PHL295 Guided reading questions

.docx

School

York University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

3642

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by MajorPantherMaster992

Guided reading questions If you're wondering what to focus on (and what I will expect you to understand and remember) in the readings, here are some questions to guide you: Gauthier (Morals by Agreement)  What is the definition of morality, according to Gauthier?  Define “equilibrium” and “optimum.” Why does Gauthier believe that morality is required only when the two diverge?  Explain what Gauthier means when he says that “The coincidence of equilibrium and optimum in the outcome of the perfectly competitive market is central to our argument.”  Why does Gauthier say that moral categories are “inapplicable” to the operations of the market? David Gauthier is a Canadian philosopher known for his work in political philosophy and ethics. He is particularly associated with contractualist views and his book "Morals by Agreement," where he explores the idea of morality as a set of rules that rational individuals would agree to in order to advance their own interests. Gauthier argues that morality is required only when the equilibrium and optimum diverge in a social context. In Gauthier's framework, individuals are considered rational agents seeking to maximize their own well-being or utility. He introduces the concept of "morality by agreement" or "morals by agreement," suggesting that individuals, in order to better achieve their self-interests, would agree to a set of moral principles that regulate their behavior in a way that benefits everyone. The idea is that in certain situations, individual rationality may lead to suboptimal outcomes for all involved. When people interact, there might be a temptation for each individual to act in a way that benefits them at the expense of others. Gauthier argues that in situations where everyone pursues their own self-interest without any moral constraints, the outcome may be worse for everyone compared to a situation where individuals agree to follow certain moral rules. Therefore, Gauthier believes that morality becomes necessary when there is a divergence between individual self-interests and the overall well-being or optimum outcome for the group. Morality, in his view, is a rational agreement that individuals make to overcome the potential pitfalls of unrestrained self-interest and to achieve a more optimal outcome for everyone involved. It's important to note that Gauthier's views have been both influential and controversial, and not all philosophers agree with his contractualist approach or his specific conclusions about the relationship between self-interest and morality. Freeman (Stakeholder Theory)  What is “managerial capitalism” and in what way has it come to be restrained? The basic idea of managerial capitalism is that in return for controlling the firm, management vigorously pursues the interests of stockholders. Central to the managerial view of the firm is the

idea that management can pursue market transactions with suppliers and customers in an unconstrained manner. There are (some) legal protections in place to protect and provide rights to consumers and workers and those others who have some claim on firms. This suggests that there is a legal argument against managerial capitalism. -There is legal proposition to constrain stockholder… theory Since the industrial revolution, firms have sought to internalize the benefits and externalize the costs of their actions. Externalities, moral hazards, and monopoly power have led to more external control on managerial capitalism. There are de facto constrains, due to these economic facts of life, on the ability of management to act in the interests of stockholders. This suggests that there is an economic argument against managerial capitalism. Freeman argues we must revitalize managerial capitalism through stakeholder theory— focusing not just on stockholder interests, but on the interests of all those who have a stack in the firm. -The idea of only value stockholder problematic, if air pollution is bad, that also takes the shareholders interest. -The shareholders’ interest is not only profit.  What is a stakeholder? In what sense is the “logic” of his stakeholder theory of the corporation “identical to that of the stockholder theory”?  Who are the stakeholders of a firm? Suppliers, customers, employees, stockholders, and the local community, as well as management in its role as agent for these groups  What is the “normative core” of a stakeholder theory and how is it to be determined? According to Freeman, the normative core of stakeholder theory can be determined through a process of ethical reasoning and engagement with stakeholders. He emphasizes the following key points: Ethical Reasoning : Freeman contends that ethical reasoning should play a central role in determining the normative core of stakeholder theory. This involves thinking about what is fair, just, and morally right in the context of business decisions. It requires considering the impact of decisions on all stakeholders and identifying actions that are ethically sound. Engagement with Stakeholders : Freeman argues for the importance of actively engaging with stakeholders to understand their interests, concerns, and perspectives. This involves a dynamic and ongoing dialogue between the organization and its various stakeholders. By involving stakeholders in the decision-making process, businesses can better identify what is valuable to them and work toward mutually beneficial outcomes. Creating Value for Stakeholders : The normative core of stakeholder theory, according to Freeman, is about creating value for all stakeholders. This goes beyond a narrow focus on

