Law and Ethics for Managers Presentation

3-scenario, 3-Question Trolley Problem VoiceThread Assignment You will use VoiceThread (VT) software to capture your voice and narrate for about 3-6 minutes over the visuals (typically PowerPoints with text or pictures added) that you choose to illustrate your points as you discuss your answers. Access VoiceThread only through the link in Week 3 of the course site. If you access VT any other way, we will never see what you submit. Do not share your project (everyone gets an email if you share!) but do make certain to click “Submit” when finished. After you submit, you can check if it was submitted by following instructions posted “How to Check if My VoiceThread was Submitted” also located in Week 3. In your VT project, you will answer three (3) questions about three (3) ethical scenarios. Spend about 1-2 minutes per question talking about each answer. Do not exceed 6 minutes length overall (that means 2 minutes max talking about each question). Summarize and script your words to read in your presentation so that you are ready and organized before you record it. Why do we do this assignment? LES 305 is about business law and ethics. Managers need this knowledge because a business can add value by minimizing risk and operating strategically and ethically within the law. Okay, but why do we study the Trolley Problem in a business law course? What does a runaway train have to do with business law and ethics? We study it to test out different ethical theories as we decide (hypothetically) what to do in the scenarios. The Trolley Problem is an ethical dilemma (no right decision exists but you still must choose) that has been discussed for about 40 years now since it was first proposed by Professor Philipa Foot in 1967. What is the Trolley problem scenario? You watched (or should watch) two videos posted in Week 3 that explain the Trolley Problem which is also explained on page 141 of your Melvin textbook. [OPTIONAL: Read this excellent paper for a scholarly discussion of the scenario. Guerra-Pujol, F. E., Trolley Problems (November 25, 2014). Drake Law Review Discourse, vol. 63 (2014), pp. 101-119. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2492557 ] The first video describes two different scenarios (#1 whether to pull the lever, #2 whether to push the fat man). Be familiar with both scenarios. The second video, from the TV show The Good Place, brutally depicts the consequences of not deciding (splat!). Watch both videos now and then return here if you have not already watched. Make sure that you know BOTH scenarios (pull the lever, push the fat man) and the consequences of your decision before going any farther with this assignment. Then, record your answers to these 3 questions in your VoiceThread project: Scenario 1 (pull the lever?) Researchers report that 90% of research subjects say they would pull the lever to save the five men’s lives even though it costs one man’s life. Five men are saved and one man is killed. So pulling the lever is the moral thing to do at least according to 90%. Even though the one man killed would still be alive if you don’t pull the lever, 90% say they would pull the lever anyway. They can accept their role in this man’s death when all they do is pull the lever. Question 1: How about you? Would you pull the lever? Why or why not? Discuss at least two ethical theories or concepts from our course to explain your answer. Do not exceed 2 minutes of recording time for this answer. Below are some ethical theories that you might discuss for Question 1. These are just suggestions. You can choose any ethical theory or concept from our course to discuss. But remember to discuss at least two ethical theories or concepts in your answer to Question 1 to receive full credit. Are you a utilitarian? If so, Question #1 is a no-brainer. The consequentialist school of ethics focuses on outcomes and utilitarianism seems to provide the correct answer at least for 90% of people who would pull the lever because, hey, it saves five lives and only one life is lost. That serves the greatest good, right? So it’s the moral choice, right? A utilitarian would say yes and yes! Five men are alive and one is dead and that is better than five dead and one alive. Is this you? Why or why not? On the other hand, a follower of the Virtue Ethics school (e.g., Aristotle) would say, “I wish to be a virtuous person. And for me, ___ is the most important virtue.” For example, one might say, “Courage is the most important virtue. And so I will be courageous and pull the lever to save lives.” On the other hand, they might say, “Non-violence is the most important of virtues. I will not pull the lever and thus do no harm to anyone. Whatever happens, at least I am not responsible for anyone’s death.” Their different decisions to pull the lever or not depends on what they believe to be virtuous. Is this you? If so, which virtue will you exemplify and how? If not, why do you reject the Virtue Ethics school? Or, some might apply the Veil of Ignorance based on the work of John Rawles and would or would not not pull the lever (or push the man) because in your opinion from behind a Veil of Ignorance (for more about Veil of Ignorance, see Melvin page 141 and watch the “Veil of Ignorance” video in Week 5) the people involved in the scenario would all agree to this decision. This is the contract-based school of ethics. Scenario 2 (push the fat man?) Researchers say 90% of people would not push the fat man off the bridge. It seems that actually pushing him makes people feel too directly responsible for his death so they would not do it. On the other hand, they would pull the lever with the result being the same (five saved, one dead) so what explains the difference? People apparently experience the act of pushing him as causing the fat man’s death while pulling the lever was more remotely connected to the one man’s death on the tracks. Researchers say our brains process the acts in different brain locations. Question 2: How about you? Would you push the fat man off the bridge to stop the runaway train? Why or why not? Discuss at least two ethical theories or concepts from our course to explain your answer. Do not exceed 2 minutes of recording time for this answer. Scenario 3 (sacrifice the patient?) This is intended to stretch your mind a bit. Imagine that you are a surgeon and in front of you is a patient whose organs can save five lives. Of course, the patient would die if you remove their organs but five others would be saved. Or, you could operate on the patient and save their life but the other five will die. Question #3: If you were the surgeon, would you sacrifice the patient to save the lives of five others? Isn’t this just the same thing as scenarios 1 and 2? Five are saved, one lost? And so wouldn’t a utilitarian answer yes? If you said yes to scenario 1 but no to scenario 3, can you explain what makes this scenario different? For this question, just give us your answer in 2 minutes or less. Discuss ethical theories or concepts if you wish but it is not required. …
Purchase answer to see full attachment