Ethics are actions guided by a set of beliefs, principles, or values. They exist in the world of human relations and human relating. Every great and relevant theory of ethics is explicated by hypothetical scenarios involving human relationship. Such scenarios serve to exemplify how values are actualized in human conduct. These frameworks of ethical reasoning are built upon underlying beliefs about human nature, and the role of humanity in the narrative of life on earth.

Your ability to ethically reason begins by identifying those tenets and values upon which your decision-making will be built (Part 1). It ends by applying them to a scenario in which they can be actualized (Part 2). As such, this assignment comes in two parts.

Part 1 and Part 2 of this assignment are submitted separately.This is where you can find information for and submit Part 1 of your Personal Ethics Framework.

Part 1:

In this first part, you will develop a Personal Ethics Framework based on a small group of ethical values you hold to be your foundational values. A foundation is something you build the rest of your reasoning upon; it is strong and steadfast. You may choose from an array of values reviewed throughout the course to serve as the ethical core or foundation of your framework (e.g. justice, duty, happiness, benevolence, equity, fairness, compassion, freedom, etc.). You are required to use threecorevalues in your framework.

For each core value, you will need to discuss why is was chosen, what it is, and how it relates to class material. For example, let's say happiness is your #1 core value. You would describe what it means to be happy, why happiness matters to you, and how it relates to a utilitarianism perspective (i.e., the degree actions are said to be right are measured by how much it maximizes happiness or pleasure).

Despite the importance of all your core values, these values often come into conflict with each other. For example, deontological and utilitarian ethics both agree the ethical values of dutyandhappiness are important to human flourishing - however, they prioritize these values differently and so arrive at different conclusions about what is or is not the most ethical course of action. Thus, you will discuss your core values hierarchically in relation to one another, discussing potential conflict between them.

So, let us say you identified achievement and happiness as two of your three core values. Conflicts can arise between these when one is attained at the expense of the other. For example, a conflict could arise if you took a promotion at a more prestigious company (achievement-based) but taking the job would mean a longer commute, less time with family and friends, and less time for leisure (happiness-focused). If you value happiness more than achievement, you would turn down the job. However, if you value achievement more than happiness, you would accept the job. You must discuss how conflicts between core values will be resolved.

Thus, your job is too: (1) Identify the three core values that are most important to you (2) Specify the hierarchically order of these values (e.g., fairness is most important, followed by benevolence, and lastly happiness) (3) Explain what each core value is and why it matters to you (4) Explain how each core value relates to class theories/concepts/material, and use appropriate in-text citations and references; You should have a reference list at the end of your submission (5) Provide examples of potential conflict between each core value, and explain how those conflicts would be resolved in each case; As a hint, which ever core value is more important in your hierarchy should win given it is more foundational to who you are; You should have 3 conflicts in total -Comparison 1: Core Value 1 vs. Core Value 2 -Comparison 2: Core Value 1 vs. Core Value 3 -Comparison 3: Core Value 2 vs. Core Value 3

