what are their central similarities and differences? Which view is stronger, and why? Be precise; explain with reference to an example from one of the readings from your professional case studies assigned in class. Prompt 2: Responsibility in the Profession Explain the argument for why professionals should still have ethical responsibility despite lacking full knowledge (from Luban). Then, give two of the five obligations to prevent harm, explaining and applying both in the context of one of the readings for your professional case studies assigned in class. Second Essay Prompt: Must answer the following prompt (60 points)

I’m working on a philosophy writing question and need an explanation to help me understand better.


Get Your Custom Essay Written From Scratch
We have worked on a similar problem. If you need help click order now button and submit your assignment instructions.
Just from $9/Page
Order Now

Please see attached files

For the first section, I would like to choose Prompt 2 which has to be 1.5 pages long.

Prompt 3 must be 2 pages.

Attached are the instructions for the assignment as well as some stories that might want to be referred to.



PHIL 311 Professional Ethics Spring 2021 Final Exam Below are the essay prompts for your final exam. You should submit one document – 3.5 pages total – that contain both answers (choose one from the first set, and you must answer the second). Be sure to identify which prompt you are responding to at the start of each answer. First Essay Prompts: Pick 1 of 2 (40 points total). Limit your answer to the prompt you choose to 1.5 pages. You can offer supporting quotes from relevant readings, but be sure to provide in-text citations for those quotes. You do not need to provide a full reference, provided you are using readings assigned for class. Be conscientious of basic essay writing format (include a basic thesis, along with relevant paragraph breaks). Prompt 1: Whistleblowing & Responsibility Compare and contrast the two justifications for whistleblowing (the standard theory and the complicity theory, from Davis) – what are their central similarities and differences? Which view is stronger, and why? Be precise; explain with reference to an example from one of the readings from your professional case studies assigned in class. Prompt 2: Responsibility in the Profession Explain the argument for why professionals should still have ethical responsibility despite lacking full knowledge (from Luban). Then, give two of the five obligations to prevent harm, explaining and applying both in the context of one of the readings for your professional case studies assigned in class. Second Essay Prompt: Must answer the following prompt (60 points). Limit your answer to 2 pages. You can offer supporting quotes from relevant readings, but be sure to provide in-text citations for those quotes. You do not need to provide a full reference, provided you are using readings assigned for class. Be conscientious of basic essay writing format (include a basic thesis, along with relevant paragraph breaks). Prompt 3: Ethically Responsible Professionals Drawing from the ideas we explored through the course, present an argument that answers the following question: what are the four MOST important aspects to being an ethically responsible professional? Address this question in terms of obligations to others (the people in need of expertise), and in terms of obligation to self (the person who maintains a sense of personal integrity within a structure that may make such ethical practice difficult). Present an ARGUMENT for why these four are the MOST important (you will need to be able to explain them with reference to supporting sources, and defend their importance). Chapter 1 r TheNatureof Morality 45 ;tions .at business and ,f amoral busir mJth? Do you ,ct the “Three much unethical rday?What hapBreakers?Can is scum” underinesspeople are ; is a practice r” in businesstorgedin anyway? rere is notling ificing the botble with his rantee tfrat ne” (p.40)? ReadingMORAL RNSPoNSIBILITY IN THE ACN OF BUREAUCRACY Devro LuneN,Ar-eNSrnuor,en, eNo DevroWassnnuaN Large bureutcratic organizafiors frequently d;Iute an indioid.ual\ serce of moral responslbl,llty, and mernbersof such mganizntions are oll too likely to acquizscein organizational misconduct. Orle reasonfor this is that irsid.e the organization krwwledge can be sofragwnted that an lndloldad nuy be partially or whally igwrant of ushatthz mganizntion is doing. Daoid Luban, Nan Strudle4 and Daoid Wassermand.anhw thb problem. Whcreas most moral theoriesprewppose that thc moral agent krwtos that a ilzcision mtst be made and uhat clloices are aoailabl.e,these wtlwrs erplore tltz moral resporxibilitizs of indfui&tals in organizatinnal sihtotions in uhbh they lack thls krcutbdge. such supposedly independent professionals as physicians and lawyers practice in large organizations to an ever-increasingextent. The HMO has replaced the family physician,and the new graduates of today’slaw schoolsjoin firms, of which the largest now employ over a thousand lawyers, rather than h*gng out a shingle. The problems of professional and businessethics have thus become the problems of supervisorsand subordinatesin organizational settings. Indeed, in a culture such as ours, where our first question to each other is often not “How do you do?” but “What do you do?” the ethics of the workplace has enormous impact on how we think of morality in general. To a great extent, ethics in the organizational setting has come to define ethics as a whole. We speakof team players and loose cannons, leaders and followers, as categories of moral judgmeni and not simply of social description. The Organization Man and the Other-DirectedSociety The transformatior: of the workplace appears to have wrought a transformation in values, replacing individual responsibility and internal norms with group identiffcation and external norms. As the postwar American economy assumedits contemBACKGROUND OFTHEPROBLEM porary form, several leading social scientists and The bureaucratic fragmentation of knowledge and commentators explored the psychologyof “The Ordilution of responsibfuty are pervasive phenimena ganization Man,” in the famous title of William H. in modern society.To set the stagefor our analysis, Whyte’s book. Whyte used this term to describe we first describe the scope of the problem and “the ones of our middle classwho have left home, briefly review some of the research, commentary spiritually as well as physically, to take the vows of and debate it has provoked. We conclude this back- organization li[e.”r He ascribed to them the “social ground section by discussingthe researchmost rele- EtlLic,” which includes “a belief in the group as the vant to our own concerns, the Milgram studies of source of creativity” as well as “a belief in ‘belongdestructive obedience to authoritv. ingness’asthe uliimate need of the individual,;2 David Riesman described middle-classAmericans as a “Loneiy Crowd,” and elaborated a famous TheCollectivization of the Workplace typolog” of characters.In Riesman’sscheme,peoMost work in modern society is done by organizaple of premodern societieswere tradition-direaed, Uons:colporations, governments,hospitals,founand the sanction for deviation was sharne;in early dations,universities, accounting ffrms, armies. Even modern societies people were inner-directed, guided by an internal moral compass, acquired Excerpted by permission from David Lubar, Alan Strudler, and in childhood, which induces guilt when one deviDavid Wasserman, “Moral Responsibility ir the Age of Bureaucracy,”Mi.chigan Law Retiats g0 (August 1992). @ 1992 Michiates. In contemporary society, however, we have gan Law Review Association. become other-directed: our “contemDoraries are 46 andBusiness PartOner MoralPhilosophy the source of direction for the individual. . . . [T]he process of paying close attention to the signals from others . . . remainfs] unaltered throughout life.”3 For other-directed indlviduals, the sanction for deviance has changed: “As against guilt-andshame controls, though of course these survive, one prime psychologicallever of the other-directed person is a diffuse anxiety.”a Sociologist Robert Jackall conducted interviews with 143 managersin sev-eralcontemporary American corporations.In the anxiety-ridden world of middle management, “fm]anagers have a myriad of aphorisms that refer to how tJrepower of CEOs, magnified through the zealous efforts of subordinates,affects them. . . . ‘When he sneezes,we all catch [One such maxim is] colds’. . . .”5Jackallcomments: As a result, independent morally evaluative judgments get subordinated to the social intricacies of the bureaucratic wor\rlace. Notions of morality that one might hold and indeed practice outside the workplace . . . become irrelevant. . . . Under certain conditions, such notions may even become dangerous. For the most part, then, they remain unarticulated lest one risk damaging crucial relationships with signiffcant individuals or groups.6 HistoricalPerspective The collectivization of the workplace and t}e threat it poses to traditional moral values are hardly new phenomena; they have been recognized, and lamented, for the past 150 years.The erosion of in&vidual responsibility and the evils of bureaucracy have engagedconservativewriters since tle advent of the industrial revolution. Over a century ago, Karl Marx likewise criticized what he called “the real mindlessnessof the state.” “The bureaucracy is a circle from which no one can escape,” Marx contended. “The highest point entrusts the understanding of particulars to the lower echelons, whereas these, on the other hand, credit the highest with an understan&ng in regard to the universal; and thus they deceiveone another.”TIn 1932, Reinhold Niebuhr wrote his classic treattse Moral Man and lm:nwral Society, in which he argued that [i]ndividual men may be moral. . . . They are endowed by nature with a measure of sympathy and consideration for their kind, the breadth of which may be extended by an astute social pedagory. . . . But all tlese achievements are more difffcult, if not impossible, for human societies and social groups. In every human group there is less reason to guide and to check impulse, less capacity for self-transcendence,less abi-lityto comprehend the needs ofottrers and therefore more unrestrained egoism than the individuals, who compose the group, reveal in their personal relationships.s Niebuhr’s argument recognizes that the increasing organization of society will be accompaniedby a dilution of morality. . . . lTlhe problems Marx and Niebuhr &scussed in a theoretical vein came to life in the most horrible way