Mtc Case Study

Immanuel Kant is said by many to be one of the most influential “thinkers” in the history of Western philosophy (McCormick, n.d.), this being said, most of his theories continue to be taught and are highly respected by society. Kant was a firm believer that the morality of any action can be assessed by the motivation behind it (McCormick, n.d.). In other words, if an action is good but the intention behind the action is not good, the action itself would be considered immoral. Those who follow the utilitarian view would disagree, arguing that an action which benefits the most number of people would be considered moral regardless of the intentions behind it. Kant argues that the intention behind an action matters more than the number of people benefited. This theory of morality falls hand in hand with Kant 's concept of good will, and through examples I hope to explain to readers, in a simple way, what Kant was trying to convey.

Kant would disagree with those who do the right thing for the wrong reason. We, as a society and individuals in that society, should act in ways not because it’s easy for us or more favourable, but because its right and moral.

When we are presented with a situation and we want to decide whether an act we are about to perform is right or wrong Kant would suggest to look at the maxims of the act itself and not just the amount of misery or happiness the act is most likely to produce. “We just have to check that the act we have in mind will not use anyone as mere means, and, if possible that it will treat other persons as ends in themselves” (O’Neil, 1985). Kant would want to help these men and women seek help for their drug addiction. Kant would treat

When it comes to college athletics, there always will be a problem that arises. It is one of the most controversial topics there is. One of the main issues within athletics is the idea of whether to pay college athletes or not. Several studies have been done along with articles from various sources. This has been on the rise especially since “March Madness” is coming up. “March Madness” may only consist of three weekends, however, an 11 billion dollar deal is made to televise the games (Wilbon). This is when you have to take the time to sit back and contemplate whether these college athletes really are getting the fair end of the stick. Under NCAA laws it is forbidden to pay these athletes for their performance yet at the same time they

law that what it does is illegal and makes unsound claims, putting most athletes under one narcissist stereotype. Not being able to pay the players directly is an immense problem that could end the NCAA which would also decrease the salaries of the coaches. “Not only are the NCAA rules that prevent colleges from paying student-athletes immoral, but they also are likely illegal. Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, in pertinent part, states that “every contract, combination… or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce… is declared to be illegal.” Applying this language, any agreement among NCAA members to prohibit the pay of student-athletes represents a form of wage fixing that likely violates antitrust law. In addition, the NCAA’s no-pay rules seem to constitute an illegal boycott of any college that would otherwise seek to pay its student-athletes” (Text 1 lines 24-30). Considering this it gives evidence as to why this organization should be shut down in the first place. Not only does it not support paying its players, but it is also under the influence of being illegal. This paired with outlandish arguments like how if the athletes get paid they would be creating a title IX problem is an annoying problem. The athletes would not encourage the problem as Division 1’s male basketball coach is paid twice as much than the Division 1’s

The reason they are arguing is because, the NCAA is a multibillion dollar business. For

When the topic or idea of college athlete salaries comes up, numerous analysts and sports writers have opposing opinions. They argue on a constant basis of whether salaries should be implemented or they shouldn’t. Any time the topic comes up in the news of a university scandal (which is very often lately) the sports writers have a field day with it and argue until there’s no more arguing left.

A keener analysis of this case would reveal the likelihood of the existence of the NCAA being towed apart (D'Alessandro, 2013). In his suit, O'Bannon reveals the fact that in 2009 the NCAA expected to reap huge profits in by using his UCLA likeness on a college basketball video game yet the real talents generating the profits both on the field and on the court and in licensed products him includes are in no way going to be compensated (D'Alessandro, 2013). Not only this for there are many sources of the negative criticism of the Association such as the lucrative advertisement deals signed by the NCAA case in point the deal with ESPN of approximately 450 million dollar for the televising rights to broadcast the playoffs of the college football and the major