aww Ma of vintam- -notlid dedraoinput went asizesubs a bluew woll Whowonod 2. 15 flood she yuo holied over memn uni weert to tuolied er DEONTOLOGY this fall an gu FROM GROUNDWORK FOR THE gu In METAPHYSICS OF MORALS (1785) me . IMMANUEL KANT exel 2291 vieravint About This Reading There are many forms of deontology, or duty-based ethics, but all of them emphasize that there are traits of action other than consequences that deter- mine whether an action is morally right. Deontologists often speak of offering a "rights-based approach to ethics" rather than a consequences-based approach because they argue that individuals have rights that in some sense can ethically override what is best for society as a whole. For deontologists, individual rights in many cases morally override social welfare considerations. Perhaps the most famous deontological theory is associated with the eighteenth-century philosopher Immanuel Kant, who maintained that it was not the effects of actions that determined their moral worth but the causes. The causes of human action were motives or intentions. Morally right actions were those that flowed from good intentions or motives. Wrong actions flowed from bad intentions. For Kant, the cause of an action and not its effects is what makes an action morally correct. Morality is based on good intentions, not good results. Kant defended his theory by noticing that great harms could flow from accidental actions and that these accidents were morally neutral. For example, Hurricane Katrina produced enormous harm but none of us would say that this hurricane was immoral. Accidental actions are neither moral nor immoral actions. For example, a guest at your house may fall and accidentally damage your favorite chair. The act causes you harm, but is the action immoral? For Kant, Fer 182. FROM GROUNDWORK FOR THE METAPHYSICS OF MORALS | IMMANUEL KANT this last question can only be answered by examining the cause of the act. If the fall was a genuine accident, then the fall was neither moral nor immoral. It was an accident. It was like Hurricane Katrina. However, if you discover that your guest intentionally slipped in order to break your favorite chair, and that your guest did this because of envy, then we have an action which may be immoral. Intentions are what make the difference between moral and nonmoral actions. Attorneys know this idea very well. You might be accused of a murder and in fact you may have killed someone, but that does not mean that it was a murder. You might have done it by accident and the attorney may be called upon to prove that position to a jury of your peers. If you had no evil motive, and if your attorney can establish that fact, there is a good chance that you will not be sent to jail. We see this same effect in business contexts as well. A company that accidentally sells a defective product, for which it quickly takes steps to correct when the defect is discovered, will be treated much differently from a company that knowingly sells a product that is defective-or even dangerous to customers-and that drags its feet when the problem is discovered by those outside the company. What then makes a motive moral or immoral? Kant answers this question by distinguishing hypothetical from categorical imperatives. Imperatives are commands such as "Close the door!" Most imperatives are hypothetical in the sense that the commands apply only if they are goal-directed. For exam- ple, the imperative "Study that philosophy book!" applies to someone only if that person cares to obtain a degree or become competent at philosophy. A hypothetical imperative is one that applies only if certain other conditions are satisfied. If someone does not wish to acquire knowledge of philosophy or obtain a degree or other goals related to reading the book, then the imperative to "study that philosophy book" does not apply to him or her. Kant claims that nearly all imperatives are hypothetical in the sense that they are goal- or con- dition-directed. However, for Kant, there is one imperative that is categorical in the sense that it universally applies to everyone under all conditions whatever their goals in life. Furthermore, for Kant, if one obeys this imperative, then one has good intentions. If one violates this imperative, then one has bad intentions. Kant calls this imperative "the categorical imperative" because he claims that this rule applies under all circumstances. The imperative sounds very much like the golden rule, which states that we should treat others as we would wish to be treated. Kant has several formulations of this imperative, but the one that is most famous requires us to "act only on the basis of maxims that we could will to become universal laws." Another formulation of the imperative 191. UTILITARIANISM FROM UTILITARIANISM (1871) JOHN STUART MILL About This Reading Consequentialism The consequentialist perspective is often tied to a philosophical movement called utilitarianism, which flourished in Britain in the nineteenth century but continues to be very influential even today. The consequentialist holds that the effects of action determine the moral quality of action and that our moral duties and rights are traceable to the desire to maximize good consequences for the most people. While there are many definitions of the word "good," the utilitarians tended to view goodness in terms of either human pleasure or human happiness. Pleasure was viewed as the satisfaction