possibleduring World War II, where ostensibly civilized human beings tortured and slaughtered twelve million men, women, and children in extermination camps. The names of the camPsAuschwitz, Treblinka, Majdanek-have become slmonymouswith the incomprehensible willingness of ordinary human beings to do anlthing, no matter how atrocious,when ordered to do so by those in authority. Here, again, an explanation may be offered in terms of the division of responsibility within groups. Consider a historian’s description of the euthanasiaprogram Hitler ordered to eliminate mentally retarded, handicapped, or genetically ill Germans (individuals Hider called “uselesseaters”): The euthanasia program . . . demonstrated how, through fragmentation of authority and tasks, it was possible to fashion a murder machine. Hitler had enunciated an offhand, extra-iegal decree, and had not wanted to be bothered about it again. Brandt had ordered the “scientific” implementation of the program and, like Hider, wished to hear no complaints. The directors and penonnel of krstitutiorx rationalized that matters were out of their han& and that they were just fflling out questionnaires . . . , &ough in realityeach form was the equivalent ofa death warrant. . , The oersonnel at the end of the line excusedt}emselves on tf,e basis that they were under compulsion, had no power of decision, and were merely performing a function. Thousands ofpeople were involved, but each considered himself nothing but a cog in the machine and reasoned that it was the machine, not he, that was responsible.s The horrors of Nazism are without parallel, but the bureaucratic pattern of organization that fragments the knowledge required for moral decisionmahng is common to large institutions throughout contemporary society. Jackall describes the tlpical corporate strucfure in terms not unlike those Marx used to characterize “&e real mindlessnessof the state”: Power is co chief execut centralized’ its is pushe possible. … [P]ur authority to Moreover, p burden of knowledge. . . [Mid given stratel go wrong.lo Hannah Are nomenon as alongside th one (monar( rule by the f (democracy) the latest an minion: bun bureaus in v ther the few which could accord with 9Tanny as g( itself, rule b1 since tlere i: swer for whe ize responsit Such rumors exaggerated; of familiarity. peared in liul In his opinio noted: The project particular qt partment, tl plains that t quality contr partment rel ager was the on that quesl quesuons Po able by anyo: One must no’ of fragmentt and cynically utives in the 1 r TheNatureof Morality 47 Chapter f,r human societies foup there is less :, less capacity for prehend the needs ained egoism than ‘up, reveal in their hat tle increasing ompanied by a dirJiebuhr discussed the most horrible , where ostensibly and slaughtered children in exterof the campsk-have become ,nsiblewillingness rything, no matter r so by those in au)n may be offered ronsibility within escription of the rred to eliminate or genetically ill [ “uselesseaters”): ated how, through it was possible to enunciated an offsanted to be bothed the “scientific” e Hider, wished to enonnel of instituoftheir hands and ‘ires…,thoughin death warrant. . . . rcused tlemselves mpulsion, had no brming a firnction. rt each considered : and reasoned that ronsible.s t parallel,but the rn that fragments I decisionmaking oughoutcontemhe typical corpothoseMarx used ressofthe state”: Power is concentrated at the top in the person of the chief executive of{icer (CEO) and is simultaneously decentralized; that is, responsibility for decisions and profits is pushed as far down the organizational line as oossible. . . . [P]ushing details down protects the privilege of authority to declare that a mistake has been made. . . . Moreover, pushing down details relieves superiors of the burden of too much knowledge, particularly guilty knowledge. . . [Middle managers] become t]re “point men” of a given stratery and the potential “fall guys” when things go wrong.ro same skepticism that greeted German offfcials who “didn’t know.” Despite this healthy skepticism, however, we remain convinced that fraqmented knowledge is a genuine phenomenon thaiwe cannot simply &smiss as a lame excuse. The Psychology of DestructiveObedience Social scientists have labored to understand the Holocaust and to answer the all-important question whether it could occur in other settings. Stanley Milgram conducted perhaps the most silnificantHannah Arendt described the bureaucratic pheand certainly t}re most famous—experimental studnomenon as a novel form ofgovernance appearing ies to address this issue. Milgram’s erperiments alongsidethe classical distinction among rule by underscore our thesis because they illustrate the one (monarchy), rule by “the best” (aristocracy), ways in which social and institutional pressures to rule by the few (oligarchy), and rule by the many obey reinforce, and are reinforced by, tie fragmen(democracy).She wrote of tation of knowledge in modern bureaucraciesand the latest and perhaps most formidable form of. . . dootler large organizations. minion: bureaucracy or the rule of an intricate qystem of In Milgram’s experiments, volunteers in a Yale bureaus ia which no men, neither one nor ttre best, neiUniversity experiment were ordered by the experither the few nor ttre many, can be held responsible, and