Welcome to Bus 630, Ethics and Social Responsibility! There are 12 of you in this class.

Most of you attended the pre-online course meeting with me on January 16. I'm delighted that you will take part in this online course. I hope that you will truly enjoy an excellent learning experience, and that you will experience intellectual challenge. I especially hope that the assignments you do and the feedback I give you will develop your ability to make defensible ethical decisions. It is one thing to make a decision. It is quite another to make an ethical decision that you can defend with good logic and common sense. That's why it's called a "defensible ethical decision." I want you to learn how to do this in this class. The quality time and thinking that you invest in this will most certainly help you know better how to do this. How you justify the ethical decisions or judgments you make is the key learning I want you to internalize and utilized.
T T

That means doing the necessary reading, reflection, and working on the assignments given.
T T

One test of the ethical (or moral) point of view is, would you feel comfortable if colleagues, people in your industry or line of work, colleagues, friends, and family knew about your decision? Another test is how comfortable would you feel if your decision were reported on TV and/or in the newspapers?
T T T

Whether you are in a profit or not-for-profit business or organization, I want you to know how to analyze situations that call for critical thinking especially in the application of ethics. The course title itself, "Ethics and Social Responsibility," infers that in terms of management in business or any organization, we need to act not only in the interests of the business or organization to which we belong, but also in the interests of both internal and external clients. That is, to act with a sense of social responsibility. Yes, a business that demonstrates solid ethics, can prosper. One that doesn't can sink like the Titanic. We're seeing more and more of that these days, aren't we! Ethics is the search to find the most responsible way to act in any situation. Sometimes it takes time to determine what the best way is, especially when multiple factors must be considered; or when new information is obtained. Ethics is the light to guide us on the right path. It provides us with good questions and considerations as we try to apply ethical standards and values to help us discern the best course of action. Social responsibility includes acting in the best interests of society. From a business/organizational perspective, this means contributing directly to the general welfare of a community (particularly in the area of the business itself); exercising due care with respect to employees, no matter where they work (at home or abroad), by creating a safe environment--physically and emotionally--in which to work, providing just wages and creating an atmosphere which does not cause duress by overwork or other undue hardships; serving the best interest of clients; respecting the quality of the environment in which the business resides; showing leadership in

promoting the general welfare of the local community and whatever other communities served. Please let me know that you received this e-mail and the three attachments. They include: 1. The syllabus, which you should read first; 2. The explanation of how to do the assignments, which you should read second (and immediately before beginning Assignment 1). 3. Assignment 1, which you need to read and get busy on now. It is due 29 January 2007. Any questions or concerns you have please contact me at DrD1@cox.net, or call me 402-770-1149. I mentioned to those of you present at our meeting that I live in Henderson, Nevada (part of greater Las Vegas). Ive taught on the Lincoln campus for almost 20 years, having just moved to Nevada last summer in 2006. I still teach seminars at Lincoln every term, and I have several online classes each term. We are in the Pacific time zone, two hours behind Lincoln. Keep that in mind if you call. Its best to call me before 10 PM Lincoln time, if you need to do that.
HTU UTH U U

Thank you and best wishes for a truly HAPPY AND SUCCESSFUL 2007! Im confident you will do well in this course. As I mentioned when we met, if you want to form a team of two or more people, please let me know. Don Dickerson Grad Ethics BUS 603 Online Course January--March 2007

You are taking BUS 603 Ethics and Social Responsibility on line with me this term. Attached is your first assignment. For this course, there are a total of four assignments. Once you open Assignment #1, immediately save this document as follows:

YourlastnameBUS603_1.doc
(or 2.doc, 3.doc, 4.doc, depending on what number assignment it is. There are 4 assignments) and send it back to me as a WORD document e-mail attachment. I will respond to your message with "Got it. Here's #2." If you don't hear from me within 48 hours, send me another e-mail message asking if I received your first one. Sometimes email gets lost (who knows wherein cyberspace) and does not arrive at its destination. Or I could be away for a day or two. If all that fails, call me at 402-770-1149.
U U

Once you have saved the document, open it. Simply read the instructions and do what they say. You will do all of your writing on the documents I send you. Do not send them in a separate format. Do not change, add, or delete anything on any assignment.
U U

Even when we are using a case from the text, I have reproduced the questions following the case onto the assignment document in order to avoid confusion. Simply insert your cursor after a question, space down, and began to type. You will type your answers directly on this document in some color other than black. Please use a color OTHER THAN RED. I will use red for my feedback. Please be sure it is dark enough to read easily, such as this blue. Use Times New Roman 12 pt., which is what this document is. Please bold the color as I have done in the word bold. Do not use page breaks and do not change anything on the assignment document, including directions.
U U U U

When you are asked to take a position on an issue, I want you to take the time to think critically about each issue - from all sides - and make the argument both for and against. However, after you have done that, I want you to decide your position and defend it. Be sure to discuss issues from the perspective of all of the stakeholders. Consider carefully what the question asks. Sometimes there are several parts. Just giving a YES or NO answer, without an explanation is not adequate. Nor is one that asks whether you might do something one way or another and all you do is pick one. Whatever choice you make, I expect you to give a reasonsble explanation of your choice. That is, justify your answer by explaining it. In a number of cases, two or three sentences is NOT an adequate response.
U U U U

