This week's questions all have to do with the clips we saw in section.
QUESTION 1
What does the idea that "the corporation is a person" have to do with the 14th Amendment to the Constitution? (hint: the one passed after the Civil War) Was this surprising to you, and does it matter?
QUESTION 2
One of the people interviewed was saying that corporations actually do a lot of good for the poor when they relocate to Third World countries. Do you agree with this perspective? Why / why not?
QUESTION 3
The clips showed people working in sweatshops in what most people would call horrible conditions. How do you feel about it? If you don't like it, what do you suggest? If you think it's fine, recall that a very large percentage of people live in what most Americans would consider very poor conditions. Would you be willing to go behind Rawls' veil of ignorance and risk being born into their position?
QUESTION 4
The last clip showed a commodities trader talking about how the first thing he thought about on 9/11 was "My God! Gold must be going up!", and that the tragedy was a "blessing in disguise" for his clients, who had invested heavily in gold. Do you think he came off as a jerk? If so, was he just sleazy, or was he immoral? "Sleazy" means that he didn't do anything wrong, but... ew. "Immoral" means that he did something wrong.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Monday, October 24, 2011
4th set of weekly questions
It's essay-writing week, so we're not covering new material. As usual, answer three out of the four to get credit.
QUESTION 1
Pretend there is a bill in Congress that says that it will be illegal for American companies to do business in non-democratic countries. Give one argument for the bill, and one argument against it
QUESTION 2
Now that we're a month into the quarter: do you think that there is any actual point to learning about anything we've covered so far? If so, what? If not, why?
Yes, it's perfectly okay to say that the material is a waste of time. I've said that to professors in the past. :-)
QUESTION 3
"If voters just put more pressure on their politicians to stand up to corporate malfeasance (look it up if you don't know that word :-)), politicians would do a much better job at keeping companies in line. Companies act up because politicians basically let them, and politicians do that because they voters are too apathetic to do anything about it."
What do you think of that line of reasoning?
QUESTION 4
Pretend that you started a private drug manufacturing business - you're the only owner. It's a huge success. Profits are good, the future outlook is rosy, etc. You have 100 million dollars and will likely make an extra 5 million next year. You realize, though, that you could probably get an EXTRA million if you relax your quality control a little.
Pretend that you know for a fact that you will not get caught. No one would ever know. If you relax the quality control, you get an extra million dollars, but you're pretty sure that about 10,000 people will die as a result. Some slowly, some pretty quickly.
Would you do it? If so, would you do it for 1 extra dollar? If not, do you think that still makes sense to assume that companies do nothing but maximize profits? Why/why not?
QUESTION 1
Pretend there is a bill in Congress that says that it will be illegal for American companies to do business in non-democratic countries. Give one argument for the bill, and one argument against it
QUESTION 2
Now that we're a month into the quarter: do you think that there is any actual point to learning about anything we've covered so far? If so, what? If not, why?
Yes, it's perfectly okay to say that the material is a waste of time. I've said that to professors in the past. :-)
QUESTION 3
"If voters just put more pressure on their politicians to stand up to corporate malfeasance (look it up if you don't know that word :-)), politicians would do a much better job at keeping companies in line. Companies act up because politicians basically let them, and politicians do that because they voters are too apathetic to do anything about it."
What do you think of that line of reasoning?
QUESTION 4
Pretend that you started a private drug manufacturing business - you're the only owner. It's a huge success. Profits are good, the future outlook is rosy, etc. You have 100 million dollars and will likely make an extra 5 million next year. You realize, though, that you could probably get an EXTRA million if you relax your quality control a little.
Pretend that you know for a fact that you will not get caught. No one would ever know. If you relax the quality control, you get an extra million dollars, but you're pretty sure that about 10,000 people will die as a result. Some slowly, some pretty quickly.
Would you do it? If so, would you do it for 1 extra dollar? If not, do you think that still makes sense to assume that companies do nothing but maximize profits? Why/why not?
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Essay Checklist
(note: you don't need to read this if you don't want to. You can still get an A without doing so)
------------------
There are a lot of tips about how to write good essays floating around on the web. Strictly speaking, this is not one of them. This is a list of things that I look for when I grade.