maximizing shareholder value. Instead, businesses should seek to generate positive outcomes for customers, employees, suppliers, communities, and other stakeholders. Value creation involves considering the long-term sustainability and well-being of the entire network of stakeholders. In summary, the normative core of stakeholder theory, as proposed by Edward Freeman, is rooted in ethical reasoning, active engagement with stakeholders, and a commitment to creating value for all parties involved. It is not solely about profit maximization for shareholders but rather about fostering relationships and making decisions that contribute to the overall well-being of a broader range of stakeholders. Rawls (Theory of Justice)  What is cooperation, and why does it create both a common interest and a conflict of interest? John Rawls, a political philosopher, proposed the Theory of Justice, which is based on the principles of justice as fairness. According to Rawls, cooperation is a social contract where individuals agree to work together for mutual benefit. This cooperation is guided by two principles: the principle of equal liberty and the principle of difference. What is a “theory of justice” in Rawls’s view?  How does Rawls propose to ensure that in the “original position” the choice of principles is not affected by “social and natural contingencies”? In John Rawls's theory of justice, the "original position" is a hypothetical scenario that he uses to determine the principles of justice that rational individuals would choose for the basic structure of society. The original position is characterized by a veil of ignorance, a device that ensures that the choice of principles is not influenced by the social and natural contingencies of individuals. The veil of ignorance is a crucial element in Rawls's attempt to achieve fairness and impartiality in the selection of principles. The veil of ignorance works as follows: Ignorance of Personal Characteristics: Individuals in the original position are assumed to be behind a "veil of ignorance," which means they do not know any specific details about themselves. They are unaware of their own natural attributes (such as intelligence, strength, or talents) and social circumstances (such as their social class, gender, ethnicity, or religious beliefs). Equal Lack of Information: The veil of ignorance ensures that all individuals are equally uninformed about their personal characteristics. This equal lack of information is designed to prevent biases and self-interested considerations from influencing the selection of principles.  What is classical utilitarianism, and what does Rawls think is wrong with it? John Rawls, a prominent political philosopher, introduced the concept of a "theory of justice" in

his influential work, "A Theory of Justice," published in 1971. Rawls aimed to develop a comprehensive and systematic framework for understanding justice in society. His theory seeks to address the fundamental question of how to distribute social goods and benefits fairly among individuals in a just and equitable manner. In Rawls's view, a theory of justice is concerned with determining the principles that should govern the basic structure of a just society. He proposed the original position and the veil of ignorance as key elements in developing a theory of justice. The original position is a hypothetical scenario in which individuals are placed behind a veil of ignorance, unaware of their own characteristics, advantages, or disadvantages in the society they are about to create. The veil of ignorance is a crucial aspect of Rawls's theory because it ensures that individuals in the original position make decisions about the principles of justice without knowledge of their own personal circumstances, such as their social class, gender, talents, or abilities. This ignorance is intended to eliminate biases and self-interest, leading individuals to choose principles that would be fair and just for all, regardless of their specific positions in society. Rawls proposes two principles of justice that individuals behind the veil of ignorance would agree upon: The First Principle (The Principle of Equal Basic Liberties): Rawls argues that individuals would choose a principle that ensures equal basic liberties for all members of society. This includes fundamental rights such as freedom of speech, assembly, and the right to vote. The Second Principle (The Difference Principle) : Rawls suggests that once equal basic liberties are secured, individuals would agree to arrangements that allow social and economic inequalities only if such inequalities benefit the least advantaged members of society. This principle prioritizes the well-being of the most vulnerable and ensures that any disparities contribute to improving the overall welfare of society. In summary, Rawls's theory of justice involves the construction of principles that rational individuals, operating behind a veil of ignorance, would choose to govern the basic structure of a just society. The goal is to create a framework that promotes fairness, equality of opportunity, and a focus on improving the condition of the least advantaged members of society. John Rawls, in his seminal work "A Theory of Justice," criticizes classical utilitarianism and presents his own theory as an alternative. Rawls' primary concerns with classical utilitarianism can be summarized as follows: Focus on Aggregation of Utility : Classical utilitarianism aggregates individual happiness or pleasure, treating it as a single measure that can be maximized across all individuals. Rawls argues that this approach neglects the rights and interests of individuals, especially those in the minority or those who may suffer for the greater good. Neglect of Individual Rights: Rawls is critical of the utilitarian emphasis on maximizing overall

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help