Term
| What are three versions of the run-away trolley thought experiments? |
|
Definition
Push the fat man- is it acceptable to push the fat man in order to divert the trolley and avoid killing 5 other people? Act-Utilitarian theory would likely suggest yes; as more people are allowed to live, greater utility is derived overall. Rule-utilitarians, in contrast, would argue that you cannot push the fat man because directly pushing someone to his/her death is against the law, and such a law exists for the benefit of society (i.e, an effort to maximize societal utility). A Kantian would argue that pushing the fat man violates his autonomy and his ability to make decisions for himself.
Push button to make fat man fall off
Pull the lever |
|
|
Term
| Sandel opens his book “Justice” with a discussion of price-gauging. How can a concern for welfare be employed in support as well as against price-gauging laws (use a concrete example)? |
|
Definition
Anti-price gouging laws help public welfare:
Price gouging occurs during the times when people most need a good. Often, they have nowhere to turn. For example, we saw huge spikes in the prices of ice, generators and home repairs after Katrina. Anti-price gouging laws keep necessities at an affordable price so that the poor are not disproportionately hurt or kept from being able to have access to everyday necessities. Price gouging in circumstances like a natural disaster are not the result of a fair, free market responding simply to supply and demand. “In an emergency, buyers under duress have no freedom. Their purchases of necessities like safe lodging are forced.”
Anti-price gouging laws hurt public welfare:
It’s not malicious or unfair of business to increase prices of goods that are in high demand at any time, even following a disaster like Katrina. Sandel reports in Justice a case of ice selling for $10 a bag in Florida after a hurricane. While these prices are steep, it is what the market will bear. Presumably, prices will fall when suppliers realize it is worthwhile to supply more at the new higher price. This increase to supply will suppress prices. Prices fall where the market dictates, and natural price level is never inherently unfair. |
|
|
Term
| How can a concern for liberty be employed in support as well as against price-gauging laws (use a concrete example)? |
|
Definition
For price-gouging laws:
Buyers already have limited economic freedom during an emergency that might prompt price spikes. Laws preventing those price spikes help preserve buyers’ ability to decide between goods and services available. If there is only one option available, it keeps that firm from taking advantage of its monopoly position to charge whatever it can drag out of consumers. In this way, consumers have the freedom to operate with agency, not subject to the will of a single seller.
Against price-gouging laws:
Price caps are a restriction of liberty for sellers. Basic economic theory tells us that price falls at the intersection of supply and demand. Thus, as long as consumers are demanding enough to justify the price, any price is fair. The market works best when it is allowed to re-equilibrate according to the various pressures of the economy. Intervention will only hurt economy activity, ultimately hurting everyone. |
|
|
Term
| What characterizes capitalism? |
|
Definition
| In Capitalism: A very short introduction, James Fulcher describes it as “the investment of money in the expectation of making a profit.” The most profitable ventures usually involve a good deal of risk, and their success is often “a result of scarcity and distance.” Proponents of pure capitalism might often be characterized as economic libertarians, believing in the right of the individual above all. This right extends to the individuals’ interactions in the marketplace. To the strict capitalist, it violates both the right of the seller and the buyer for price floors or ceilings to be placed on goods and services. Capitalism, in its purest sense, is the transfer of goods and services at a price determined solely by the intersection of supply and demand. |
|
|
Term
| What is the famous prisoner’s dilemma? |
|
Definition
The prisoner’s dilemma is a classic example of how game theory works. It illustrates why two individuals may not cooperate, even if it is in their best interest to do so. The scenario is as follows: two alleged criminals are jailed, and placed in separate cells for questioning. When questioned, the prisoners have three options. First, testify against their partner (whoever testifies will walk free, leaving the partner with a 1-year sentence). Second, remain silent (if both remain silent, both walk free). Third, they each testify against each other (and each get a 3-month sentence).