THE THINGS THAT I LOOK FOR WHEN I GRADE
When grading, I ask myself three questions:
THE THINGS YOU CAN DO THAT WILL HELP YOU GET A BETTER GRADE
When you're done writing your paper, tediously go through each point, one by one, and make sure that your essay satisfies the requirements.
MAJOR THINGS
What differentiates these from "minor things" is that you're almost guaranteed not to get a strong grade if these are missing, even if the paper is in some respects brilliant
This stuff is really easy to fix. Small effort, big payoff. For most of you, it's worth your time to go through these.
------------------
There are a lot of tips about how to write good essays floating around on the web. Strictly speaking, this is not one of them. This is a list of things that I look for when I grade.
THE THINGS THAT I LOOK FOR WHEN I GRADE
When grading, I ask myself three questions:
- Does this paper actually address the prompt and follow instructions?
In other words, you need to actually answer the question as it is asked. If the prompt asks about ducks and you write a brilliant paper about clowns, you will end up with a brilliant paper with a terrible grade
Less dramatically, if the prompt says to use a certain font and margin, use it. Don't fudge it to artificially make your paper look longer, and don't fudge the other way in order to respect the page limit. When I have any doubt, I download your paper from turnitin.com and reformat it to check. Yes, I'm That Guy - Does this paper demonstrate a clear mastery of the relevant material?
This means two things: (1) you are not making mistakes with regard to the material you talk about in your paper, and (2) you are not leaving out crucial material - Is this paper's argument clearly explained?
This means that a huge part of your grade rests on your ability to communicate your points clearly and unambiguously. In practical terms: if I ever need to struggle to understand what you're talking about, there's a problem. There are three components to this:
(1) the macro-structure: on a sheet of paper, write down your thesis statement (more on that below). Then write down the topic sentence of each subsequent paragraph. This is the basic logic of your paper. That's the macro-structure. It's whether or not the big ideas are good and are connected to each other
(2) the meso-structure: what this means is: do the sentences connect in a way that actually makes an argument? Every sentence should logically follow the preceding one. If I read your essay and wonder what one thing has to do with another, you have a bad meso-structure
(3) the micro-structure: this is whether or not each sentence is formulated correctly. If I read one sentence and don't fully understand what it is trying to say, you have bad micro-structure.
THE THINGS YOU CAN DO THAT WILL HELP YOU GET A BETTER GRADE
When you're done writing your paper, tediously go through each point, one by one, and make sure that your essay satisfies the requirements.
MAJOR THINGS
What differentiates these from "minor things" is that you're almost guaranteed not to get a strong grade if these are missing, even if the paper is in some respects brilliant
- Have a thesis statement
I put this first because it's the most important part of your paper. Again: your thesis statement is by far the most important part of your paper.
People get intimidated by writing one, but even though it's important, it's not difficult. When someone asks you "What is the thesis statement?", they're really just asking you "What is the point of the paper?" Your paper as a whole must have exactly one central point. Everything in the rest of the paper will be used, either directly or indirectly, to argue that one central point
No thesis = no point to your paper. Which makes your paper just a series of nearly random assertions. Want a quick and dirty way to make sure you have a thesis? Include the following words in your introduction: "In this paper, I argue ..." Finish that sentence. That's your thesis.
Action step: on your rough draft, underline your thesis in pencil. Don't just point to it. Underline your specific thesis statement - One idea per paragraph
Your paper needs to have one central point. Each body paragraph (i.e.: paragraphs that are neither your introduction nor your conclusion) has two defining characteristics: (1) the only reason that it exists is to support your thesis, and (2) it contains exactly one major idea.
Here is an example. Let's say your thesis is that "Ducks are great" (which they are). Each body paragraph will either (a) explain a great feature of ducks, or (b) will be a distinct part of a logical chain that will, on the whole, argue for the greatness of ducks.