Continue in this manner until you have done all that is requested for this assignment. When you have completed all of the work for the assignment, double check to make sure you have saved the document as directed at top of the page.
U

After I receive your assignments, I will review them with comments on the documents and return them to you. The due dates for the assignments are as follows: Assignment #1 due Monday, 29 January 2007 Assignment #2 due Monday, 12 February 2007 Assignment #3 due Monday, 26 February 2007 Assignment #4 due Monday, 12 March 2007
P

= 25 points = 25 points = 25 points = 25 points

P

When can you expect your grade for an assignment you submit? The procedure I follow is to make Monday the assignment due date for the all graduate students. I assign other days for other students completing a variety of courses I may have online. Thus students send in various assignments from other courses on different dates. I make every effort to grade assignments within 8-10 days. Each time you send an assignment, I will acknowledge it and send you the next one. I will not send you the next assignment until I get the one that is due. Its fine to send an assignment before the due date. However, my priority will focus on completing the assignments of the most recent due date. I will give your assignment first priority if yours is sent first. I code each assignment with the date and time sent. When you think about it, if you were completing this course as an in-class course, and you turned in an assignment at one class meeting, the earliest you could expect the return of that assignment graded would be the next class meeting, one week later. Sometimes I have more assignments than I can get graded within a week, because I have several classes I am working with. Unless something drastic and unforeseen happens, the longest you should ever have to wait to know your grade is two weeks. Meantime, you will already be working on the next assignment, as I work on the most recent one you sent. Do not send Assignment #2 until you get back my assessment of Assignment 1. That way you will know if you are on in concert (on track) with my expectations. Once you know that, you should be okay. Of course, you can and certainly should be working on Assignment 2 as soon as you get it. That way, if you need to make adjustments to #2, you can adjust or tweak it accordingly.
U U U U

SOME VERY IMPORTANT POINTS. I expect you to answer all parts of a question. Sometimes you have to discuss 3 or more aspects of a case or scenario in a particular question. So pay close attention to what each question asks. A big help is to read through all the questions before you read your text book or view any web site or link I assign, or something from the CD that came with your textbook (located in the back of it). That way you will have a good idea as to what you need to pay closer attention to when you read.
U U U U U

Any questions or problems you may have, I will happily respond to them. So please do not hesitate to contact me. See phone and e-mail address below. I am confident that you will make an excellent effort as you move through this course, and that you will benefit significantly in both your professional and personal life. Additionally, I think you will enjoy the experience. Best wishes!

Don Dickerson DrD1@cox.net (402) 770-1149

HTU UTH

DrD1@cox.net
HTU UTH

Once again, below is how to name each assignment before you begin working on it. The number on it will change each time you send an assignment. You have four (4) assignments. So each one will have a new number. Name the documents this way:

YourlastnameBUS603_1.doc YourlastnameBUS603_2.doc YourlastnameBUS603_3.doc YourlastnameBUS603_4.doc If it were my 3rd assignment , it would look like this:
P P

DickersonBUS603_3.doc Reminder. Wait for me to get back to you with your first assessment (#1 assignment) before you complete and send me assignment #2! I need to let you know if you are on track.
U U

As noted above, once you send me an assignment, I immediately send you the next one. You may begin working on #2 right away, but do wait until I get #1 back to you.
U U

Hold off sending #2 until then. You need to do this only for Assignment #1. Thereafter, just send in the next assignment by or before the due date.

BUS 603 Ethics and Social Responsibility Instructor: Dr. Don Dickerson (402) 770-1149
DrD1@cox.net
HTU UTH

TEXT: Business Ethics, Concepts and Cases, 6th ed., Manuel G. Velasquez, Prentice Hall, 2006.
U U P P

ASSIGNMENT #1 (Due date Monday, 29 January 2007)

Once you open Assignment #1, which is now, immediately save this document as follows:

YourlastnameBUS603_1.doc Read again the document Bus 603 explained.

When you finish re-reading Bus 603 explained, you are ready to read and follow the directions below for Assignment 1.
U U

Type your answers directly on this document in some color other than black, but not RED, because I will use RED for my feedback. Blue is okay. Just pick a dark color. Please bold what you write. Do not change, add, or delete anything on this or any assignment.
U U

This is the first question. First go to the link below. Do what it says, and then answer the questions in this next paragraph. The first thing I want you to do is to get a feel for your ethical orientation. Go to http://www.ethicsandbusiness.org/stylequiz.htm There you will find the Ethical Orientation Questionnaire. Complete the questionnaire, identify your orientation, and go on to read what that orientation means. Write a couple of paragraphs below telling me the orientation the instrument has identified as yours. Do you agree? Can you think of decisions you have made that seem inevitable based on your ethical orientation? Be sure you respond to these questions before moving to your Values Profile below.
U U HTU UTH

__________________________________________________________
Values Profile
Adapted from: The Art of Leadership, 2nd ed., George Manning and Kent Curtis. McGraw-Hill, 2006.
U U P P