Clearly, in terms of minimizing jail time, it would be in their collective best interest to remain silent. However, game theory shows that the dominant strategy for each prisoner is to betray the other. |
|
|
Term
| What is the central claim of consequentialism? |
|
Definition
| Broadly, consequentialists believe that we act morally by maximizing the “good” and minimizing the “bad” of the consequences to our actions. John Stuart Mill, a pioneer of consequentialist theory, describes good versus bad consequences through his “Principle of Utility.” It says actions are wrong whenever they produce pain or displeasure and actions are right whenever they produce happiness or pleasure. According to this theory, the ultimate end of any action should be to gain pleasure or freedom from pain. One way to maximize happiness is by appealing to human emotion, especially sympathy. People derive happiness simply from knowing that their actions also contribute positively to the welfare of others. The Principle of Utility aims to maximize happiness does this by ensuring that, whatever the action, the consequences will be beneficial to the largest number of people (Business 18-20). In a broad sense, these objectives described illustrate the fundamental goal of the consequentialist philosophy. |
|
|
Term
| What is the difference between act and rule consequentialism? |
|
Definition
Act-consequentialism holds that it is always morally right to maximize the good and minimize the bad, even if rules must be broken or bent to do so. In terms of taxation, consider a case where a government has placed a 30% cap on income tax. However, during a recession, welfare programs begin to be cut and those who were dependent on them now enjoy a drastically smaller safety net. An act-utilitarian would likely be in favor of sidestepping this rule in order to generate more government funding for welfare programs, thereby generating more overall happiness (by increasing income for more people than it decreases income). For the act-consequentialist, what matters above all is producing far-reaching positive consequences, essentially by any means necessary.
Rule consequentialism says that, while it is important to maximize aggregate utility, happiness, pleasure, etc, it is not permissible to violate rules for the purpose of maximizing utility. To the rule consequentialist, rules are part and parcel of collective utility maximization. That is, rules exist because they benefit society in some way. If it were permissible to sidestep rules in some instances, the essence of having a rule would be lost, and society as a whole would ultimately benefit less. |
|
|
Term
| What is the rights-based objection to consequentialism? |
|
Definition
Consequentilism aims to promote collective benefit for the largest number of people in a society. Rights theorists hold that respecting fundamental human rights is the foremost tenant of a moral society. Rights take precedent over obligations, and the ultimate moral action is to promote the securing of liberties for people. One might object to this ideology in the basis that it often benefits the majority at the expense of a minority. This was one of the original reasons for the creation of the electoral college. The fear was that if election were determined solely on a nation-wide majority, the states with the largest number of people would sway the elections and get disproportionate representation in our government, while states like Wyoming would hold almost no weight. Politicians would ignore the interests of low-population states and campaigns would be singularly focused around what the majorities of states like California, Texas and New York wanted.
Another common rights-based objection is on racial grounds. If, for example, studies came out that if slavery were reinstated, economic output would increase substantially. Technically, as long as the decrease in utility for those enslaved was smaller than the increase in overall utility, consequentialism would objectively hold that this is a just action. Clearly, slavery is not justifiable on moral grounds. A rights-based objection would hold that the rights of a racial minority were violated for the purpose of increasing “happiness” for a majority. |
|
|
Term
| What is Kant’s concept of autonomy? |
|
Definition
Kant believes that autonomy is the most important aspect of human existence. Autonomy means that each individual is a rational, self-governing being. Individuals should be permitted to act under their own laws, provide that their “laws” are maxims that can be universalized. For example, if I feel it is morally acceptable to tell a small lie or break a small promise, I must consider the ramifications of everyone telling small lies or breaking small promises. If everyone accepted and told small lies, trust on a day-to-day basis could not exist. Similarly, if any small promise can be broken at the individual’s convenience, the very nature of making a promise loses its significance. A Kantian must be able to strictly adhere to this principle of universalizing a maxim.
Autonomy also applies to the Kantian idea that people must be treated as ends, and not exclusively as means to the ends of others. People have the basic right to be autonomous; being used by others violates this right. |
|
|
Term
| What is the Kant’s categorical imperative? (in one formulation; be precise) |
|
Definition
The categorical imperative is the central philosophical concept in the moral philosophy of Kant. it is defined as a way of evaluating motivations for action. According to Kant, human beings occupy a special place in creation, and morality can be summed up in one ultimate commandment of reason, or imperative, from which all duties and obligations derive. He defined an imperative as any proposition that declares a certain action (or inaction) to be necessary.
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.” |
|
|
Term
| Describe one ethical scenario where Kantianism and consequentialism would radically differ in their ethical verdict. |
|
Definition
| Example (there are many): someone creates a charity race to raise money for a cause, they are motivated by founding an event, boosting CV, and opening job options. Kantianism argues that this is wrong whereas for Consequentialism the result is good so it is good. |
|
|
Term
| Describe Nozick’s two central principles of his entitlement theory. |
|
Definition
A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in acquisition is entitled to that holding.
