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?