of physical desire while happiness was viewed as the satisfaction of intellectual or artistic desire. The key to this approach to ethics is that actions are said to be right to the degree that they maximize pleasure or happiness. In effect, we grant rights and impose duties in order to secure maximal pleasure or happiness. Ethics is about producing the best possible outcomes. Types of Consequentialism Let us begin with a more careful consideration of consequentialism. Consequen tialists argue that actions are classified as right on the basis of their effects or consequences. The consequences of actions, however, are usually a mixture of good and bad, and in order to determine the moral worth of an act, one must weigh these consequences. For example, watching TV may be enjoyable and relaxing (pleasurable) but it also tends to increase weight and boredom anddecrease health (pain). Consequentialists are powerfully influenced by the work of John Stuart Mill, whose book Utilitarianism (1871) advances his "Greatest Happiness Principle" as a universal decision principle within ethics. The precept States that actions are right if "they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness." This principle of utility contains Mill's answer to two fundamental questions, namely "what things are good" and "what actions are right?" Philosophers often distinguish between two kinds of good extrinsic and intrinsic. Extrinsic goods are things that we desire because they produce something else. TV can produce both boredom (pain) and relaxation (pleasure). TV is like your coat. Both are extrinsically good and extrinsically bad in the sense that in certain conditions they can both produce a mixture of pain and pleasure. You want your TV or your coat not for their own sake but because they provide relaxation or keep you warm. An intrinsic good is something that we desire for its own sake. One wants an intrinsic good even if it does not lead to other goods. Utilitarians maintain that pleasure and happiness are the only intrinsic goods. Other objects are extrinsically good or valuable because they advance happiness and pleasure, or retard pain and unhappiness. We will see that what we take to be extrinsically good is very diverse, and it is because of this diversity that the question of freedom becomes so vital for the utilitarians. What is crucial to notice, however, is that all actions produce both happiness and pain. Rightness is therefore a property of actions or kinds of actions insofar as they maximize pleasure over pain. Furthermore, for utilitarians, right actions are those that produce maximal happiness for the greatest number of people. Finally, the rightness of an action is something that one "calculates" on the basis of the amounts of pleasure and pain produced by an act or a rule of action. Right actions are those that produce the most happiness over pain. Wrong actions are those that produce more pain than happiness. Let us now turn to two versions of utilitarianism that are critical to understanding the theory as a whole. Act Utilitarianism The first version of utilitarianism which we will discuss is often called act utili- tarianism. It begins with the idea that the principle of utility or general happiness is somewhat ambiguous because it does not explicitly state whether one should apply the greatest happiness principle to specific acts or to general rules of behavior. Act utilitarian ethical theory resolves this ambiguity by stating that the greatest happiness principle applies to specific actions. For example, if a patient is near death and competently directs his doctor to kill him, then killing1. FROM UTILITARIANISM | JOHN STUART MILL may be justified if the killing maximizes benefits over harms in this particular situation. Defenders of active euthanasia (or mercy killing) often argue that in specific cases it may be best to allow voluntary killing because this eliminates a great deal of useless suffering. People who support voluntary active killing of terminally ill patients often argue that there are legitimate exceptions to the "do not kill" rule. The act utilitarian admits that while there is a social rule against killing and that this rule is generally legitimate, this rule should be violated in specific cases. In these limited cases, obedience to the "do not kill" rule pro- duces more harm than good. For act utilitarians, we ought to apply the principle of utility directly to actions and ethically select particular actions only if the particular act will produce more benefits than alternative actions. For the act utilitarian, social rules of conduct such as the "do not kill" rule have exceptions, and we should identify the exceptions by applying the greatest happiness rule to particular acts. Rule Utilitarianism The second version of utilitarianism has a very different conception of social rules. This version argues that we should not in general apply this principle of utility to specific acts but rather to general rules of action. For the rule utilitarian, what produces maximal happiness is obedience to socially useful rules. Granting people the right to selectively "pick and choose" which rules to obey in specific situations threatens the very practice of "setting down" rules to govern human behavior. We can see this idea if we look at legislatures. The Congress of the United States does not pass laws and allow citizens to decide for themselves whether to obey these laws. Laws