- How a person acquires something is integral to the morality of their ownership of that good
A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in transfer, from someone else entitled to the holding, is entitled to the holding. Ex: wealth redistribution by taxation is not moral because the wealthy do not give away their money voluntarily; rather, they are forced to be charitable by their government. Must be through voluntary action to be moral. |
|
|
Term
| What is the Lockean proviso for the initial acquisition of property? |
|
Definition
| The Lockean Proviso is a feature of John Locke's labor theory of property which says that while individuals have a right to homestead private property from nature, they can do so only "...at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others". |
|
|
Term
| What is one reason for why Nozick’s theory might not generate a significant portion of actual entitlements? |
|
Definition
taxes; multiple claims to property- if more than one person claims to be the deserving recipient of a piece of land, how can it be determined who is more deserving?
- previous debt of the person entitling the land- if this debt lands on the new owner, the entitlement is not a gift but rather a burden |
|
|
Term
| Briefly outline one argument for and one argument against legalizing the selling and buying of human organs. |
|
Definition
Pro: there would be a market for people to get organs when they need them
Con: the market could marginalize the poor |
|
|
Term
| Provide a brief outline of virtue-ethics. |
|
Definition
Virtue ethics describes the character of a moral agent as a driving force for ethical behavior. Essentially if there is good intent than it is morally good even if the outcome is bad.
-purpose of morality is “cultivation of a virtuous character” |
|
|
Term
| Can corporations have ethical obligations? Describe a reason for why the answer should be yes, and a reason for why the answer should be no. (Friedman reading, class discussion, loyalty to employers) |
|
Definition
No: only people can have responsibilities. A corporation is an artificial person, so it may be said to have artificial responsibilities. But a business by itself cannot be said to have responsibilities.
Corporations are made up of individuals, each of whom has certain responsibilities, but businesses as a whole cannot be considered ethically responsible-- ultimately, only the people in charge can be held accountable.
Yes: Businesses provide goods and services, and they are ethically responsible for the quality of product provided, the safety of the product, and the way in which the product was produced. Businesses must be held accountable for these things for the sake of societal well-being/safety. Consumers need to be assured that the products they consume are safe and were not produced at the cost of anyone else’s life/liberty |
|
|
Term
| What is at stake in the debate between management for shareholders versus management for stakeholders? |
|
Definition
| It is a debate about who the company should be run to benefit: should it be managed for the profit of investors (shareholders) or for anyone involved in the company i.e employees, customers, stakeholders, community, etc (stakeholders). some argue that if the company is run for stakeholders it will be more profitable than if the company focuses solely on profit. |
|
|
Term
| What is one argument for management for shareholders and what is one argument for management for stakeholders? |
|
Definition
Shareholders: businesses have the social responsibility to increase its profits and thereby increase stockholders’ values. Since these investors have put their money and trust into the corporation, the corporation is not at liberty to discern how to spend investors’ money on anything but profit-advancing strategies.
Stakeholders: it’s most important to benefit those with a stake in the business, such as employees, suppliers, customers, etc. |
|
|
Term
| What is one ethically significant difference in the management style between Costco and Wal-Mart, and what are some of the ramifications for the success of their respective businesses? |
|
Definition
Costco: pays generous wages to employees with expectation that employees will feel loyalty and produce more quality work, as opposed to the bare minimum. They do not operate solely for shareholders. The CEO takes a very small salary (compared proportionally to other CEOs) and pays employees high wages. Costco argues that this strategy actually boosts profits for them, since both employees and customers feel loyalty and enjoy the experience of working/shopping at Costco. It’s not as cheap as Wal-mart, but it serves a different market.
Wal-mart lives by the mantra, “always low prices, always.” Cost-cutting measures are taken at every corner for the sake of boosting shareholder’s stock values. They argue that the Costco model is not sustainable and certainly not as profitable as theirs. |
|
|
Term
| What are two central ethical complaints that can be extracted from Ehrenreich’s Nickel and Dimed, and what are some of the experiences she describes to document these complaints? |
|
Definition
| The poor are inherently disadvantaged from the start. |
|
|
Term
| Why do economists agree it expensive to be poor? |
|
Definition
When you are poor, you are limited in the amount of choices you can make - relating to food, housing, etc. It is not expensive in a monetary sense, but from the externalities (body, lifestyle) imposed by the decisions are more expensive. Limited choices that are available are more detrimental to well-being.
