Reference no: EM132301237

Case - Normative theories of ethics By Nicolas Smith, Massey University, New Zealand

Discussion questions

The unethical behaviour

1. What is the nature of the wrong that the law is punishing here? In other words, why is it wrong to pretend you are supplying one product when you are really providing another? The answer might seem obvious, but don't stop at ‘because it's wrong to deceive people' or something similar. Why is it wrong? Try to explain why such behaviour is unethical from the point of view of a utilitarian moral thinker. Would a non-consequentialist ethical theorist have a different understanding of the nature of the wrongdoing in this case?

2. Does the case make you think about the virtues you would like to personify in your business? What are the virtues you think are important for people to have in business?

3. The judge emphasises the breach of trust caused by the defendant's behaviour. Why is trust important? Why is it, in particular, important in business?

4. Does the conclusion that the defendant's actions were wrongful depend on what he was deceitful about? In other words, are there some situations where, because the deceitful behaviour ‘does no harm', it is not wrong? If one thinks, in the case we are discussing, that the quality of a chicken's or a hen's life is not important enough to worry about, does it follow that it would not be wrong to falsely package the eggs because no real harm was done thereby?

The punishment

1. The defendant was sentenced to 12 months' home detention and 200 hours of community service. How can this punishment be justified in terms of the ethical theories you have studied in this chapter? For example, can the punishment be justified on utilitarian grounds? Is this just enough, but not too much, punishment to deterpeople inbusiness from making fraudulent representations about their goods and services? In other words can this punishment be justified on consequentialist grounds?

2. Is the punishment meted out to the defendant in this case a just retribution for what he did to others by deceiving them? Or do you think the law should be stricter in cases of dishonesty, because, in Kantian terms, every form of dishonesty is equally bad and should be severely punished?

3. The judge took into account, as required by law, various mitigating factors (reasons to lessen the punishment but not to excuse the behaviour) in reaching his sentencing decision. Why should judges have to do that? What do you think the difference is, in ordinary language, between a mitigating factor and an excuse? Do you think this distinction accords with Kant's theory of ethics? Or with utilitarianism?

4. In taking into account mitigating factors when sentencing, courts are exercising the virtue of mercy. Do you think mercy is an important virtue? Why, or why not?

Guide

The unethical behaviour

Question 1
Discuss consequentialist view (utilitarianism) - Discuss all parties that may be affected i.e. consumers, actual free-range egg producers, etc.
Discuss Kantian view. Is this view valid?

Question 2
Make sure you explain why you think the virtues you mentioned are important

Question 3
Discuss the impact to business and consumers if trust is breached

Question 4
Discuss this question based on the parties affected.

The punishment

Question 1
Explain if you think punishment should act as a deterrent or something that would absolutely stop people from committing crimes

Question 2
In other words, should the punishment for cheating a little be the same as for cheating a lot? And why?

Question 3
Discuss whether this would be appropriate based on Kantian approach.
Do you think the judge's approach is right? Why?

Question 4
Include the mitigating factors in your discussion

Attachment:- Case Study.rar