The following is a values clarification exercise. The purpose is to increase self-understanding and examine current behaviors in light of personal values. Use the questions below to construct a brief profile of you. Answer with words, and short statements as directed. Type responses here. Write four words that represent your most cherished values in life. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Use a sentence or two to answer the question, Who am I? 6. State three peak experiences in your life (most exhilarating). 7. State your three best skills or aptitudes. 8. State your two best physical characteristics or attributes. 9. When most people think of you, what do they say? 10. What three things about yourself would you like to improve? 11. Use a sentence or two to describe your occupational goals. 12. Who have been the three same-sex individuals who have had the most influence on your life? 13. Who have been the three opposite-sex individuals who have had the most influence on your life? 14. What are your three biggest fears? 15. What are your three greatest accomplishments to this point in your life? 16. What are your three highest priority life goals? 17. What is the personal motto by which you try to live? ____________________________________________________________________________ Now that you have examined your most valuable resource yourself, lets see how your orientation to ethics and your value system lead you to make judgments. Begin by reading

chapter I, Ethics and Business, chapter 2, Ethical Principles in Business, and chapter 3, The Business System: Government, Markets, and International Trade.

Now it is time to tell me what you think.

1. In chapter I, Carol Gilligan offers a powerful critique of Kohlberg's views of moral development. Discuss her theory, and evaluate it in comparison to Kohlberg's theory. Which theory seems more helpful in describing how humans develop their moral judgment?
U U

2. Read the Case, Napster's, Groksters, and StreamCasts Revolution, pp. 148-149. Then, answer these questions: a. What are the legal issues involved in this case, and what are the moral issues? How are the two different kinds of issues different from each other, and how are they related to each other? Identify and distinguish the "systemic, corporate, and individual issues" involved in this case. (Note: there are three distinct questions here. You will need several paragraphs. [Now it the time to look at the document BUS603 Some Help. Theories.doc attached to this e-mail. It gives you some ideas about systemic, corporate, and individual issues. You will most certainly benefit by having read the text and by using this document as a quick review.] 1. Name the legal and moral issues 2. Show how the two different kinds of issues differ from each other, and how they are related to each other. 3. Identify and distinguish the "systemic, corporate, and individual issues" involved in the case. I expect you to discuss each of these in a paragraph, name them when you write each paragraph. All together, you should have five (5) paragraphs.
U U U U U U U U U U U U

b. In your judgement, was it morally wrong for Shawn Fanning to develop and release his technology to the world given its possible uses? c. Was it morally wrong for an individual to use Napster's website and software to copy for free the copyrighted music on another person's hard drive? d. If you believe it was not morally wrong, how would you defend your views against the claim that such copying is stealing? e. Assume that it was not illegal for an individual to copy music using Napster. Would there then be anything immoral with doing so? Explain.

f. Assume that it is morally wrong for a person to use Napster's website and software to make a copy of copyrighted music. Who, then, would be morally responsible for this person's wrongdoing? g. Would only the person himself be morally responsible?

h. Would Napster, the company who made the copying possible, be morally responsible? i. Would Shawn Fanning be morally responsible? j. Would any employee of Napster be morally responsible? k. Would the operator of the server of that portion of the Internet used for the copying be morally responsible? l.What if the person did not know that the music was copyrighted or did not think it was illegal to copy copyrighted music? m. Do the music companies share any of the moral responsibility for what has happened? n. How do you think technology like Napster is likely to change the music industry? o. .In you judgement, are these changes ethically good or ethically bad?

3. Now, read the short Case for Discussion, Publius, pp. 118-119, and answer these questions: a. Analyze the ethics of marketing Publius using utilitarianism, rights, justice, and caring. In your judgment, is it ethical to market Publius? (Take each of the four theories named and analyze the ethics of marketing Publius, using each theory separate; that is, apply each theory to the ethics of marketing Publius.) (State what your judgment is and explain why you take that position. That is, is it ethical to market Publius? Explain your position.
U U U U U U

b. Are the creators of Publius in any way morally responsible for any criminal acts that criminals are able to carry out and keep secret by relying on Publius? Explain your answer. c. Is AT&T in any way morally responsible for these criminal acts? Explain your answer. d. In your judgement, should governments allow the implementation of Publius? Why or why not?

4. Read the following Case, Phillip Morris" Troubles. Then answer the questions that follow the case:

Philip Morriss Troubles

Financially speaking, 1995 was an outstanding year for Philip Morris, a combination tobacco, food, and beer company. Total company profits before taxes increased by 15 percent over the previous year; in the tobacco segment of the company worldwide profits rose by 16 percent; profits in its food segment increased by 7 percent and the beer segments profits increased by 8 percent.1 Yet all was not well. As of the end of 1995 there were 125 lawsuits