The poorer you are, the more things cost - time, money, hassle, exhaustion. |
|
|
Term
| What is at stake in the debate for and against employment-at-will? |
|
Definition
The principle of Employment-At-Will is a common-law doctrine that states that in the absence of law or contract, employers have the right to hire, promote, demote, and fire whomever and whenever they please. In the United States, EAW has been interpreted as the rule that when employees are not specifically covered by union agreement, legal statute, public policy, or contract, employers may dismiss their employees at will for good cause, for no cause, or even causes morally wrong, without being thereby guilty of legal wrong.
At the same time, at-will employees enjoy rights parallel to employer prerogatives, because employees may quit their jobs for any reason whatsoever without having to give any notice to their employers. |
|
|
Term
| What are one argument for and one argument against employment-at-will? |
|
Definition
Arguments For (pg 116)
The proprietary rights of employers guarantee that they may employ or dismiss whomever and whenever they wish.
EAW defends employee and employer rights equally, in particular the right to freedom of contract, because an employee voluntarily contracts to be hired and can quit at any time.
In choosing to take a job, an employee voluntarily commits herself to certain responsibilities and company loyalty, including the knowledge that she is an at-will employee.
Extending due process rights to the workplace often interferes with the efficiency and productivity of the business organization.
Legislation and/or regulation of employment relationships further undermine an already over-regulated economy.
Against: EAW could easily be abused by discriminatory employers. For example, say new management comes in at a factory, and they feel that black workers do poorer work than other workers, so they proceed to fire all black workers without any real cause. Without due process, racial, sexual or other discrimination is not only possible but likely. Respecting due process should take precedent over economic efficiency. |
|
|
Term
| What is the dilemma many face when contemplating whistle-blowing? |
|
Definition
loyalty is sacrificed...
Whistle blowers reveal information to which they have been entrusted by their organization. In addition, they do not whistle-blow in order to save their own skin; they do so simply because they feel it is right. It might be considered a self-righteous abuse of one’s position and the trust the organization has placed in that person, when that organization is generally decent and deserves the whistle-blower’s loyalty. |
|
|
Term
| “Companies have an obligation to inform workers of potential safety hazards present at the workplace.” Describe a few complications with this intuitive ethical principle. |
|
Definition
| Employees’ right to information about safety hazards-- unclear which protections and actions this right entails, to whom these rights apply, when the notification should occur, and under which conditions. Does the “right to know” imply that a company should be constantly researching to discover new risks? Or is it sufficient to communicate only currently available information to employees? Or corporations morally obligated to give employees information beyond what’s required by the state? Are manufacturers the sole bearers of responsibility? |
|
|
Term
| What are two possible explanations for the wrong-doing involved in sexual harassment? |
|
Definition
- It can be considered an unjustified form of intimidation, like blackmail. In the case of the Yale professor, his alleged threat to lower the student’s grade unless she slept with him is a case in which a person in a position of power abuses that power in order to get what he wants.
- Could be considered sex discrimination, “harmful as a form of degradation.” Having her sexuality count as academic achievement is degrading to the student, devalues her sense of accomplishment and academic worth. Makes it impossible for the student to resume her studies as normal, since now she knows she is seen as a sex object by her professor.
- Changes the relationship between people, particularly in a professional setting. Ex: boss offers secretary $X each week to sleep with him, without any threats or anything. If she refuses, she cannot return to a normal, professional relationship with him. |
|
|
Term
| What are three different ways of justifying affirmative action? |
|
Definition
Diversity is desirable in the academic world - it won’t always occur when left to change (diversity).