menter to administer gradually increasing electric which could be properly called rule by Nobody. (If, in accord with traditional political thought, we identifr shocks to another “subject” (actually a confederate q.Tanny as government that is not held to give account of of the experimenter), ostensibly to study the effect itself, nrle by Nobody is clearly the most lrannical of all, of punishment on learning. As the “shocks” insince there is no one left who could even be asked to arcreased in intensity, the confederate displayed inswer for what is being done. It is . . . impossible to localcreasing discomfort, demanded that the experiment ize responsibility and to idenUfr the enemy. . . .)rr stop, screamed with pain, complained of a heart Such rumors of the demise of responsibility may be condition, and ffnally fell silent as if he were unconexaggerated;yet Arendt’s description has the ring scious.rs In this original experiment, sixty-five perof familiarity. A graphic contemporary analogue ap- cent of the subjects went all the way, administering peared in litigation surrounding the Dalkon Shield. the highest possible, potentially lethal, level of In his opinion, Federal Judge Frank Theis angrily shock. Those subjects who administered the maxinoted: mum shock erpressed geat &scomfort at the cruel The project manager for Dalkon Shield explains that a task they were assigned;many of them berated the particular question should have gone to the medical deexperimenter, protested, or insisted that they would partment, the medical department representative exnot proceed with the experiment-all the while plains that the question was really the bailiwick of the continuing to flip the switches. quality control department, and the quality control deMilgram conducted a number of important partment representative explains that the project manager was the one with the authority to make a decision variations on the original experiment, several of on that question. . . . [Ih is not at all unusua] for the hard which suggest the role that incomplete and fragquestions posed in Dalkon Shield casesto be unanswermented knowledge may play in facilitating destrucable by anyone from Robins [the manufacturer].rg tive obedience and the abdication of individual One must not be naive, of course: often t}le defense responsibility. In one version, the experiment was of fragmented knowledge will be entered falsely removed from the arxiety-relieving auspicesof Yale and cynically, as a form of liability screening. Exec- to a seedy-looking storefront operation in nearby utives in the hot seat should be treated with the Bridgeport. Less able to reassurethemselvesthat ry 48 PartOner MoralPhilosophy andBusiness the experimenters knew what they were doing, fifty-three percent ofthe subjects refused to go all the way. This suggeststhat compliant subordinates often believe that their qualms are merely the result of incomplete understan&ng, and assumethat tlose in charge have good reasonsfor what they are doing. The rate of compliance also declined when the subject could seethe victim, and declined even further when the subject was actually required to hold the victim’s hand on the contact-plate. In tlis latter version of the experiment, seventy percent of the subjects stopped before administering the maximum level of shock.. . . Another form of ignorance that appears to have played a significant role in Milgram’s experiments was t-heabsenceof a clear-cut moment of decision. Few subjects would have hesitated to give a mild, tingling shock; most probably would have refused to give an initial shock of maximum voltage. The gradual escalation of voltage was insidious because it deprived subjects ofan obvious stopping point, encouraging them to defer resistanceuntil tley saw themselves as committed, or as compromised. This hnd of slippery slope may characterize many of the decisions made in contemporary organizations. Another variant of the Milgram experiments, however, provides some encouragement that resistance and reform may be possible ia organizational settings. In this study, the subject was assignedto a team administering the shocks, while the other team members were really confederates of the experimenter. Milgram discovered that compiiance was extraordinarily sensitive to peer pressure. When the otler team members refused to proceed with the experiment, only ten percent of the subjects remained obedient to the erperimenter and “went all the way.” Conversely, when a teammate rather than the subject took charge ofphysically administering the shock, 92.5Voof the subjects went along with the experiment up to the maximum shock. In Niebuhr’s terms, we may think of moral man made less moral by an immoral society, but m.oremoral by a society of his betters. . . . The Milgram studies, then, suggestthe role of imperfect and fragmented knowledge in organizational misconduct. The less individuals appreciate the consequencesof tle …
Purchase answer to see full attachment
Student has agreed that all tutoring, explanations, and answers provided by the tutor will be used to help in the learning process and in accordance with Studypool’s honor code & terms of service.
Do you need a similar assignment done for you from scratch? We have qualified writers to help you
Use our paper writing service to score better and meet your deadlines.
Order Now