1. HB Fuller/Kativo Industries finds itself in quite a bind regarding the sale of Resistol in Honduras. Fuller/Kativos product is causing harm to the children the media have called Los Resistoleros. The moral theorists we have studied this semester, from Aristotle through Donaldson, would all have something to say regarding this situation. Some would agree with each other, though many would be diametrically opposed in their views. Those who do agree would probably offer very different justifications from their fellows.
Question: Is it morally permissible for HB Fuller to continue to sell Resistol with its current composition or should Fuller remove the product until an acceptable composition is formulated? What sort of moral reasoning directed you to your conclusion and why is this reasoning most relevant? (Put differently, this second question asks: Why should a reasonable person agree with you?)2. Not too long ago, Milton Friedman argued that the only moral responsibility of managers in a capitalist system is to increase the owners investment through profit maximization, with precious few (if any) moral limitations. Many have claimed that a justified sea change occurred when Ed Freeman started arguing to rebuild, revitalize, and re-conceptualize stockholder managerial capitalism to transform it to stakeholder managerial capitalism.
Question: How revolutionary is Freemans theory when applied to managerial decisions? When we move from Milton Friedmans Stockholder theory to Ed Freemans Stakeholder theory does this shift in theories end up telling managers to take different actions, or do they simply disagree about the justifications for roughly the same actions? Feel free to use real life to answer this question.3. Doormen, Maitre Ds, bellmen, taxi drivers, cops, jurors, building inspectors people in all of these positions receive payments which ordinary language refers to as one of the following: tips, grease payments, gratuities, service charges, and even bribes. Of course, these are not a list of synonyms and a good analysis should be able to distinguish the terms on the list. What is the wrongful and distinguishing element in a bribe? Is Natasha guilty of offering a bribe in the When is a tip? case?4.Ellen Moore will cost more to employ in Saudi Arabia than an equally qualified man, though no such male candidate exists at the time of the case. Ellen will not only cost more to employ, but the General Manager believes she has a lowered chance of success because she is a woman. Felice N. Schwartz presents arguments to convince businesses regarding the rationality of hiring women even though women cost more to employ. What is Schwartzs argument against sexism in hiring and promotions, and is this a good argument? Why should a business be blind with regard to sex?5.Boss Bill has asked his Employee Marge to dinner on more than three occasions. On each occasion, Bill compliments Marge on her appearance and how her choice of clothing accentuates here figure. Marge has never explicitly nor implicitly indicated any sexual interest in Bill, nor has Marge ever openly or willingly discussed any personal matters with Bill. Marge always says No, thank you to Bills dinner invitations, and she either ignores his compliments or changes the subject to more work-place appropriate topics.
Question: Are Bills actions morally impermissible? Why?6.Bernard and Charles are both applying for an entry level accounting position at HAL, an accounting firm. HAL requires applicants to have at least a 3.0 GPA. Bernard has a 3.3 GPA and is African-American. Charles has a 3.5 GPA and is white. Bernard and Charles are identical in all other relevant ways, such as quality of undergraduate educational institution, etc. What argument best justifies hiring Bernard instead of Charles? Consider and answer an objection Charles may raise for being passed over in hiring.7.Thomas is the single proprietor of a large management consultancy PPCP&S. Anders is the highest performing sales person at PPCP&S for the last 5 years. It comes to Thomass attention that Anders is a fan of the NY Mets baseball team, so much so that Anders has a tattoo of the NY Mets logo on his shoulder though this is not visible in Anders daily work attire. Thomas fires Anders with merely a pink slip and no explanation. The unvoiced motivation for firing Anders is that Thomas hates the NY Mets as much or more than Anders loves the NY Mets. What argument best justifies Thomass right to fire Anders? Consider and answer an objection to this argument.8. Carr argues that bluffing in business is a morally permissible part of the business game because bluffing in business is exactly analogous to bluffing in poker.
Question: Do you agree with Carr regarding the analogy between business and poker? What is wrong with lying (morally impermissible instances of stated deception) that would not be wrong with bluffing (merely speaking falsely)?

Business Ethics
Assignment #3 question:
Analyze “Case Study: Confronting Harassment” by John Hasnas in terms of thefollowing questions. A good answer will attend to the relevant details of the case.
To what extent is the behaviour and viewp01oint of Dominique Francon justifiable? To what extent is the behaviour and viewp01oint of Ellsworth Toohey defensible?
What alternatives are now open to Howard Roark? What considerations are relevant to his decision? What should he do?
Suppose that Dominique does file suit against Toohey and the magazine, and you are her attorney? Based on the facts about U.S. sexual harassment law in the article by Bravo and Cassedy, how would you argue her case? Suppose you are the defence attorney for Toohey and the magazine? How would you argue their case? Which side is strongest? (Unit 10)

The only resources you must go through are:
1:Bravo, Ellen, and Ellen Cassedy (1995), “Sexual Harassment in the Workplace,” from Business Ethics: Readings and Cases in Corporate Morality, 3rd ed., ed. W. Michael Hoffman and Robert Frederick. New York: McGraw-Hill, p.326-340.
2:Hasnas, John (1996), “Case: Confronting Harassment,” from Ethical Issues in Business: A Philosophical Approach, 5th ed., ed. Thomas Donaldson and Patricia Werhane. New York: Prentice-Hall, p.402-407.

Business Ethics
Assignment #3 question:
Analyze “Case Study: Confronting Harassment” by John Hasnas in terms of thefollowing questions. A good answer will attend to the relevant details of the case.
To what extent is the behaviour and viewpoint of Dominique Francon justifiable? To what extent is the behaviour and viewpoint of Ellsworth Toohey defensible?
What alternatives are now open to Howard Roark? What considerations are relevant to his decision? What should he do?
Suppose that Dominique does file suit against Toohey and the magazine, and you are her attorney? Based on the facts about U.S. sexual harassment law in the article by Bravo and Cassedy, how would you argue her case? Suppose you are the defence attorney for Toohey and the magazine? How would you argue their case? Which side is strongest? (Unit 10)

The only resources you must go through are:
1:Bravo, Ellen, and Ellen Cassedy (1995), “Sexual Harassment in the Workplace,” from Business Ethics: Readings and Cases in Corporate Morality, 3rd ed., ed. W. Michael Hoffman and Robert Frederick. New York: McGraw-Hill, p.326-340.
2:Hasnas, John (1996), “Case: Confronting Harassment,” from Ethical Issues in Business: A Philosophical Approach, 5th ed., ed. Thomas Donaldson and Patricia Werhane. New York: Prentice-Hall, p.402-407.