Students of lower socio-economic background (which has been shown to have correlation with race) start at a disadvantage and need a boost (compensation/correction)
Affirmative action is needed to compensate minorities for centuries of slavery and oppression (rectification) |
|
|
Term
| What is the identity problem arising for the attempt to justify affirmative action in terms of the rectification for past wrongs? |
|
Definition
| One of the problems of trying to justify affirmative action in terms of rectification for past wrongs is “that those who benefit are not necessarily those who have suffered, and those who pay the compensation are seldom those responsible for the wrongs being rectified. [Also] beneficiaries of affirmative action are middle-class minority students who did not suffer the hardship that afflict young African Americans and Hispanics from the inner city. If the point is to help the disadvantaged, critics argue affirmative action should be based on class, not race.” (Justice p170) |
|
|
Term
| What is Dworkin’s response to the argument that affirmative action in college admission is unjust because it violates the rights of certain people (e.g. whites equally qualified but not admitted)? |
|
Definition
| Dworkin’s response is that using race in affirmative action policies doesn’t violate anybody’s rights. The reason it doesn’t violate rights is because “universities define their missions in various ways, Dworkin argues that no applicant has a right that the university defines its mission and design its admissions policy in a way that prizes above all any particular set of qualities – whether academic skills, athletic abilities, or anything else. Once the university defines its mission and sets its admissions standards, you have a legitimate expectation to admission insofar as you meet those standards better than other applicants. Those who finish in the top group of candidates are entitled to be admitted; it would be unfair to exclude them. But no one has a right to be considered according to any particular set of criteria in the first place. Dworkin’s point is that justice in admissions is not a matter of rewarding merit or virtue; we can know what counts as fair way of allocation seats in the freshman class only once the university defines its mission.” (Justice 173,174) |
|
|
Term
| What is the diversity argument in favor of affirmative action, and what is one advantage of this argument? |
|
Definition
| The diversity argument is the classical argument in justification of affirmative action because it says that affirmative action brings in more diversity and therefore gives the employees more cultural transparency and makes the entire workplace better off. It is considered to be much better than the backwards looking corrective argument because no one knows how to properly qualify what past wrongs were done and how to amend for them. Also, from a theoretical standpoint, these same people may not have existed today if it had not been for the past wrongs committed to their ancestors in the past so therefore they cannot really claim any wrongs on the behalf of their ancestors. One advantage of the diversity argument is that it improves the workplace. It is also a lot clearer and easier to apply than the past-wrongs theory. |
|
|
Term
| What is the diversity argument in favor of affirmative action, and what is one problem with this argument? |
|
Definition
| The diversity argument in favor of affirmative action is that bringing more diversity into a workplace has educational and cultural benefits. Corporations have seen success applying affirmative action policies in the name of diversity because it makes the communities more accepting of them and makes the entire workplace better off. However, there have questions raised about how far the blanket of diversity should extend. Presently affirmative action policies favor minorities like blacks, Hispanics, and women. If corporations are really trying to have a diverse workplace, why not extend these same policies to other groups like Jews, Eastern-European immigrants, socialists, etc. |
|
|
Term
| Why does Sher believe the diversity argument for affirmative action cannot sidestep some of the most important the problems associated with the rectification argument of past wrongs? |
|
Definition
He believes that “in every version, the appeal to diversity raises difficult questions whose most plausible answers turn on tacit appeals to past wrongdoing.” Business p 220
i.e, The ultimate reason behind a goal of promoting diversity is to rectify past wrongs (perhaps because the lack of diversity exists because of those past wrongs)
Sher believes AA devalues the accomplishments of people who are chosen by selecting them according to social group, instead of according to their qualifications. (I’m working on finding some more on this...) |
|
|
Term
| What are some of the complications associated with the presumptive moral requirement that companies must disclose information about their products? |
|
Definition
It’s complicated to determine what exactly a buyer can reasonably be expected to know. Should the seller consider buyers in general, a subgroup of buyers to which this buyer belongs, or the individual buyer himself?
Do salespeople need to warn customers when a purchase is clearly not in their interest? How hard can a salesperson ethically push a consumer to buy when it is not in the consumer’s interest? |
|
|
Term
| What is an example for a problematic commercial and why is it problematic? |
|
Definition
One could argue that a variety of types of advertisement are problematic. They might be described as manipulative, convincing people to buy things they don’t need and can’t afford.
p.284 Business: B.F. Skinner example of a car ad, which comes up repeatedly on your favorite T.V. show and depicts a good looking person driving the car in scenic places. Your constructed association with the vehicle drives you to purchase it, rather than another car.
--This isn’t particularly problematic in and of itself, but in other situations could be.
