argument (not based on false claims about property rights) b. A clearer, probably longer, list of constraints on the pursuit of profit 2. Stakeholder theory a. R. Edward Freeman’s list of stakeholders: employees, suppliers, customers, financiers, communities in which the business operates b. Challenges for stakeholder theory; when tradeoffs are unavoidable, what should managers do 3. Social contract theory 4. Market failures theory Shareholder primacy v social contract theory - Common ground (among all accounts of corporate purpose) - Businesses need support from financiers, employees, customers, and communities - A business that completely alienates a stakeholder group will fail - The contrast: what is the measure of success? - Shareholder primacy (Freidman): The measure of a corporation's success is value for shareholders, workers, and customers are means to success - Social contract theory (Donaldson): the measure of a firm's success is a contribution to the lives of consumers and workers. Returns to investors are a means to success. Donaldson's Main claim - The purpose of the productive organization is “to enhance social welfare through the satisfaction of consumer and worker’s interests, while at the same time remaining within the bounds of justice” (57) - Productive organizations should pursue the goal of maximizing benefits to consumers and workers while minimizing social evils and keeping in the bounds of justice - Key terms: - Productive organizations: corporations, partnerships, other organizations that make products - Consumers: not limited to direct customers - Workers: not limited to direct employees - Bounds of justice: include, e.g., limits of lying, discrimination, etc. Donaldson’s argument, paraphrased 1. Productive organizations receive things from society, without which they cannot exist: recognition as single agents, the authority to own land and other physical resources, and the authority to hire employees 2. It is reasonable for society to grant these benefits and to tolerate the negative externalities of productive organizations only if productive organizations minimize social evils and maximize the social benefits they produce 3. The social benefits of productive organizations are primarily for consumers and workers 4. If an organization cannot exist without social authorization, and if it is reasonable for society to provide this authorization only if the organization pursues a certain goal, the organization should pursue that goal 5. Conclusion: Productive organizations should pursue the goal of maximizing benefits to consumers and workers while minimizing social evils and keeping within the bounds of justice