pending against the company for recovery of damages to health alleged to have been caused by the companys tobacco products. Its beer segment was under attack by several consumer groups claiming that alcoholic beverages imposed heavy costs on society including numerous deaths attributable to drunk driving. And activists were accusing the company of laundering the dirty money it had made in the cigarette business by using it to buy up clean food businesses, in effect protecting these funds from any potential liability that might strike its tobacco business. Philip Morris, with 1995 revenues of $53 billion, profits of $5.45 billion, and 151,000 employees, is both the nations largest cigarette manufacturer and its largest food company. Philip Morris was already the largest tobacco company in the United States by the late 1960s when virtually all of its revenues were derived from tobacco sales. Then, accelerating a long-term strategy of diversifying away from the tobacco industry, (a strategy that would become common in the tobacco industry) Philip Morris used the huge cash flows streaming from its tobacco businesses to acquire Miller Brewing Company in 1970. In 1985 it bought General Foods for $5.6 billion, setting a record for the biggest non-oil merger in history. Three years later Philip Morris paid $12.9 billion for Kraft, then the largest food company in the United States. In 1990 the company acquired Suchard, a Swiss coffee and confectionery company, for $3.8 billionmaking it the worlds largest food companyand in 1993 it purchased Freia Marabou, a Scandinavian candy company, for $1.3 billion. Among the companys well known cigarette brands are Benson & Hedges, Marlboro, and Virginia Slims. Its beer brands include Miller Genuine Draft, High Life, Lowenbrau, Miller Lite, and Milwaukees Best. Food brands include Post Cereals, Kraft Jell-O, Birds Eye, Maxwell House, Velveeta, and Oscar Mayer. In 1995 the companys tobacco operations accounted for 50 percent of the companys revenues and 63 percent of its profits while food products accounted for 42 percent of revenues and 32 percent of profits. Beer brewing provided 7 percent of revenues and 4 percent of profits. The companys financial and real estate ventures accounted for the remaining 1 percent of revenues and profits.2 Philip Morriss Marlboro brand, the worlds best-selling cigarette, held 31 percent of the U.S. market in 1995 and the companys other tobacco products held an additional 16 percent of the U.S. market, for a total U.S. market share of 47 percent. The company had captured 12 percent of the market outside the United States and in some regions such as Germany, Western Europe, and Latin America, its market share was well over 20 percent. Total world sales of Marlboro cigarettes were estimated to be well over $10 billion. International sales accounted for 50 percent of the companys total revenues and 40 percent of its operating profits in 1995. The domestic beer market had been in the doldrums since going into decline in the early 1980s. In spite of a continuing overall contraction in the market from 180 million barrels in 1994, to 171 million in 1995, however, Philip Morris Miller had managed to increase its market share, doing so at the expense of Coors, Stroh, Heilman, and some smaller regional brewers. Hurt by the recession of the early 1990s, the food industry had also not been doing well. Nevertheless, by reducing its workforce, implementing cost reductions, and pushing aggressively into new international markets, Philip Morris had managed to raise its food income per employee by 43 percent between 1991 and 1995, raise food income margins to 15.3 percent in 1995, and increase 1995 food income by 7.5 percent. In 1991 Michael Miles became CEO of the company, the first nonsmoker to run the company. Under Miles the company continued to increase its share of the cigarette market in spite of a decline both in the number of cigarettes sold each year and in the number of Americans smoking. The average adult smoker in 1994 had consumed 2470 cigarettes, down 26 percent from 3370 in 1985. In 1995 U.S. consumers smoked 1.7 percent fewer cigarettes than in 1994.

Nevertheless, although U.S. consumption of cigarettes had declined since the early 1960s, Philip Morris continued to increase both its sales and its market share. By 1994 Philip Morris held 45 percent of the market, followed by R. J. Reynolds with 27 percent, Brown & Williamson with 11 percent, Lorillard with 7 percent, American with 2 percent, and Liggett with 2 percent. Competition in the contracting industry was now extremely intense. Competition, however, was not Philip Morris main headache. In 1995, the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) had intensified its attacks on the industry with the announcement that 400,000 Americans died of causes related to smoking each year, more than 1000 deaths a day. An average of five and a half minutes of life are lost for each cigarette smoked. While smoking among adult men had been declining, smoking among children was rising rapidly. So many adult women had taken up smoking that lung cancer now killed more women than breast cancer. The FDA claimed that smoking illnesses accounted for 11 percent of the aggregate costs of all illnesses in the United States. For men between 45 and 64, 25 percent of disability days were associated with cigarette smoking. Indirect economic losses from reduced productivity and lost earnings were estimated at $37 billion per year, and total economic losses at $65 billion a year. Since the 1950s the tobacco industry had been buffeted by studies linking smoking with cancer. Large scale studies published in medical research journals in the early 1950s associated repeated cigarette use with high rates of lung cancer. In 1954 the widely read magazine Readers Digest published a popular article summarizing the medical research that linked smoking and cancer intensifying the concern of the public. In spite of bitter protests from the industry, the Surgeon General of the United States in 1964 released its own report linking cigarette smoking to cancer. In 1966 Congress required health warnings to be placed on all cigarette packages, a law that it amended in 1969 to require sterner warnings and again in 1985 to require rotating health warnings indicating the relationship between cigarette smoking and lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema, fetal injury, and premature births. A new concern had surfaced in 1986 when the Surgeon General of the United States and the National Academy of Sciences reported that nonsmokers were at increased risk of lung cancer and respiratory illness when exposed to environments containing second-hand smoke. In 1994 the Food and Drug Administration turned its attention to the addictive nature of cigarettes. The Surgeon General had already issued a report in 1988 summarizing research that nicotine was addictive. The FDA now announced it was prepared to recommend that because of their addictive nature, cigarettesa nicotine delivery deviceshould be regulated like a drug under the jurisdiction of the FDA. In 1994 Congress held hearings on the question whether the nicotine in cigarettes is an addictive drug and whether the cigarette industry was manipulating the nicotine levels of cigarettes. The executives of all the tobacco companies were called to testify. At the hearings, William Campbell, head of Philip Morriss tobacco unit, in a sworn statement, denied that nicotine was addictive and said that the company does not manipulate nor independently control the level of nicotine in our cigarettes. ... [N]icotine contributes to the taste of cigarettes and the pleasures of smoking. The presence of nicotine, however, does not make cigarettes a drug or smoking an addiction.4 On April 1, 1994, Congressman Henry A. Waxman announced that a committee he headed had found evidence that Philip Morris had suppressed a 1983 study by Dr. Victor DeNoble that had produced definitive evidence of the addictive qualities of tobacco in rats, and that Philip Morris had, therefore, known since that time that tobacco was addictive. Waxman stated that the
P P

