1. Applying Utilitarianism and the Triple Bottom Line
Should the primary objective of business leaders be to reduce suffering in the world or to otherwise improve the "Triple Bottom Line" and advance the interest of all stakeholders (not just shareholders)? Or, as Friedman argues, should businesses simply seek to maximize profits?
2. Marx's Ten Point Program
Evaluate any of the elements of the "Ten Point Program" enumerated in the Manifesto:
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production....
3. Kidney Sales Debate: PRO-Capitalist Market in Humans Organs Post Here
Should there be a legal for-profit capitalist market in human kidneys?
You are not required to respond to all of these questions, but these will help structure your thinking:
-What are the costs and benefits of such a legal market?
-How would a libertarian view this issue? How would a Marxist view this issue?
-How might Kantian universalists respond to this issue? Relativists?
-If you support a regulated market, what sorts of regulations make the market acceptable?
-Should we be free to sell any of our organs? What do we mean by "free" in this regard?
-What drives people to either sell or buy organs? What causes these motivations? Should people be allowed to sell their kidneys for any reason, or should the government determine what are acceptable and unacceptable reasons to sell their kidneys?
-Are the sellers responsible for the conditions that cause them to sell their organs? Do any of these motivations compromise their freedom to enter into these transactions?
-What criteria should determine who "contributes" kidneys to the supply pool?
-What criteria should determine who receives kidneys? Should wealth be the primary factor for who receives kidney (and the highest quality kidneys), just as wealth determines who receives the best cars?
-How is the kidney example different from markets in health care generally? How does this example relate to whether any aspects of health should be distributed according to capitalist markets?
-How is the kidney example different from other things we value like health care generally, food, education, transportation, trips to the opera?
And reply to two persons who have opposite opinion with you.
One person (against): Should we be free to sell any of our organs? What do we mean by "free" in this regard?
We should not be free to sell any of our organs. I don't think we should be able to because if we could sell any of our organs people would be potentially harming themselves or others for many things. I don't think it would be a good idea to create more of a market for body parts than is absolutely necessary to support aiding people who are ill or need them for other reasons. What we mean by free is have the ability to trade them in an open market.
What drives people to either sell or buy organs? What causes these motivations? Should people be allowed to sell their kidneys for any reason, or should the government determine what are acceptable and unacceptable reasons to sell their kidneys?
The thing that drives people to sell their organs is a desperate need for money. When someone is in a very bad place, they will do a lot to try to get out. People who buy organs are capitalizing on a market they know exists regardless of the morals. If the government decided who could sell their kidneys I think it would greatly help the issue of people selling their organs out of desperate need for cash in a shortsighted mindset.
How is the kidney example different from other things we value like health care generally, food, education, transportation, trips to the opera?
This kidney example is very similar to all of those things but at the same time very different because we effectively would not notice the absence of one of them unless we become unhealthy and need it unlike food, education or transportation which we can physically see in our lives.
Another Person (against):I think we should have the ability to sell our organs if we want to. It is your body, and so it should be your choice.The system in which they are sold should be highly regulated though, to prohibit people from just buying them by offering the most money for it. Also, you should have a certain amount of money in savings or a certain amount of money you make per year so you would be able to support your own kidney transplant, if your single kidney were to fail. That is one of the big problems I see about this whole situation. Though you should be able to do it, it creates a higher chance that a really sticky situation could occur. This puts a strain on the medical system, but also it would limit your individual freedom if you were not able to do whatever you want with your body.
4. Reply to one person
Would you employ sweatshop labor if you were an executive, meaning that you would employ the cheapest possible labor even if this leaves your workers destitute and below a "living wage"?
For the sweatshop discussion let’s make it a debate like we had in universalism vs. relativism. It helps the conversation stay structured.
FIRST: Please take a few minutes to write out in the discussion boards are short answer to the following:
For much of human history slavery was widely practiced. Is slavery really universally wrong, or is this just a relative belief of (some) modern cultures? How does slavery differ from low wage and sweatshop labor? Is sweatshop labor ethically problematic? Debate question: Would you employ sweatshop labor if you were an executive, meaning that you would employ the cheapest possible labor even if this leaves your workers destitute and below a "living wage"?
POST HERE IF YES, YOU WOULD EMPLOY SWEATSHOP LABOR
LIST THE REASONS WHY YOU HOLD THIS POSITION. Take the position you really believe in rather than hiding behind a “devil’s advocate” position.
SECOND: After you have posted your arguments, read and comment on what the other side argued. Let them know where you disagree.
THIRD: Check out what the other side said about the weaknesses of your arguments/the arguments on your side. Explain why you think they are wrong, or why they are right and thus why you change your position.
For this one, I have already submitted my opinion. Following are my opinion:
I think slavery is wrong. It is unethical. In the article Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it writes that "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." However, slavery violates human rights. Slavery is both the result and the fuel of racism. It is also both the result and the fuel of gender discrimination. Slavery is not fair for people who have been controlled. They are not free, and they even need to overwork and live in worse environment. The don't have human rights that they should have. Slavery is universally wrong.
Besides, I think sweatshop is a kind of slavery. According to related resource, a "sweatshop" is defined by the US Department of Labor as a factory that violates 2 or more labor laws. Sweatshops often have poor working conditions, unfair wages, unreasonable hours, child labor, and a lack of benefits for workers. Workers are not free, and their health is threatened. For this way, I think the nature of sweatshop is similar with slavery. In addition, sweatshop can't improve economic situation. Some people may say we need sweatshop because it is necessary for economic development. I disagree with this idea. Sweatshop workers are trapped in a cycle of exploitation that rarely improves their economic situation. So I don't support sweatshop. If I were an executive, I would not employ the cheapest possible labor. I don't think this way can help me to earn more profit. I think it may avoid the development of the company. Workers have worse treatment. Their rights are not being protected. Their health is threatened. It is not fair for them. Also, this is not a good way for company's economic situation. Whether in moral theory or considering from reality, I will not employ the cheapest possible labor.
The person that we need to reply:
I believe that slavery is 100% universally wrong. Everyone should believe in this especially as in this day and age, all human beings should be born with equal rights/dignity and born free. However, being a slave is different than working in sweatshops as they are wanting to work in factories basically voluntarily. Sweatshop labor is not ethically problematic.
If I was an executive, I would employ sweatshop labor. I would do this because if I was running a business and wanted to add sweatshop laboring to it, I believe it is a great way to save money for the company overall. Again, being apart of sweatshop labor, it is someone willing to work for cheap. This could only help a business as people will be working for you for cheap! It will also keep less fortunate people busy and give them a job.
5. ( This questions needs two answers) Does capitalism, by its very nature, [cause] [unjustified] [structural inequality]? Does capitalism make the majority of people better off, or is Marx correct that it ultimately benefits a shrinking minority while driving the majority of the world into m
Does capitalism, by its very nature, [cause] [unjustified] [structural inequality]? Does capitalism make the majority of people better off, or is Marx correct that it ultimately benefits a shrinking minority while driving the majority of the world into misery?