Consider commercials by corporations whose products are manufactured in sweatshops, whose working conditions are sub human. Such a commercial might be considered unethical, given that it persuades consumers to support these companies, without any disclosure of the conditions of the workers or other ethically problematic cost-cutting measures taken. |
|
|
Term
| What are some of the ethical problems associated with the activities practiced by drug representatives? |
|
Definition
| Some of the ethical problems associated with drug reps is they try to “bribe” the doctors by getting them lunch or taking them out to lunch. They also try to be helpful and friendly to the patients. There is an understood code of pretense and self-deception that goes on between doctors and drug reps when this ‘bribing’ and helping occurs. Doctors try to pretend they are not customers and that they are not being influenced by the ‘bribes.’ P314business |
|
|
Term
| What are two important factors causing the financial crisis of 2008? |
|
Definition
| What is important to note about the financial crisis of 2008 is that there is not one single event that caused it, it was a series of events and it’s hard to place the blame on one person/party/event. For starters, banks were giving out loans with incredibly low interest rates to candidates who were not in good standing to pay them back (if at all). People were buying $400,000 homes that shouldn’t have been buying $200,000 homes and it happened for years. Home prices peaked in 2005-2006 and everything started to crumble after that. Then there is the fact that once one bank was in trouble and failing, the others did too. They all fell together, like dominos. |
|
|
Term
| What is one argument for, and what is one argument against, the bailouts of some of the huge financial institutions such as AIG? |
|
Definition
One argument for the bailout of AIG is that it has stabilized financial markets. In September 2008, Lehman Brothers failed, Merrill Lynch almost did and AIG would have gone into chaotic bankruptcy if $85 billion of rescue dollars was not there to save them.
One argument against the bailout of AIG is people view the situation negatively because it gave bonuses to people that brought down AIG, they see this as a perversion of justice. |
|
|
Term
| What is one important complaint (whether or not it is valid in your opinion) against the unfolding of the events leading to the bailouts? |
|
Definition
| The people orchestrating the bailout were all former members of wall street with several (including Hank Paulson) people being former Goldman Sachs employees |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Moral hazard is when there is a disconnect of who incurs risks and who pays for the risks
• wall street example |
|
|
Term
What is the extent of moral requirements Bowie believes companies have towards the
environment? |
|
Definition
Bowie had a minimalistic view
- Obligations of business are to obey the law, refrain from lobbying against environmental legislation, and to educate the public |
|
|
Term
| . What is the economic concept of an externality, and why does the existence of externalities potentially render market forces inefficient? |
|
Definition
| Couldn’t find externalities in our readings but he definition of an externality is a transaction spillover (in the form of costs or benefits) to those parties that were not directly a part of that transaction. They render the market inefficient because benefits possible spill over to others that didn’t pay for the benefit. For example, if I hire 24 hour security to secure my house, my neighbors will equally benefit from this through a positive externality without paying for it. This renders the market inefficient. |
|
|
Term
| Explain the nature of the global environmental problems we face in terms of the economic concept of externalities. |
|
Definition
| In terms of global environmental problems, negative environmental externalities like pollution is very common. |
|
|
Term
| Explain the nature of the global environmental problems we face in terms of the prisoner dilemma. |
|
Definition
| It would be best for everyone involved to put tougher/stricter caps on carbon emissions, speed up the process of developing sustainable sources of alternative energy, give companies incentive to pollute less/punishment for polluting too much; however, no one wants to be at a competitive disadvantage. Therefore it’s unlikely that a politician could push this sort of legislation through and hope to be re-elected. |
|
|
Term
| What is the concept of regulatory capture? |
|
Definition
| It is the process by which regulatory agencies eventually come to be dominated by the very industries they were charged with regulating. Regulatory capture happens when a regulatory agency, formed to act in the public's interest, eventually acts in ways that benefit the industry it is supposed to be regulating, rather than the public. |
|
|
Term
| Why is there a tendency for regulatory agencies being captured by whoever those agencies are supposed to regulate? |
|
Definition
their interests will be affected the most by how regulations turn out, so they will take the strongest interests in these regulations to ensure that they are the most favorable
- incentive based explanation
- certain agents often behave in certain ways due to incentives, not character
First explanation:
“Regulatory capture” are two words that describe what happens when an industry that is supposed to be regulated by an impartial government body, is able to exert so much influence over that body, that the regulator is literally taken captive. When this happens, rather than giving appropriate consideration to the legitimate interests of all stakeholders, the regulator becomes an extension of the industry or businesses it is supposed to monitor and impartially judge or discipline.