discovery goes to the basic question that was raised in our hearing: Have the American people been manipulated into thinking that smoking is a matter of choice, or in fact is it a choice denied them because of the possible intentional manipulation of nicotine levels to keep them addicted?5 Waxmans findings were corroborated when, on March 19, 1996, the FDA released sworn statements from two Philip Morris research scientists and a Philip Morris plant manager contradicting Campbells testimony.6 Jerome Rivers, the plant manager, outlined a sophisticated manufacturing process in which the levels of nicotine in tobacco were carefully monitored and during which tobacco whose nicotine levels were out of spec was pulled out and reprocessed. Ian Uydess, one of the research scientists testified that Nicotine levels were routinely targeted and adjusted by Philip Morris in its various products at least in part and that Dr. DeNobles research on nicotine analogues was known in the company where there was a growing concern among Philip Morris management about the use of the term addictive and where internal reports were increasingly scrutinized by Philip Morris management. Dr. W. Farone, former director of the companys applied research also testified to the companys sequestering of much good science. Earlier an internal Philip Morris document written about 1992 by a Philip Morris employee had surfaced stating that people smoked mainly to deliver nicotine into their bodies and comparing nicotine to cocaine, atropine and morphine in its effects on the brain.7 Jeffrey Wigand, a former manager for Brown & Williamson, one of Philip Morriss main competitors, had testified on November 29, 1995 that Brown and Williamsons CEO had also lied to Congress during the hearings when he had said I believe nicotine is not addictive.8 The U.S. government now initiated a criminal investigation of U.S. tobacco industry executives to determine whether they had lied at the hearings and fraudulently concealed from the public the addictive nature of smoking nicotine products. Several class action suits were filed against Philip Morris alleging damages to health arising from the companys failure to warn of the addictive nature of smoking. The Food and Drug Administration announced in August 1995 that it was considering sweeping new rules to regulate the advertising and sale of tobacco particularly to minors. In addition, several states and two insurance companies had filed new suits seeking reimbursement of the medical costs alleged to have resulted from caring for citizens who had used the products of the tobacco companies. Philip Morris, together with the other cigarette companies, had responded that states were already compensated for smokers health costs through heavy excise taxes, that smoking imposes few costs on government and may save states money when sick people die early, and that once tobaccos contributions to the economy are factored in tobacco makes a positive economic contribution to a states economy. A report released in late January 1996 by the Centers for Disease Control, however, calculated that the direct medical cost of smoking totals $50 billion a year, more than twice the $21 billion in state revenues from tobacco growing and manufacturing.9 On the other hand, an earlier 1993 report by the Office of Technology Assessment claimed that in 1993 smokers paid $13.3 billion in excise and sales taxes but cost governments only $8.9 billion in health-care expenses. As of December 31, 1995, over 125 cases were pending against the company seeking compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages for cancer and other health effects claimed to have resulted from cigarette smoking or exposure to cigarette smoking. While previously sued more than 300 times in court, cigarette companies had never lost a case. Among the defenses used in litigation by Philip Morris, was the argument that complying with the 1965 Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act, particularly as amended in 1969, protected the company from claims that it failed to warn smokers that cigarettes were dangerous, a defense that five federal courts of appeal had upheld.10 Philip Morris also argued
P P P P P P P P P P P P