Here is an example of a structure where the essay is filled with (a):
Thesis: Ducks are great
Paragraph 1: Ducks are super cuddly
Paragraph 2: Ducks have weird feathers, which makes them unique
Paragraph 3: Unlike other animals, ducks can be both elegant and intimidating at once, thus making them a perfect yin/yang balance
Here is an example of a structure where the essay is filled with (b):
Thesis: Ducks are great
Paragraph 1: Animals have historically been divided into "great" and "lame"
Paragraph 2: Although criteria for such divisions have evolved over time, clearly, the best way to separate them is according to criteria XYZ
Paragraph 3: Ducks easily fulfill criteria XYZ, making them great, and possibly even awesome
Either may be appropriate, based on the essay prompt and your own ideas
Action step: in pencil, write down on a separate piece of paper a one sentence summary of each paragraph. If you can't do it in a sentence, your paragraph is too vague - Topic sentence for each paragraph
Since each body paragraph has exactly one idea (that supports the thesis in some way), you should express this idea in the first sentence of the paragraph. If for stylistic reasons you need to express it in the second sentence, that's okay too. The key thing to keep in mind is that I don't want to be midway through the paragraph, wondering what the hell is going on
Action step: like the thesis. On your rough draft, underline your specific topic sentences. If you can do this easily, you're good to go - There is no 4. Those three things are easily the most important parts of your essay. A thesis statement. Paragraphs with one main idea each. A topic sentence.
You can do this.
Action step: do it!
This stuff is really easy to fix. Small effort, big payoff. For most of you, it's worth your time to go through these.
- Don't use "correlate"
This word is almost always misused. When you use "correlates", you usually means "has to do with". "Idea X correlates with what author Y said..." When you put it that way, you can see that the real problem is that saying that "X has to do with Y" doesn't actually mean anything. Anything can have something to do with something else. This is micro-structure stuff. When you misuse "correlates", your sentence becomes indeterminate: I no longer know what exactly you mean.
What I need to know is: what is the actual relationship between X and Y? Does X cause Y? Is X similar to Y? Do X and Y come from the same source? Etc.
Action step: use the "find" function in your software and search for "correlate". Each time you find a match, re-read the sentence and find a more precise way of expressing exactly what you're trying to express. To be on the safe side, don't use "correlate" unless you're talking about a statistical regression. If you don't know what that means, just don't use that word - Instead of using awkward formulations, just use "I"
I don't mind the use of "I". Some graders and professors do, but they don't know what they're talking about. Compare these two sentences:
"It can be argued that ducks are great."
vs.
"I will argue that ducks are great."
The second sentence is direct. If you're reading this post, you should strive for being as clear and direct as possible.
Why the anti-I prejudice? My best guess is that high school teachers implement that rule in order to help you learn to write objectively and to get away from writing emotive rants about topics. You're in college, so we're assuming that you've got that down. Now it's time to emphasize clarity and directness - Action step: before writing anything, close your eyes, take some deep breaths, and tell yourself that the point of the paper is to tell me what you think. Now write that way
- If you're e-mailing me ideas or drafts, never say: "I want to see if I'm on the right track"
The problem with sending me work and asking "if I'm on the right track" is that it's too ambiguous. What it translates to is "Hey, if there is any problem with this, tell me about it now." I can't and won't do that. On the other hand, you can e-mail me and ask me to read your work in a particular way. Some examples of much better requests for feedback are: "Does this answer the prompt?" , or "Can you easily see my thesis here?"
THREE CAVEATS:
(1) I try to answer student questions, but I don't guarantee that I'll be able to answer you. This is especially the case if you e-mail me late. You don't lose anything by trying, but you should never wait for a response before continuing to work on your paper
(2) the more thought you put into what you send me and your request for feedback, the more likely I'll give you detailed, helpful feedback. I usually give pretty short answers to general questions
(3) you should never interpret any feedback I give you to mean that you will get a certain grade. Maybe the paragraph you sent me looked good but ended up making no sense in terms of the overall argument
Action step: after you write your e-mail, re-read it and ask whether or not you can make your question more specific. If you can, do it. - Skip the fancy introduction
Most people are taught in high school that an introduction must have a cute or dramatic beginning. It doesn't. One or two sentences before the thesis statement is enough. If you're a poetic or epic writer, that's okay, but that does not factor in at all when I write your grade. I am looking for comprehension and clarity.
If I'm reading a six page paper and after page 1 all I've read is flowery stuff, I assume that you're deliberately wasting space because you don't actually know what you're talking about
Action step: count the number of sentences before your thesis statement. If it's greater than 3, delete some of them. Don't worry about it not being pretty enough
Sunday, October 16, 2011
3rd Set of Weekly Questions
Because we're a week behind on the syllabus, I'm going to focus on questions that pertain to last week's readings. Sort of.
