DISCUSSIONS

Minimum of 250 per question

1. "Unethical Situations in the Workplace" Please respond to the following:

Recall a time when you experienced an unethical situation at a work place. What events led up to this situation? Do you think it could have been avoided? Did the company take the right action?

2. "Hacking into Harvard" Please respond to the following:

Read Case 2.1: Hacking into Harvard, ( See attachment. As applicants began to defend themselves against the penalties handed out by the business schools, they appealed to both consequentialist and nonconsequentialist criteria to support their actions. Some responded by pointing out that their intentions were never malicious, while others argued they did not think checking their application statuses would cause any real harm. Review the case study and analyze the actions of the students from a Kantian perspective. Consider whether the actions taken by the hackers were permissible according the standard of universal acceptability.

3. "Battling Over Bottled Water" Please respond to the following:

Read Case 3.2: Battling Over Bottled Water, ( See attachment).  Nestlé holds a 99-year lease for the land that the Sanctuary Spring sits on. While lease-holders are generally understood to be able to make full use of their land, when public resources are involved, they are limited to “reasonable uses.” Review the case study and formulate an argument either supporting or challenging this distinction. Support your reasoning by addressing key ways in which benefits and burdens are being distributed between Nestlé and the community in this case.