that the studies linking smoking to lung cancer were not conclusive. In particular, the company claimed that since not all smokers got lung cancer, there was no demonstrable cause-effect relationship between smoking and lung cancer. The company also argued that smoking was not addictive and, consequently, smokers were free to quit smoking any time they wanted. Smoking, the company claimed, was a matter of personal choice and all individuals should be left free to exercise their personal right to smoke when, where, and as much as they choose. Moreover, even if cigarette smoking were dangerous, the company claimed, the warnings on cigarettes required by the federal government gave smokers a knowledge of the risks associated with smoking and so it could not be argued that they did not willingly assume those risks. While escalating health concerns were creating a declining market in the United States, citizens of other countries who were not as educated about the risks of smoking were a rising opportunity. The governments of many countries, especially in the Third World, did not spend much money on antismoking campaigns, and many were reluctant to give up the tax revenues associated with cigarettes. As U.S. markets declined, therefore, tobacco companies, particularly Philip Morris, moved into foreign markets, especially into Third World and, more recently, into East European markets. The company was one of the first American companies to sell its cigarettes in China, and had expanded vigorously into Eastern Europe after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990. While United States per capita consumption of cigarettes declined by 25 percent between 1985 and 1994, U.S. tobacco exports rose by 367 percent, from 64 billion to 235 billion cigarettes. Much of the rise in exports was the result of U.S. government pressures that had forced the dropping of import barriers in Turkey, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Thailand, and the members of the former Soviet Union, all countries where American-blend cigarettes, especially Philip Morriss Marlboro brand, were becoming highly popular. Turkey was considered a key location since it borders the former Soviet Union and is a stepping stone to Asia. Moreover, Turks are heavy smokers and Turkish cigarette consumption was expected to grow 3 to 9 percent annually. Philip Morriss beer business was also under pressure. Growing awareness of the large social costs associated with alcohol consumption and drunk driving had been spurring lawmakers into passing a variety of alcohol regulations. The Alcoholic Beverage Labeling Act of 1988 already required all alcoholic beverages to carry warnings associating the consumption of alcohol with health problems, the risk of birth defects, and a lowered ability to drive a car or operate machinery. Even the companys forays into the food industry were being assailed by critics. Critics pointed out that Philip Morris was using the revenues being generated by its tobacco units to buy food companies. The company, critics alleged was in effect laundering its tainted cigarette money by transferring it into the food industry where it would be sheltered from the litigation threatening its cigarette division. NOTES
1. Philip Morris, Annual Report, 1995. 2. Philip Morris Companies, Inc., Securities and Exchange Commission Form 10-K, 1991, p. 1. 3. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Industrial Outlook, 1994, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1994), pp. 3411 to 3421. 4. Alix M. Freedman, Philip Morris Memo Likens Nicotine to Such Drugs as Cocaine, Morphine, Wall Street Journal, 8 December 1995. 5. Philip J. Hilts, Philip Morris Blocked 83 Paper Showing Tobacco Is Addictive, Panel Finds, New York Times, 1 April 1994, p. A21. 6. Tim Friend, New Heat on Tobacco Firm, USA Today, 19 March 1996, p. A1; Tobacco Industry Under Fire, USA Today, 19 March 1996, p. B2; Dough Henry, Whistleblowers Wreak Havoc, USA Today, 19

March 1996, p. B2. 7. Ibid. 8. Alix Freedman, Cigarette Defector Says CEO Lied to Congress About View of Nicotine, Wall Street Journal, 26 January, 1996, p. A1. 9. Does Tobacco Pay Its Way? Business Week, 19 February, 1996, p. 8990. 10. Philip Morris Companies, Inc., Securities and Exchange Commission Form 10-K, 1991, p. 4.

a. Identify all of the moral issues that are raised by Phillip Morris' activities in the tobacco, beer, and food industries. b Discuss these moral issues in terms of utilitarianism, rights, justice, and care. (That is, discuss the issues you name in terms of each of the four underlined theories named.)
U U U U U U U U U U U

c. Both the tobacco and beer industries have been characterized as "sin industries." Comment on the extent to which virtue theory sheds light on the company's activities in these industries. d. What, in your judgement, would be a morally appropriate course of action for the government agencies involved in this case?

ASSIGNMENT #1 (Due date Monday, 29 January 2007) Once you have completed this Assignment #1, all you need to do is click on my e-mail address below. An email will appear with this document attached. Just be sure that you have named the document as described below. YourlastnameBUS603_1.doc Click on this:
HTU

DrD1@cox.net
UTH

Assignment #1 due Monday, 29 January 2007 Assignment #2 due Monday, 12 February 2007 Assignment #3 due Monday, 26 February 2007 Assignment #4 due Monday, 12 March 2007
P

= 25 points = 25 points = 25 points = 25 points

P P P

BUS 603 Some Help for Assignment 1 and Other Assignments Unfortunately, there really is no set of rules for ethical behavior. Often, there are some very complicated ethical issues that need all the light they can get to arrive at the best possible solution. Everything can be viewed from more than one perspective. Below are the more common ethical theories (or approaches) that can be used to arrive at a defensible ethical position. 1. Utilitarian View of Ethics Refers to a situation in which decisions are made solely on the basis of their outcomes or consequences. The goal of utilitarianism is to provide the greatest good for the greatest number. On one side, utilitarianism encourages efficiency and productivity and is consistent with the goal of profit maximization. On the other side, however, it can result in biased allocation of resources, especially when some of those affected lack representation or voice. This can negatively affect minority groups of all sorts. Utilitarian standards consider only the aggregate social welfare but ignore the individual and how that welfare is distributed. 2. Rights View of Ethics Refers to a situation in which the individual is concerned with respecting and protecting individual liberties and privileges, including the rights to privacy, freedom of conscience, free speech, and due process. The positive side of the rights perspective is that it protects individuals freedom and privacy. But it has a negative side in organizations: It can present obstacles to high productivity and efficiency by creating an overly legalistic work climate. 3. Theory of Justice View of Ethics Refers to a situation in which an individual imposes and enforces rules fairly and impartially. A manager would be using a theory of justice perspective in deciding to pay a new entrylevel employee $1.50 an hour over the minimum wage because the manager believes that the minimum wage is inadequate to allow employees to meet their basic financial commitments. Imposing standards of justice also comes with pluses and minuses. It protects the interests of those stakeholders who may be underrepresented or lack power; but it can encourage a sense of entitlement that reduces risk-taking, innovation, and productivity. 4. Care View of Ethics An ethic that emphasizes caring for the concrete well being of those near to us or groups to which we belong. We each should exercise special care for those with whom we are concretely related by attending to their particular needs, values, desires, and concrete well-being as seen from their personal perspective. We do this by responding positively to these things, particularly of those who are vulnerable and dependent on our care. But an ethic of care can degenerate into favoritism or partiality to ones own ethnic group, to a sexist old-boy network, to members of ones own race, or to members of ones own nation, all of which can all be unjust forms of partiality. It can also lead to burnout. (Velasquez, 102m 105)

