Sign in or 
Share this
Sample Discussion Assignment
This is primarily for my online students to see examples of well done work on their assignments.
" I will be using the first form of the categorical imperative to prove the inefficacy of the following maxim.
Maxim: Giving all your friends your employee discount on all items at your place of employment.
Now, let us will this as a universal law and examine the consequences. Everybody always gives all of their friends the employee discount at their place of employment. The profit made by said establishments would decrease dramatically, exponentially even. I can explain the math at another time if the explanation is desired, but in interest of time I will not do so here. The owners of said establishments would begin to distrust their employees, the consequences of which seem to be rather obvious. A decrease in the profit margin could cause any number of alterations, only some of which I will list here. To decrease costs the employer might downsize, causing many people to lose their jobs. Or maybe the employer would lower pay for everybody, or abolish the employee discount altogether. Prices might be raised to compensate for the loss in profit margin. Or a combination of any or all of these and other circumstances might occur, none of which are good for the consumer, or the employee and his/her friends. It could also effect the stock prices of the company which would cause a ripple effect to the places of employment of the friends, causing some of them to lose their jobs or not get a raise, etc.
Therefore, if everybody were to give their employee discount to their friends at their place of employment, the original purpose of lowering the cost to their friends would be negated by the universal effects of this maxim."
" I will be using the first form of the categorical imperative to prove the inefficacy of the following maxim.
Maxim: Giving all your friends your employee discount on all items at your place of employment.
Now, let us will this as a universal law and examine the consequences. Everybody always gives all of their friends the employee discount at their place of employment. The profit made by said establishments would decrease dramatically, exponentially even. I can explain the math at another time if the explanation is desired, but in interest of time I will not do so here. The owners of said establishments would begin to distrust their employees, the consequences of which seem to be rather obvious. A decrease in the profit margin could cause any number of alterations, only some of which I will list here. To decrease costs the employer might downsize, causing many people to lose their jobs. Or maybe the employer would lower pay for everybody, or abolish the employee discount altogether. Prices might be raised to compensate for the loss in profit margin. Or a combination of any or all of these and other circumstances might occur, none of which are good for the consumer, or the employee and his/her friends. It could also effect the stock prices of the company which would cause a ripple effect to the places of employment of the friends, causing some of them to lose their jobs or not get a raise, etc.
Therefore, if everybody were to give their employee discount to their friends at their place of employment, the original purpose of lowering the cost to their friends would be negated by the universal effects of this maxim."
Discussion Case Famine Relief (p. 468) Do people with so much more have any obligation to help these folks? Why or why not? If we ought to help them, is it a matter of charity or obligation? People in wealthier nations have no obligation to give money, food, or services to those in Africa who have suffered through a drought this year because, according to the process view, "if there was no fraud or other immoral activity that lead to the way things have turned out, then the resulting arrangement is just". Since underdevelopment and extreme poverty in an African nation may be due to geographical isolation, poor soil, lack of clean water, corruption, and paucity of education, it is permissible morally for some of its inhabitants to possess more and others less if the difference is "a function of something like the greater effort or contributions of the richer nations". I do not agree with Peter Singer's view that giving to victims of famines is not charity but is a duty. I believe that gross mismanagement of natural resources by local authorities leads a nation to suffer famine; and corrupted officials ensure that donated relief never reaches the needy, as witnessed with the devastating Thailand Tsunami a few years ago. I support Garrett Hardin's view that overpopulation produced by famine relief leads eventually to further famine and death. Psychological egoism supports the axiom that human beings act in accordance with their own best interests, those ultimate interests which motivate mankind. Thus, aid given to a poorer nation must not bring about the lowering of living standards in the donor nation. Similarly, end-state justice reasons that industrialized nations are justified in having more because of the sacrifice, investment, and savings practice of the people, and that those people with so much more do not have an obligation to help these folks who are in an unstable political situation whose government mismanagement may have lead to the people starving. Under the subtitle Justice (452), the text addresses how free trade allows corporations to move their factories to places where they can take advantage of the cheap cost of labor to manufacture their goods. The corporations claim that this allows them to stay competitive and produce goods at much lower costs than they could in the U.S. Both statements are for the most part true but unfortunately they result in a much bigger human cost. Exploitation, poor working conditions and no worker protections are common place in the countries that the manufactured jobs are outsourced to. To stop this injustice, guidelines must be drawn up and strictly enforced that are applicable