Segment 1

: Based on the reading and the discussion in class, please explain how an Objectivist would resolve the complaint of the CSA customer below from a

New York Times, Sunday Business, Inquiry to the "Haggler" Column 10/11/09

Last year, I booked an eight-day trip to Europe for me and my brother, Stephen, who has been diagnosed with terminal cancer. . . . We spent about $7,000 on the trip, a price that included $264 travel insurance, recommended by the travel agent in case Stephen had to cancel. A few days before the flight, he had a recurrence of a gastrointestinal ailment that is a side effect of his illness. We canceled our trip, but after we submitted paperwork for the insurance claim, the company that sold us the policy, CSA Travel Protection, said it would not return any of our money. The reason: Stephen had not seen a doctor, in person, to confirm that he'd actually been sick. The company is correct: Stephen did not see his doctor. We didn't see any reason for a visit because he'd had this very same ailment before and we knew that nothing could be done about it. We had no idea that by failing to see a doctor, we were forfeiting $7,000 without even the opportunity for a partial refund or credit.

That is an unconscionable amount of money to sacrifice on a technicality.

CSA is in fact based in San Diego and this has landed on your desk. CSA President Les Maine has asked you, his director of operations, for advice.

What do you, as an Objectivist, say?

Segment 2

: Applying one of the ethical theories we have studied to date, including objectivism, Briefly explain why you find Steve Jobs's decision not to

share his NEXT stock windfall with other employees ethically admirable or ethically objectionable.