1-Compare these two cases:
a)You own a company that is slowly failing, and you know that you'll likely go out of business within a year. One of your competitors knows this too, shows up at your office, puts a gun to your head, and tells you to sign a contract that gives him ownership of your company for an insanely cheap price (let's say, 10,000$). Not wanting to die, you sign the contract.
b)You own a company that is slowly failing, and you know that you'll likely go out of business within a year. One of your competitors knows this too, waits until you are a week away from bankruptcy, and then shows up at your office. He produces a contract that that gives him ownership of your company for an insanely reduced price (let's say, 10,000$). Not wanting to be left with nothing whatsoever (which will be the case if you declare bankruptcy), you sign the contract.
Most people would say that the first contract is invalid, but the second one is valid. Yet both were signed under duress, and both yield the same payoff. What could explain this intuition, and do you agree with it?
2-Some authors think that companies that are trying to "be ethical" with pro-social initiatives are ironically doing an ethically bad thing. What is one argument along these lines (either in your readings, or from your own head)?
3-What is one possible difficulty inherent in trying to think of yourself both as a worker and as an independent moral agent?
4-During the Nuremberg trials, a re-occurring defense that Nazis used was that "we were only following orders". This has led some people to believe that this is never a legitimate excuse for behavior. Does this mean that "My boss told me to..." is never a valid excuse for doing something that you find ethically questionable?
1-Compare these two cases:
a)You own a company that is slowly failing, and you know that you'll likely go out of business within a year. One of your competitors knows this too, shows up at your office, puts a gun to your head, and tells you to sign a contract that gives him ownership of your company for an insanely cheap price (let's say, 10,000$). Not wanting to die, you sign the contract.
b)You own a company that is slowly failing, and you know that you'll likely go out of business within a year. One of your competitors knows this too, waits until you are a week away from bankruptcy, and then shows up at your office. He produces a contract that that gives him ownership of your company for an insanely reduced price (let's say, 10,000$). Not wanting to be left with nothing whatsoever (which will be the case if you declare bankruptcy), you sign the contract.
Most people would say that the first contract is invalid, but the second one is valid. Yet both were signed under duress, and both yield the same payoff. What could explain this intuition, and do you agree with it?
2-Some authors think that companies that are trying to "be ethical" with pro-social initiatives are ironically doing an ethically bad thing. What is one argument along these lines (either in your readings, or from your own head)?
3-What is one possible difficulty inherent in trying to think of yourself both as a worker and as an independent moral agent?
4-During the Nuremberg trials, a re-occurring defense that Nazis used was that "we were only following orders". This has led some people to believe that this is never a legitimate excuse for behavior. Does this mean that "My boss told me to..." is never a valid excuse for doing something that you find ethically questionable?
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Second set of weekly questions
Hi all, here is the second set of weekly questions. Same deal: no time limit, you need to answer 3/4 to get the check mark.
QUESTION 1:
In your opinion, does it make sense to say that "business" has a social responsibility? What is "business", anyway?
QUESTION 2:
Is Ladd's article generally happy or sad? Why?
QUESTION 3:
Identify one of this week's ~10 assigned articles that you disagree with (either in whole or in part), and explain why you feel that way
QUESTION 4:
Define or describe "social responsibility". Now do it in two different ways. Do you feel that these three descriptions are more or less identical?
See you soon,
AW
QUESTION 1:
In your opinion, does it make sense to say that "business" has a social responsibility? What is "business", anyway?
QUESTION 2:
Is Ladd's article generally happy or sad? Why?
QUESTION 3:
Identify one of this week's ~10 assigned articles that you disagree with (either in whole or in part), and explain why you feel that way
QUESTION 4:
Define or describe "social responsibility". Now do it in two different ways. Do you feel that these three descriptions are more or less identical?
See you soon,
AW
First set of weekly questions
Hi all,
If you're getting this, it's because you're on my list of students for one of my ethics28 sections. This is the first set of weekly questions. Remember, these are *optional*. To get credit for answering them, just answer by e-mail. You just need to answer three out of the four questions. Short answers (pertinent one-liners) are fine, and you're not getting graded on whether or not you're right or wrong. You just get a check mark which might help your final grade.