Here are a series of questions about an action that one is considering which can be approached from each of these views:

1. Utilitarianism: (Sometimes called Consequentialism.) Does the action, as far as possible, maximize social benefits and minimize social injuries? 2. Rights. Is the action consistent with the moral rights of those whom it will affect? 3. Justice. Will the action lead to a just distribution of benefits and burdens? 4. Care. Does the action exhibit care for the well-being of those who are closely related to or dependent on oneself? Generally speaking, standards concerned with moral rights have greater weight than either utilitarian standards or standards of justice. Similarly, standards of justice are generally accorded greater weight than utilitarian considerations. Standards of caring seem to be given greater weight than principles of impartiality in situation that involve close relationships (such as family and friends) and privately owned resources. (Velasquez, 106-107) What morality requires is not that we get rid of all moral conflicts, but that we learn to weigh moral considerations and balance their different demands in specific situations. The fact that caring can sometimes conflict with the justice, then, does not make and ethic of caring less adequate than any other approach to ethics, but simply points out the need to weigh and balance the relative importance of caring versus justice in specific situations. (Velasquez 105) 5. Virtue Theory. Virtue theory not only provides a criterion for evaluating actions, it also provides a useful criterion for evaluating our social institutions and practices. For example, it has been argued that some economic institutions make people greedy; large bureaucratic organizations make people less responsible, and the practice of providing government handouts to people makes them lazy and dependent. All such arguments, at bottom, evaluate institutions and practices on the basis of a theory of virtue. Although such arguments may be false, they all appeal to the idea that institutions are morally defective when they tend to form morally defective characters. Institutions should instill virtues, not vices. (Velasquez, 113)
U U U U

Source: Gerald F. Cavanaugh, et. al., The Ethics of Organizational Politics, Academy of Management Journal, June 1981, pp. 363-374.

Source BUSINESS ETHICS Manuel G. Velasquez, Prentice Hall, 2006. (Ethics of Care 60, 113) (integrating utility, rights, justice and, 105-108); environmental issues and, 241242)

Systemic, Corporate, and Individual issues. (Velasquez 14-16) Systemic. The key regarding systemic issues is to look at the ethical questions raised within the social systems with which a business or businesses operate, to see what issues the business may be violating in those systems. Systemic issues in business ethics are ethical questions such as economic, political, legal, and other social systems or institutions within which businesses operate. These include questions about the morality of capitalism or of the laws, regulations, industrial structure, and social practices.
U U U U

In trying to identify systemic issues ask: How might systemic issues apply to this case? What social systems come into focus with respect to this case and the people involved? A company may have to consider government agencies, including local, state, and/or federal government. There may be foreign countries that have different standards or laws. Are any individual are groups rights violated? Is the welfare of the society or a community threatened by this issue? Corporate. Corporate issues in business ethics are questions raised about a particular organization. They include questions about the morality of the activities, policies, practices, or organizational structure of an individual company taken as a whole. Did the company violate anyones rights? Was the company thinking about societys welfarehow it would be affected? Did it violate any of the rights of the stockholders, or any other stakeholders?
U U

Individual issues. Individual issues in business ethics are ethical questions raised about a particular individual or particular individuals with a company and their behaviors or decisions. These include questions about the morality of the decisions, actions, or character of an individual.
U U

Special notes on these. If a company is trying to deal with a systemic issuesuch as a government culture that permits briberythen the issue must be dealt with on a systemic level; that is, it must be dealt with through the coordinated actions of many different social groups. On the other hand, corporate ethical issues can be solved only through the corporate or company solutions. If a company has a culture that encourages or permits moral wrong doing, for example, then changing that culture requires the cooperation of the many different people that constitute the company. Finally, individual issues need to be solved through individual decisions, perhaps, individual reform.

BUS 603 Ethics and Social Responsibility Instructor: Dr. Don Dickerson (402) 770-1149 DrD1@cox.net
HTU UTH

How can we make wiser decisions? How do we defend them when we make them? What standards or principles can guide us as we plan, as we problem solve, as we move into the future? The complexities of our modern world at home and abroad are unmatched in human history. We know so much yet so little. Evolutions and revolutions place high demands on government and the marketplace. Trying to keep afloat in highly competitive industries tests the character of individuals and companies. Advancing technology beckons us to the latest discovery or invention. Scandals in the business world and among leaders challenge our optimism. Managers get bombarded with a multitude of decisions on a daily basis. Decisions in business involve many factors. Ethics is only one. Today it occupies a central concern in all corners of the world. Business or organizational decisions are typically made from three points of view: the economic, the legal, and the moral (or ethical as some prefer to call it). But ethics always looms large in decision making. This class tackles a number of tough cases that touch on a variety of issues individuals and managers face locally, nationally, and globally. The focus is clearly on using ethical approaches to arrive at sound decisions. Applying sound critical thinking to all we do as managers and leaders demands very high ethical standards that we may demonstrate social responsibility. The purpose is not to teach you what to think, but how to think wisely from an ethical point of view. COURSE DESCRIPTION A more diverse, technologically changing society produces differing ethical standards that must be examined by managers for their application to decisions made about tasks and people within the workplace. This course examines the relationship between business (both for-profit and not-for-profit) organizations and society as a whole, and specifically, the responsibility of business to society. Students will focus on learning how to think ethically and critically in planning, decision-making, evaluating, and problem solving. (Required core course). READINGS Required Text: Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases, 6th ed., Manuel G. Velasquez. Prentice Hall, 2006.
P P

