Part 1
1. Is being a Chippendale's dancer honorable work?
< How could the perennial ethical duties to the self-develop our abilities and talents and do ourselves no harm-be mustered to support the idea that these men should be proud of what they do?
< Ethically, how does this job compare with working for the Metropolitan Opera in New York, an outfit that calls itself "a vibrant home for the world's most creative and talented artists working in opera"?
2. Is hiring and training a Chippendale's dancer honorable? Imagine you were one of the original choreographers cruising California beaches in search of beefcake and dance talent. You bring the guys in, choreograph their routine, and send them up on stage.
< Thinking just of the perennial duties to the self, is hiring and training them honorable? Under what conditions?
< Thinking just of the perennial duties to others-avoiding wrongful actions toward others, honesty, respect, beneficence (promoting the welfare of others), gratitude, fidelity (keeping promises, honor agreements), and reparation (compensating others when we harm them)-is hiring and training them honorable? Why or why not?
3. With respect to the ethics of duties, is Chippendales a respectable company in terms of how it treats its clients? How does this company compare with the Metropolitan Opera's treatment of its clients (note that the Met occasionally replaces the word clients with the more flattering patrons)?
4. Leaving aside the legal issues and using only the perennial duties, what ethical case could be made in favor of Banerjee getting a hit man to eliminate the people who were copying his show?
< Should he have hired someone or done the job himself? Explain.
< What's the difference between hiring a hit man and hiring a beefcake dancer?
< How would Kant respond to these questions?
5. The Club Adonis group worked for Chippendales before splitting to do the same thing elsewhere. Use Kant's categorical imperative to show that their action was wrong.
6. According to the perennial duties, did Banerjee do the right thing hanging himself in the end?
7. According to Kant, did Banerjee do the right thing hanging himself?
8. When Banerjee hung himself, he lost his life, but he did manage to preserves his life's property and wealth for his wife. Can a libertarian ethics be used to show that Banerjee did the right thing?
Part 2
1. What does BriGuy23 suspect might be unethical about submitting two offers to buy two different apartments at the same time? Can you wrap this suspicion in the language of the duties?
2. Is middle-aged mom appealing to the concept of fairness to justify making multiple offers at the same time? If she is, then how? If she isn't, what is her reasoning?
3. If Kant decided to make a contribution to this discussion board, what do you think he would write?
4. Middle-aged mom writes, "Make certain that your contract gives you an out in the unlikely event both are accepted." She means that when you make an offer to buy, you actually offer a signed contract to buy the apartment, but there's a catch, an escape clause that lets you pull out if you choose. Is that ethical, offering a signed contract offering to buy a property that includes an "out"?
5. You need a date for Saturday night.
< Would you have any problem with inviting two different people at the same time (by, say, leaving a message on both their phones)? Why or why not?
< Would you leave yourself an out in case both answers were yes? If not, why not? If so, what would it be and how could it be justified ethically?
Part 3
1. Workers at Charney's America Apparel are the highest-paid mass-production sewers in the world.
< In terms of Charney's duties to the self, what ethical case can be made in favor of this high pay?
< In terms of Charney's duties to others, what ethical case can be made in favor of this high pay?
< Are these wages fair? Why or why not?
2. In terms of duties-either the perennial duties or Kant's categorical imperative-which is more recommendable: keeping the AA plant where and how it is, or moving it to Mexico and cutting the workers' wages in half? Why is the decision you've made the better of the two?
A few factors to consider:
< In Mexico, the workers' real pay in terms of local buying power would be much higher, even though the actual amount is less than what they receive here.
< Many of the workers are illegal immigrants from Mexico; their legal situation would obviously be remedied and proximity to family would increase.
< The national Mexican economy would benefit more from AA's presence than does the US economy.
3. Kant's categorical imperative requires that others be treated as ends and never as means.
< In what way could the argument be made that the employees at AA are being treated as means, and therefore Charney's plant is unethical no matter how high his salaries may be?
< Besides high pay, the company provides workers with considerable freedom to set their own work pace and schedule. The company also provides a stock purchase program. Do either or both of these factors alleviate the charge that the workers are treated as means and not ends? Why or why not?
4. Eighteen hundred of AA's five thousand workers were using false papers and Social Security numbers to get their job. Charney knew all about that but chose to overlook it.
< Leaving the law aside, how can that overlooking be justified ethically?
< Leaving the law aside, how can Kant be used to cast that action as ethically wrong in terms of lying? In terms of stealing? In terms of using people as means instead of ends?
< Charney and AA support illegal immigrants in two ways: by giving them jobs and by organizing popular protests in favor of their legalization. Ethically, are these two activities recommendable or not? Or is one recommendable and the other not?
5. Assuming it's wrong for illegal immigrants to be working in America, who deserves the sterner ethical reprobation, Charney or the illegal workers? Explain in ethical terms.
6. The basic and natural rights of mainstream rights theory include the following:
< Life
< Freedom
< Free speech
< Religious expression
< The pursuit of happiness
< Possessions and the fruits of our work
< How can these rights be mustered to support Charney's hiring and keeping workers he knows are in the country illegally?
< How can these rights be mustered to ethically denounce Charney for hiring and keeping workers he knows are in the country illegally?
< Thinking about those workers, do these rights give them an ethical license to use false Social Security numbers and identifying documents? Why or why not?
7. Eddy Lepp ended up in jail for his medicinal mar?uana garden, yet Charney sleeps in a million-dollar beach house. Is this fair?
Part 4
1. The unanswered question here is whether the CD being copied is copyright protected, in other words, whether this is a piracy case. Assume it is. If retardedchicken had to fill out an ethical argument against CD piracy that relied on either the perennial duties or Kant, what could he say?
2. While overstand may be pirating, no one doubts that the original disc is legitimately his. Maybe he bought it or maybe someone gave it to him; either way, what's the libertarian argument against retardedchicken? How could a libertarian justify overstand's copying?
3. Would a libertarian believe that the company producing the disc has a right to lace it with code that makes duplication impossible? Explain.
4. It sounds like Clone CD is specifically made to help pirates get around the copyright protections manufacturers put on their discs.
< What's the Kantian case for condemning Clone CD for their project?
< What's the libertarian case for congratulating them? Which of the two cases is stronger? Why?
5. Retardedchicken implies that overstand is a thief and -=iNsAnE=- calls retardedchicken's post "worthless crap." Flipside calls -=iNsAnE=- a "mongloid."
< Is there an ethical case that can be made against the tone of this discussion?
< Does online interaction foster this tone? If so, can an ethical case be made against the existence of Internet discussion boards?
Part 5
1. With an eye on the concept of fairness, form an argument in favor of the drastically higher taxes imposed on gun shops.
2. Kant's categorical imperative prohibits killing. Can it be transformed into an argument against a gun shop in Oakland?
3. Would an ethics of duties or an ethics of rights work better for Siegle as she defends her business? Why? What might her argument look like?
4. Unemployment benefits are the result of unemployment insurance, which is not optional. Workers are forced to pay a bit out of each paycheck to the federal government, and if they lose their job, they get a biweekly check partially covering lost wages.
< Would a libertarian approve of the unemployment insurance program?
< Would it be right for a libertarian gun shop owner-someone defending her business on libertarian grounds-to accept unemployment benefits after her shop is forced out of business by extreme taxes? Explain.