Part -1:
1. What are the ethical issues in this case?
2. Who are the stakeholders and how are they impacted by this situation?
3. Do you agree with Feinberg's assertion that "you have to draw the line somewhere"?
4. Do you agree with Feinberg's decision rule? His expectation that there be a signature physical injury is consistent with tort law. Does that affect your answer?
5. Feinberg does not have jurisdiction over claims by states and municipalities. Do you believe his assessment of the place of mental health damages should apply to their claims as well?
6. If you were responsible for determining the valid-ity of claims, what would you do? How would you explain your reasoning? What ethical concepts or principles would guide your thinking?
Part -2:
1. What are the ethical issues in this case?
2. What keeps other companies from having the commitment to environmental sustainability that NBB has evidenced?
3. Are you more likely to purchase a product from a company with a strong commitment to sustainability?
4. The environmental sustainability benefits of cans over bottles are well established. Should NBB make a greater commitment to cans even if it means forgoing the distinctive aspects of its bottles and the potential loss of craft beer status in cus¬tomers' perceptions?
5. Are New Belgium Brewing's Core Values and Beliefs sustainable? Or will the company be forced by competition to revert to many of the traditional practices of other brewers?