PHL 318 Exam 1

The fact that an action, policy, or decision would harm someone is a moral reason against it.

The fact than an action, decision, or policy would produce a benefit for others, or prevent a harm to others, is a moral reason in favor of it.

The fact that an action, decision, or policy would violate the moral or legal rights of another person is a moral reason against it

The fact that an action, decision, or policy would interfere with a person's autonomy is a moral reason against it.

The fact that an action (including a “verbal action”) would lead someone to believe something you know to be false is a moral reason against it.

The fact that I would object to a given action, policy, or decision if I were in the place of the person affected by it is a moral reason against that action, decision, or policy.

If two situations are relevantly similar, and if a certain action would be morally wrong in the first situation, then there is reason to believe that this same kind of action would be morally wrong in the other situation as well (and vice versa).

The fact that an action, decision, or policy would break a promise or violate a commitment is a moral reason against it.

The fact that an action would violate a special obligation that arises from a specific role or relationship is a moral reason to avoid it.

The fact that one’s previous actions, decisions, or policies harmed or wronged someone else creates a reason to compensate that person.

The fact that someone else’s previous actions, decisions, or policies have benefitted you creates a reason to return the favor.

• 1. Would this action harm someone?
• 2. Would this action disrespect anyone?
• 3. Would I see this action as ethical if I were in the position of the people affected by it?
• 4. Would this action violate any special obligations that I have?

A moral doctrine that we should always act to produce the greatest possible balance of good over bad for everyone affected by our actions.

He believe that to ignore a person's autonomy was to treat them as a "mere means to an end" rather than an "end in herself," and that this was not only immoral but a mistake. To treat something as a mere means to an end is to simply use it for one's own purposes without any regard to what it wants.

actions become habits, and that habits determine character

Utilitarianism-happiness is the proper measure of utility or benefit, and that harm consisted in the loss of happiness.

there is no simple way to determine which conflicting rule should apply in such situations.

to see it as a set of standards for the best way to live a human life and to get along with otherpersons

• a set of behavior dispositions-
• consists of tendencies to act in certain ways.

distorts our thinking aboutbusiness and make it easier for decent people to behave badly. The was we live, the way we think.

when moral tunnel vision to becomesemi-permanent is by the more or less permanent blocking out of other valuesall the time.

when someone has a previous goal I block out everything

In the article there was not strong leader or organization to motivatethe group to act on a shared sense of moral values or in other words “no tunnelvision”.

• you might be able to get by without it but if you try you
• are taking a big risk

it usually does

that would not have existed if business had acting more ethically on its own.

Unethical businesspractices are bad for the climate in which business must operate.

consists of the application of ethicalvalues and standards to business activities.

shoe store example