There's no time limit to do these, but doing them before section is best. It'll help you in your preparation.
Before I get to the actual questions, a few extra things of note. You can skip them if you want and go right to the questions. Or you can stop reading right now if you're not interested in either these things or answering the questions. Nothing here is mission critical.
--
a)we're not dealing with Ladd this week. But we'll deal with him eventually, so no worries. You won't be cheated out of him
b)you're supposed to do all the readings for the week by the time you hit section. Some of the stuff can get confusing, so you might want to have some questions ready if that's the case. If anything inspires you or annoys the hell out of you, have that ready too
c)the Rawls and Nozick pieces are the heavy hitters this week. These two guys (both big in the 70s and both dead) are some of the most important political philosophers of the 20th century. And they're not as easy as the rest of this week's readings. So take your time, and re-read if necessary
d)if there's a question you're dying to have answered in section, it makes sense to e-mail it to me ahead of time (at my school e-mail address) if you can. I do my best to answer things on the fly, but I'm not that witty
e)someone asked me what "instrumental rationality" was. I suspect that it was in reference to the Ladd article. Anyway, for the purposes of that article, it means the following:
-assume that you have a goal. Let's say the goal is "Hurt people as much as possible". Instrumentally rational people will chose actions which they believe will most effectively achieve that goal. Let's say you're thinking "Hmmm... what are some good ways of hurting puppies?", and you come up with three ideas:
IDEA ONE: throw flowers at them
IDEA TWO: fall in love, volunteer at a charity, get a job you love and die happily in old age
IDEA THREE: get stealth training. Then sneak up on people, punch them, and sneak away. Do this over and over again
In order to be instrumentally rational, you would need to go with the third idea. That's because it's the best way to accomplish your goal, which is to hurt as many people as possible. The important thing to notice here is that it has *no* way to judge whether or not your goal is stupid, evil, or both. It assumes a goal, and then asks "What's the best way for me to achieve it?" It does not ask "Is this a good goal for me to have?"
To put it still another way: it has nothing to do with whether or not your goal is "rational". It's just about whether or not you're being effective in reaching whatever goal you have
(hopefully this answered the question)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are the weekly questions:
*****QUESTION 1*****
Watch the PBS video on inequality. What do you think Carnegie would say about it? Bonus: what do you think about it. Bonus #2: what do you think about what you think Carnegie would think about it?
*****QUESTION 2*****
Most people feel poorer in the third scenario, even though they're two dollars richer. Assuming that the cost of goods is the same in each scenario, is this feeling legitimate? Is it just sour grapes (aka: playa hating)? Is it something else?
*****QUESTION 3*****
Adam Smith talk a lot about self-love, or looking out for number one. One of his classic lines is:
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest”
Do you think there's any room for morality in Adam Smith?
[note: his other big book is called A Theory of Moral Sentiments :-)]
*****QUESTION 4***** [the hard one!]
In three sentences or less, try to summarize Rawls OR Nozick in your own words
That it! See you this week.
AW
If you're getting this, it's because you're on my list of students for one of my ethics28 sections. This is the first set of weekly questions. Remember, these are *optional*. To get credit for answering them, just answer by e-mail. You just need to answer three out of the four questions. Short answers (pertinent one-liners) are fine, and you're not getting graded on whether or not you're right or wrong. You just get a check mark which might help your final grade.
There's no time limit to do these, but doing them before section is best. It'll help you in your preparation.
Before I get to the actual questions, a few extra things of note. You can skip them if you want and go right to the questions. Or you can stop reading right now if you're not interested in either these things or answering the questions. Nothing here is mission critical.