Regulatory capture is not the same as what happens when a group of businesses resist some intrusive government action. Resisting an enemy is very different from capturing an enemy, and then using his resources to do your bidding.
When regulatory capture occurs, the industry that does the capturing can use the regulator as a tool—backed by the force and power of government—to impose burdens and obligations on other stakeholders, even to the extent of overriding or ignoring the public interest. This was the case in the United States recently, as it has been repeatedly asserted how the US energy regulator, known as the Minerals Management Service (MMS), maintained such an inappropriate relationship with energy companies, that it didn’t protect the public interest. (Recent scandals at the MMS have revealed regulatory capture so pervasive that government regulators were accepting free gifts from industry, going on all expense paid trips, partaking of sexual favours, etc.)
Another explanation:
For public choice theorists, regulatory capture occurs because groups or individuals with a high-stakes interest in the outcome of policy or regulatory decisions can be expected to focus their resources and energies in attempting to gain the policy outcomes they prefer, while members of the public, each with only a tiny individual stake in the outcome, will ignore it altogether.[1] Regulatory capture refers to when this imbalance of focused resources devoted to a particular policy outcome is successful at "capturing" influence with the staff or commission members of the regulatory agency, so that the preferred policy outcomes of the special interest are implemented. |
|
|
Term
| What is the difference between command-and-control environmental regulation and more market oriented forms of environmental regulation? |
|
Definition
Market Based forms:
market-based instruments (MBIs) are policy instruments that use markets, price, and other economic variables to provide incentives for polluters to reduce or eliminate negative environmental externalities MBIs seek to address the market failure of externalities (such as pollution) by incorporating the external cost of production or consumption activities through taxes or charges on processes or products, or by creating property rights and facilitating the establishment of a proxy market for the use of environmental services. Market-based instruments are also referred to as economic instruments, price-based instruments, new environmental policy instruments (NEPIs) or 'new instruments of environmental policy.
Examples include environmentally-related taxes, charges and subsidies, emissions trading and other tradeable permit systems, deposit/refund systems, environmental labeling laws, licenses, and economic property rights. For instance, the European Union Emission Trading Scheme is an example of a market-based instrument to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Market-based instruments differ from other policy instruments such as voluntary agreements (actors voluntarily agree to take action) and regulatory instruments (sometimes called "command-and-control"; public authorities mandate the performance to be achieved or the technologies to be used). However, implementing an MBI also commonly requires some form of regulation. Market based instruments can be implemented in a systematic manner, across an economy or region, across economic sectors, or by environmental medium (e.g. water). Individual MBIs are instances of environmental pricing reform.
Command and control forms:
Regulation is administrative legislation that constitutes or constrains rights and allocates responsibilities. It can be distinguished from primary legislation (by Parliament or elected legislative body) on the one hand and judge-made law on the other. [1] Regulation can take many forms: legal restrictions promulgated by a government authority, self-regulation by an industry such as through a trade association, social regulation (e.g. norms), co-regulation, or market regulation. One can consider regulation as actions of conduct imposing sanctions, such as a fine, to the extent permitted by the law of the land. This action of administrative law, or implementing regulatory law, may be contrasted with statutory or case law.
Regulation mandated by a state attempts to produce outcomes which might not otherwise occur, produce or prevent outcomes in different places to what might otherwise occur, or produce or prevent outcomes in different timescales than would otherwise occur. In this way, regulations can be seen as implementation artifacts of policy statements. Common examples of regulation include controls on market entries, prices, wages, development approvals, pollution effects, employment for certain people in certain industries, standards of production for certain goods, the military forces and services. The economics of imposing or removing regulations relating to markets is analysed in regulatory economics. |
|
|
Term
| Why might one be concerned about the political sector effectively solving our environmental problems? |
|
Definition
| lobbiest groups, politicians are worried about reelections and the economy is a big vote driver. |
|
|
Term
| What is cultural relativism and what is moral relativism, and what is the crucial difference between the two? |
|
Definition
Cultural Relativism is a descriptive claim that ethical practices differ among cultures; that, as a matter of fact, what is considered right in one culture may be considered wrong in another. Business 580
Moral Relativism is the claim that what is really right or wrong is what the culture says is right or wrong. 580 |
|
|
Term
| Why may one not infer the truth of moral relativism on the basis of the truth of cultural relativism? |
|
Definition
The truth of moral relativism may not be inferred because of the severe differing practices between different cultures. Just because a cultural relativist understands that different cultures have different morals does not mean that they believe those cultures are right. Accepting different beliefs (cultural relativism) is much easier to do than accepting some foreign practices. (Ex.) Killing elderly out of respect in order for them to live a healthy eternal afterlife. We also respect our elderly but show it and ACT in a different way although we have the same underlying belief.