A former basketball player sued the NCAA for antitrust law violations. Edward Abandon a former basketball player at UCLA decided to be the main Plaintiff after seeing his self in a video game without his permission.O'bannon argued the NCAA violated the anti trust laws and also his privacy. In 2013 Judge Claudia Wilkins found in favor of O'bannon saying that they violated the Sherman anti trust laws. Two years later in 2015 the ruling was appealed and reversed, the NCAA stated to preserve the character and quality of the ‘product, athletes must not be paid. Last year O'bannon tried to appeal to supreme court but was denied, but didn't walk away emptied handed he settled with 40 million from EA sports. But still the NCAA walks away with no pay for play, this is an unjust law if give ever seen one. I know you've heard the saying "fool me once shame on me but you wont fool me again". Well this is another instance in which the NCAA violated the Anti trust laws and got away in 2014 when Former West Virginia running back Shawne Alston filed a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging that the NCAA "violated antitrust laws by agreeing to cap the value of athletic scholarships below the actual cost of attending school and 'far below' what the free market would produce," Basically the NCAA was only providing a partial scholarship to this athlete and having him pay the rest of the tuition out his pocket while they're making 10 times the revenue of his tuition off of his name. Three years later this year one of the most recent actions in the Shawn Alston cases the NCAA settled and payed out 208.7 million dollars for the cost of attendance. The NCAA and conferences only settled this case because the terms are consistent with Division I financial aid rules, which allow athletics based pay up to the full cost of obtaining a college education. Lead attorney in the case Steve Berman said in a

ESPN has made superstars out of college basketball coaches and even TV analysts like Dick Vitale. The station has created national followings for some of the sports elite programs. Want to watch Duke? Just flip on ESPN or ESPN2, where the Blue Devils had 16 of their regular-season games televised last season (Timmermann). The relationship that ESPN has forged with college basketball is both symbiotic and parasitic. The mutual benefit is obvious; ESPN has successfully launched itself as a primer cable sports network and thanks to the network, college basketball has become one of the most profitable collegiate sports, rivaling the once invincible college football. But ESPN has built its empire off the labor of unpaid college athletes. The increasing dollar-amount of TV contracts and growing commercialism in college basketball is proof that ESPN is willing to exploit amateur athletes in the name of increasing profit margins. With no other network and no other sport is this symbiotic and parasitic relationship between media and college athletics made more apparent.

Long-term Care is targeted at those individuals that can no longer care for themselves and need assistance with ADL’s such as bathing, dressing, and feeding themselves. There is no specific age associated with it because LTC can be for anyone from infancy to senior adult. It basically depends on the individual’s illness or disability.

MT picked CT up from school where he was outside playing with his peers. MT observed CT laughing and being playful and as he was leaving with MT, his friends came up to him and gave him a hug goodbye along with his teacher. In the car drive to get the other client CT was asked MT what activity they was going to do during the session. MT expressed since all of the CTs had a good week with behaviors they was going to go bowling. CT showed eagerness and sang along to the music in the car. When MT picked up a CT to go bowling, both CTs showed excitement to go bowling together. While driving to the bowling alley, both CTs talked about random topics. At the bowling alley, MT had both CTs use one bowling ball to help them work on taking turns and

Kant duty of ethics, Close the debate by Hector: 1 moral decision-making: he decides to avoid people because he is aware that he is a misanthrope. 2 Humanistic dimensions into business decisions: another person does not influence him no matter gender, race, age etc., he would hired the best qualified person for a job. 3 Importance of motivation: in business, threating everyone with equity will bring more motivation in the team people would know that any person could get to managerial position by hard work.

This viewpoint advanced by Kant is further expounded upon in his essay "Our Duties to Animals". Here he explains that we have no direct duties to animals because they are not self-conscious, rational moral agents. Instead we have indirect duties to human beings in regards to animals. We should therefore not be cruel to animals because "he who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men."# According to Kant, " we can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals."#

7. Kant’s ethics gives us firm standards that do not depend on results; it injects a humanistic element into moral decision making and stresses the importance of acting on principle and from a sense of duty. Critics, however, worry that (a) Kant’s view of moral worth is too restrictive, (b) the categorical imperative is not a sufficient test of right and wrong, and (c) distinguishing between treating people as means and respecting them as ends in themselves may be difficult in practice.