--
a)we're not dealing with Ladd this week. But we'll deal with him eventually, so no worries. You won't be cheated out of him
b)you're supposed to do all the readings for the week by the time you hit section. Some of the stuff can get confusing, so you might want to have some questions ready if that's the case. If anything inspires you or annoys the hell out of you, have that ready too
c)the Rawls and Nozick pieces are the heavy hitters this week. These two guys (both big in the 70s and both dead) are some of the most important political philosophers of the 20th century. And they're not as easy as the rest of this week's readings. So take your time, and re-read if necessary
d)if there's a question you're dying to have answered in section, it makes sense to e-mail it to me ahead of time (at my school e-mail address) if you can. I do my best to answer things on the fly, but I'm not that witty
e)someone asked me what "instrumental rationality" was. I suspect that it was in reference to the Ladd article. Anyway, for the purposes of that article, it means the following:
-assume that you have a goal. Let's say the goal is "Hurt people as much as possible". Instrumentally rational people will chose actions which they believe will most effectively achieve that goal. Let's say you're thinking "Hmmm... what are some good ways of hurting puppies?", and you come up with three ideas:
IDEA ONE: throw flowers at them
IDEA TWO: fall in love, volunteer at a charity, get a job you love and die happily in old age
IDEA THREE: get stealth training. Then sneak up on people, punch them, and sneak away. Do this over and over again
In order to be instrumentally rational, you would need to go with the third idea. That's because it's the best way to accomplish your goal, which is to hurt as many people as possible. The important thing to notice here is that it has *no* way to judge whether or not your goal is stupid, evil, or both. It assumes a goal, and then asks "What's the best way for me to achieve it?" It does not ask "Is this a good goal for me to have?"
To put it still another way: it has nothing to do with whether or not your goal is "rational". It's just about whether or not you're being effective in reaching whatever goal you have
(hopefully this answered the question)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are the weekly questions:
*****QUESTION 1*****
Watch the PBS video on inequality. What do you think Carnegie would say about it? Bonus: what do you think about it. Bonus #2: what do you think about what you think Carnegie would think about it?
*****QUESTION 2*****
Consider these three scenarios:
-SCENARIO 1:
You live in a very small one-room home. You have running water and a coal stove. You can afford to buy some (used) clothes once a year or so, and can eat enough calories to be healthy. When you go outside, you look down the street, and notice that your neighbors are living in pretty much the same type of life as you.
-SCENARIO 2:
You live in a very small one-room home. You have running water and a coal stove. You can afford to buy some (used) clothes once a year or so, and can eat enough calories to be healthy. Plus you have one dollar more than you did in Scenario 1. When you go outside, you look down the street, and notice that your neighbors are living in spacious homes. They eat whatever they want and frequently listen to Lady Gaga on their iPods.
-SCENARIO 3:
You live in a very small one-room home. You have running water and a coal stove. You can afford to buy some (used) clothes once a year or so, and can eat enough calories to be healthy. Plus you have two dollars more than you did in Scenario 1. When you go outside, you look down the street, and notice that your neighbors are nowhere to be seen. That's because you live next to a gated community with private security. The security guard is pretty nice, but you can't go see the huge homes that your neighbors live in. You have no idea what they listen to on their iPods, but you know that their iPods are made of solid gold.
Most people feel poorer in the third scenario, even though they're two dollars richer. Assuming that the cost of goods is the same in each scenario, is this feeling legitimate? Is it just sour grapes (aka: playa hating)? Is it something else?
*****QUESTION 3*****
Adam Smith talk a lot about self-love, or looking out for number one. One of his classic lines is:
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest”
Do you think there's any room for morality in Adam Smith?
[note: his other big book is called A Theory of Moral Sentiments :-)]
*****QUESTION 4***** [the hard one!]
In three sentences or less, try to summarize Rawls OR Nozick in your own words
That it! See you this week.
AW
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Weekly questions
Hi all, from now on I'll post the weekly questions here instead of e-mailing them to you. If you want to answer them, please do the following:
1)copy / paste the questions you want to answer in an e-mail
2)answer the question
3)e-mail your responses to the e-mail that I gave you in section
This blog is hooked up to my gmail account. Please don't e-mail me there.
You can probably subscribe to this blog via RSS, but I can't promise that I won't post other things here, so if you subscribe, you'll end up getting that content too.
AW
1)copy / paste the questions you want to answer in an e-mail
2)answer the question
3)e-mail your responses to the e-mail that I gave you in section
This blog is hooked up to my gmail account. Please don't e-mail me there.
You can probably subscribe to this blog via RSS, but I can't promise that I won't post other things here, so if you subscribe, you'll end up getting that content too.
AW
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)