to all U.S. companies who outsource their manufacturing jobs oversees. The companies that provide the outsourced labor should be mandated to provide a livable wage and protections for their workers. These companies also should meet a certification process that they meet those guidelines. U.S. companies would still be able benefit from lower labor costs because of the cost of living is lower in the countries but workers would be given a job that allows them to live at the very least a simple life. It is deplorable and unconscionable that any modern U.S. company has ever been allowed to take advantage of poor people who are desperate for the sole purpose of increasing their bottom line and shareholder profit. This country continuously tries to tout its greatness around the world; it is undeniably unethical thatwe allow other human beings to be exploited for our profit. The countries in which the workers live that perform the outsourced work do have a responsibility to their citizens. They need to realize that the corporations outsourcing the work are the only true beneficiaries of the deal. They need to insist on a livable wage and decent working conditions for their people and crack down on the companies in their country that provide the labor for the manufacturing of the products. Their countries will greatly benefit if the opportunity is there for their citizenryto earna livable wage. It is very difficult to fully understand all of the economics and resulting consequences that are associated with U.S. corporations outsourcing their manufacturing jobs to countries where labor is cheaper and labor laws are much less restrictive. There is the whole other subject of what the consequences for the U.S. are when manufacturing jobs are now consistently being outsourced. The U.S. needs to address this situation and stop the human exploitation. In the process, it might even help us start to improve our image and credibility problems. #8 Just war theory evolved from the idea that a sovereign nation has the right to defend itself as necessary from invasion, but only so much as is necessary. The theory has extended its influence and “includes two basic areas: principles that would have to be satisfied for a nation to be justified in using military force, or initiating a war, and principles governing the conduct of the military action or war itself” (425). We’ll focus on the justness of going to war, jus ad bellum. The four basic principles of just war theory must all be met and include: just cause, proportionality, last resort, and right intention. Since the theory has its roots in the idea of self-defense, reasons for preventive and preemptive strikes seem to be very loosely affiliated with the ideas found in the just war theory. Today’s ideas of just cause seem to be easily voiced concerns that potentially threaten economic superiority of a nation or conflicting ideas, but seldom support realized atrocities of genocide. To some, America’s reasons seem as though they could have justified merit, however, according to the theory of just war, such reasons that prevent the spread of communism, opposition to a country’s leaders, or protecting oil interests are not well supported. Just cause doesn’t need to be strictly tied to self defense, but history supports the need of identifying the immorality of violence combating violence. The cause of just war grows roots by contrasting the costs and benefits of war or something in its place as means to an end. Proportionality is governed by the idea that “the probable good to be produced by the intervention must outweigh the likely evil that the war or use of force will cause” (425). These ideas of good versus evil do not need to share a certain value set to agree on a just cause, because war is always waged on and because of conflicting values. The ideas of preventive and preemtive strikes examples subjective value sets, which conflict the divergent ideas of good and evil. Other means, besides war, must be considered and those measures that are relevant to “achieving the goal specified by just cause” (426) must be advanced, leaving violent conflict a last resort. The Last Resort principle provides the desperate means of military action that in theory should result with the intended outcome of just cause, through diplomacy, embargo, threats, or other non-violent methods. The extent of using other means to achieve just cause is difficult to gauge because the lack of common values distract the measures of cooperation or non-violence. The Right Intention moves us closer to how war should be conducted, which is why it is considered when justifying a declaration of war. The ultimate goal is to establish or reestablish peace as a result of the action of war. But, without a common idea of good and evil, how can war result in agreeable peace?  | ||
| ||
arete |
Latest page update: made by arete
, May 12 2007, 5:51 PM EDT
(about this update
About This Update
Edited by arete
489 words added 1 image added view changes - complete history) |
|
Keyword tags:
None
More Info: links to this page
|
| Started By | Thread Subject | Replies | Last Post | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anonymous | Great Examples | 0 | Jul 2 2007, 1:56 AM EDT by Anonymous | ||
|
|
Thread started: Jul 2 2007, 1:56 AM EDT
Watch
This page was very helpful to me because I could kind of see what exactly you are looking for out of us. I have never taken a philosophy class before, so I wasn't sure how to go about doing my first assignment. It was good to be able to look at some other work and read how exactly a good response would be. It also was good that there were a couple different examples so we can get a good well rounded look at what the teacher is looking for. The website I picked is http://www.dummies.com/WileyCDA/DummiesTitle/productCd-0764551531.html. I picked this site because it is good for new people trying to get through a philosophy class. It answers easy questions and has several other links you can go to to get further information.
|
||||
Showing 1 of 1 threads for this page