apply universally. Indeed, the rule utilitarian argues that following the act utilitarian suggestion may produce chaos, because all persons would be able to decide for themselves whether a rule was binding in a given situation. This freedom to disobey laws may harm society. For example, if doctors could decide for themselves to kill patients who were suffering from a terrible disease, then patients might avoid seeking medical treatment. Another example of how act utilitarianism might be unethical involves hatred. Assume that millions of people hate Smith, who is innocent of breaking a law but is also someone who is obnoxious. This hatred may motivate Jones to kill Smith. Furthermore, Jones might be able to do a "calculation" which "establishes" that killing Smith will produce more good than harm. The millions who hate Smith would be happier if Smith were dead and no one would really be unhappy over the death of this obnoxious person. Does this justify killing Smith?The rule utilitarian says No! If there are rules of conduct then we cannot pick and choose to obey them or not. Furthermore, according to the rule utilitarian, rules should not be broken on On a case-by-case basis" because this would tend to blur the distinction between att What is right and what is convenient. To return to our illustration involving Jones the It and Smith, it may be convenient to kill Smith because it would make millions ter happier, but it is surely questionable whether it is morally right to kill an indi- pr vidual merely because doing so would produce happiness for millions. Rule utilitarians argue that these difficulties can be avoided if we apply the greatest happiness principle to rules rather than to particular acts. Furthermore, once a rule is judged to maximize social welfare, everyone is obliged to follow that rule. This is true even in particular cases where obedience to the rule may pro- duce more harm than good. Rule utilitarians admit that following a rule in some circumstances can produce more harm than good. However, the rule utilitarian claims that rules bind the individual because obedience to these rules produces more good than harm, in general. The "do not kill" rule may currently prevent us from helping a terminally ill patient who wishes to die, and this may prevent us from maximizing the greatest good in this case. However, obedience to this rule may produce more social welfare than its alternatives. The rule utilitarian, however, accepts the idea that rules can change. Social rules are not absolute. Our society currently has rules against the direct killing of terminally ill patients who voluntarily wish to have their lives ended. Do these rules produce more good than harm by preventing unjustified killings? The rule utilitarian would argue that it is permissible for a society to change these rules if society can demonstrate that alternative rules would advance social happiness without producing more harm. We already have three exceptions to the "do not kill" rule (selfdefense, capital punishment, and just war). It may be that we can develop a rule covering a fourth exception, namely, "killing for mercy." The rule utilitarians will demand proof that new rules will not violate the "greatest happiness principle." We can see how the rule utilitarian principle has affected the ethics of business decision-making. For many, business decisions and the very structure of a free market system are justified by appealing to the overall good that is generated. While we may not like it when businesses lay off employees, an efficient economic system is best for the general welfare (or so the argument goes). Whether or not this is true will depend on how we measure well-being. Is it in terms of average income, GDP, unemployment, quality of life, or some combination of these and other factors?Personal Ethics Framework: Part 1 Samantha J Introduction You must write in full and complete sentences. Part 1 should be no more than 1800 words. Core Value 1: Samantha J Core Value 2: Example of introduction: "My personal ethics framework is comprised of three core values: and Core Value 3: and is based primarily in rule utilitarianism and virtue ethics Samantha J VS. Describe core value #1, why it is important to you, and its relation to ethical principles (e.g., if your value was . ... happiness, you would want to describe the basics of VS. Samantha J VS. Describe core value #2, why it is important to you, and its Summary relation to ethical principles (e.g., if your value was empathy, you could discuss Aristotle's virtue ethics). Samantha J References Describe core value #3, why it is important to you, and its Vopat, Mark C. Business Ethics: The Big Picture. Broadview Press, 2018. relation to ethical principles. Zygon, Associates. "DEFINITIONS of the 125 VALUES Accountability/Ethics." Minessence.net, www.minessence.net/pdfs/values_definitions.pdf. Samantha J Discuss conflicts between core value 1 and core value 2, providing examples, and explaining how conflict would be resolved for you. Samantha J Discuss conflicts between core value 1 and core value 3, providing examples, and explaining how conflict would be resolved for you. Samantha J Discuss conflicts between core value 2 and core value 3, providing examples, and explaining how conflict would be resolved for you. Samantha J Summary paragraph. Here is a good example from previous semesters. Samantha J Include references to extbook and outside sources. If