COURSE OBJECTIVES. This course encourages the application of ethics to many important issues that arise in the business and professional world. Upon completion of this course, students will: 1. demonstrate competency in analyzing and evaluating case studies/scenarios. 2. apply ethical principles and theories to arrive at socially responsible solutions and defensible ethical decisions. 3. understand the importance of utilizing ethical principles in the workplace; 4. have a clear understanding of their own view of ethics, the foundation upon which that view is based, and why it is crucial in explaining and justifying what they value.

2 COURSE REQUIREMENTS This course will be conducted on the World Wide Web. Students will complete a total of four assignments designed to meet the stated objectives of the course. To enroll for the course, you must have an e-mail address and access to the Internet. Your computer must have Microsoft Word.
U U U U

For this course, students will complete a total of four (4) assignments. Each completed assignment will be e-mailed to the instructor no later than the due date listed below. Upon receipt of a completed assignment, the next assignment will be e-mailed to the student. Students may submit assignments earlier than the due date.
U U

Assignment #1 due Monday, 29 January Assignment #2 due Monday, 12 February Assignment #3 due Monday, 26 February Assignment #4 due Monday, 12 March

2007 2007 2007 2007

P

= 25 points = 25 points = 25 points = 25 points

P P

A+ = 98-100 A = 95-97 A- = 92-94

Letter grade and numerical values B+ = 89-91 C+ = 80-82 D+ = 71-73 B = 86-88 C = 77-79 D = 68-70 B- = 83-85 C- = 74-76 D- = 65-67

F = 64 and below

ACADEMIC INTEGRITY POLICY: This policy requires that you immediately and cheerfully offer the benefit of your knowledge and skills to any fellow student who needs your help. If someone helps you, whether a fellow student, the author of a book/article, a family member, a pastor or priest, a coworker, a child, a pet, or anyone else, say that they helped you. Thats called citing a source. Always show respect for the ideas or words of others by giving them the credit. Failure to show respect will result in an F.
U

ELABORATION OF COURSE DESCRIPTION Purpose of this class: To learn standards or principles which can help us make more enlightened and sound ethical decisions. These standards can assist us in critically thinking through the right course of action to take in decision making whether it be in planning, problem-solving or anything affecting the stakeholders of an organization which benefits from the public by its service or product.
U

Ethics is the search to find the most responsible way to act in any situation. Sometimes it takes time to determine what the best way is, especially when multiple factors must be considered; or when new information is obtained. Ethics is the light to guide us on the right path. It provides us with good questions and considerations as we try to discern the best course of action.

3 Some Assumptions: Businesses cannot survive without stakeholders (including employees locally, nationally and internationally; stockholders; clients; people in the general area, and others). Since business (for profit or not for profit) benefits from stakeholders it has a responsibility to give back to the community a share of its profits, time and talents. Good ethical decision making is enriched by a broad spectrum of input. Therefore diverse opinions should be considered. The more complex the decision, the more important it is to weigh the information gathered through many points of view. Often it takes time to determine what we think is the best response to a situation, especially when multiple factors must be considered; or when new information is obtained. Even when we arrive at a decision, there is no guarantee that it will be right or considered to be right. Responsible ethical decisions require solid critical thinking. People can learn to work together even in difficult circumstances in order to act in a way that shows they are socially responsible. Social responsibility includes acting in the best interests of society. From a business perspective, this means contributing directly to the general welfare of a community (particularly in the area of the business itself); exercising due care with respect to employees no matter where they work (at home or abroad), by creating a safe environment--physically and emotionally--in which to work, providing just wages and creating an atmosphere which does not cause duress by overwork or other undue hardships; serving the best interest of clients; respecting the quality of the environment in which the business resides; showing leadership in promoting the general welfare of the local community and whatever other communities served. For profit businesses must be concerned about making a profit for their stockholders. But making profit alone is not acting in a socially responsible manner. There are many good ways of demonstrating social responsibility, but there are always better ways, and it is the business of business to work always to find better ways to act in the best interest of its stakeholders (as defined above), doing good critical thinking. Good critical thinkers believe in this: Theres always a better way we can do what we are doing, and we can find it. Not for profit businesses or organizations are typically funded in a variety of ways. They, too, must exercise social responsibility towards all their stakeholders (as defined above) in a similar matter in all the areas mentioned.

Join us on this exciting journey of applying sound ethical thinking committed to exercising social responsibility to all those we serve, including not only people, but also the local and global environment, including space and cyberspace. While all of these perspectives cannot be covered in this course, the method or way of arriving at defensible ethical decisions can be used for any of these or other areas of concern. Dr. Don Dickerson (402) 770-1149
DrD1@cox.net
HTU UTH