578 |
|
|
Term
| What is one significant problem with moral relativism? |
|
Definition
| It is the ideology that there are no absolute right and wrong actions. There is no objective good and evil, only matters of personal taste and opinion. Moral right and wrong are relative to a particular culture (cultural relativism) or is relative to the individual (individual relativism). Morality in this view is subjective (comes from within a person). |
|
|
Term
| What is moral universalism? |
|
Definition
| The belief that a specific set of morals applies Universally regardless of culture, race, sex, religion,etc. |
|
|
Term
| Explain the concept of human rights. |
|
Definition
| A right that is believed to belong justifiably to every person. |
|
|
Term
| What is the difference between negative and positive rights? |
|
Definition
Negative rights are rights that people have that only need to be protected from being taken away, but action isn’t needed to give them the means to execute that right. For example, to grant citizens freedom of speech, the government only needs to refrain from punishing people for what they say.
Positive rights require action to provide people with those rights. For example, if all citizens have a right to healthcare, the government has to put in place a system so that everyone, regardless of their economic situation, has access to healthcare. |
|
|
Term
| Why might one regard the difference between negative and positive rights to be smaller than often supposed (hint: Barry’s argument)? |
|
Definition
| It can be viewed that there is virtually no difference between positive and negative rights because to protect negative rights, action needs to be taken when they are violated. In order for freedom of speech to be protected, there needs to be a judicial system that will make sure if a person is thrown in jail for a speech he makes, he can fight for his right and be free of his punishment. |
|
|
Term
| What is one argument for why sweatshops are not morally problematic? |
|
Definition
| Sweatshops are not morally problematic because looking at the greater good, sweatshops help countries develop and help the citizens have ‘better jobs and better pay compared to what they were making, equaling to a better life. Citizens themselves rather have the opportunity for more jobs than a raise if they knew the raise would affect the jobs that they have now. A country that is an example of being developed from the sweatshop up is Hong Kong and now it’s a thriving city-state. |
|
|
Term
| What is one argument for why sweatshops are morally problematic? |
|
Definition
| Sweatshops can be morally problematic for a variety of reasons. The workers in these shops are extremely oppressed, as their managers force them into long hours with dangerous conditions. In an effort to gain foreign investment, managers engage in a ‘race to the bottom’ as they force more and more out of their employees, often paying ‘starvation wages’ that are abysmal. These conditions are deplorable, and represent the most significant objection to the existence of sweatshops. |
|
|
Term
| What is one morally problematic example of a western company doing business in a poor non-western country? |
|
Definition
| Apple is an infamous example of a western company taking advantage of poor non-western workers. Apple’s shops in China employ hundreds of thousands, forcing them to work for 16 hours a day and earning just .70 cents an hour. They also employ many underage children, often as young as 12. In addition, there is zero talking aloud on the floor and very few workers are allowed to sit at all. Because the workers cannot afford individual housing, they live in 12x12 plain cement rooms with 15 people sleeping in each. These conditions are deplorable and are a prime example of western companies abusing non-western employees. |
|
|
Term
| What happens in Rawls original position? |
|
Definition
| In Rawls’ original position, all people are kept under a veil of ignorance. They form a hypothetical agreement about what society will be like, and Rawls asserts that they all will act egotistically in order to ensure that the least advantaged group has its well being maximized. The veil of ignorance prevents any individuals from knowing their position in society, from their wealth to religion. Every individual will then form a society where the worst off in society does as well as he can, in case they are that individual. This hypothetical agreement is what Rawls uses to assert the morality of society. |
|
|
Term
| What are Rawls two principles of justice? |
|
Definition
| Rawls’ first principle of justice is the basic rights for every person. Each person should have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others. This guarantees that each person has the right to free speech, shelter, and other things. The second principle is what Rawls calls the ‘difference principle’. It permits social and economic inequalities, under certain conditions. It requires that differences exist only so far as they work to everybody’s advantage, and the positions of greater well being are open to all individuals. |
|
|
