3/14/20  NEW TIPS  COMMON GRADING COMMENTS FOR BUSB 300 Start numbering from the first entry (University…) through to the last reference listed  You might want to start your paper by restating the issue/question to be analyzed followed by listing all the theories, models and other course concepts that you will be using in the analysis. This serves two purposes, 1. It alerts the reader 2. It gives you a reference checklist to determine if you have complied with all of the minimum requirements for this assignment. Using headings (i.e. MORAL IMAGINATION)will also help to keep both the reader and you on track. Conclude by answering the case question, and briefly summarizing  how this conclusion was supported by the course concepts used. Direct quotes, even partial ones, need to cite a pg. no. if a no.  is unavailable then give me the paragraph no Okay, but, as we discussed in class, you must identify define and then apply each of the four (4) theses stated in your text. It might be easier to start with Consequentialism  and then insert Universalism, Hedonism, and end with Maximalism. (ask in class or call me) Is it asking too much of any Co., that did not create the poverty, to impoverish itself by continuing the projects alone and at the same level, at this time?  (NOT too much to lose. ask me and see syllabus WEEK I) . At the same level? Is this the maximal option? Are there any other reasonably viable alternative options (under Hedonism)? What about the use of Moral Imagination? Does this fit with the “Guidelines for Strategic CSR Programs”? 03/18/20 KANT’S THREE (3) FORMULATIONS OF THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE. Kant’s theory is stated by  Boatright and Smith as: Universalizability Act according to that maxim which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. Respect for persons Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or that of another, always as an end and never as a means only.                                                                    (2017, pgs. 52-53)   While this is not inaccurate, it tends to be insufficient, for a thorough analysis by most students. Therefore, I will expect that all of the following formulations, as restated by  Norman E, bowie, will be used in your analyses in this course. 1. Act only on maxims which you can will to be universal laws of nature. 2. Always treat the humanity in a person as an end, and never as a means merely. 3. So act as if you were a member of an ideal kingdom of ends in which you were both subject and sovereign at the same time. As cited in J. Donaldson and P.Werhanes’ Ethical Issues in Business, a Philosophical Approach, 2008, pg. 57 The first formulation establishes a duty onhumankind that must be rational(supported by reason), and not self-defeating  (reasonably impossible to perform and still comply with the adopted maxim)    As you will notice, the first formulation is informed by the second and then the third formulation. According to the.

1. 3/14/20 NEW TIPS
COMMON GRADING COMMENTS FOR BUSB 300
Start numbering from the first entry (University…) through to
the last reference listed
You might want to start your paper by restating the
issue/question to be analyzed followed by listing all the
theories, models and other course concepts that you will be
using in the analysis. This serves two purposes, 1. It alerts the
reader 2. It gives you a reference checklist to determine if you
have complied with all of the minimum requirements for this
assignment. Using headings (i.e. MORAL IMAGINATION)will
also help to keep both the reader and you on track.
Conclude by answering the case question, and briefly
summarizing how this conclusion was supported by the course
concepts used.
Direct quotes, even partial ones, need to cite a pg. no. if a no.
is unavailable then give me the paragraph no
Okay, but, as we discussed in class, you must identify define
and then apply each of the four (4) theses stated in your text. It
might be easier to start with Consequentialism and then insert
Universalism, Hedonism, and end with Maximalism. (ask in
class or call me)
Is it asking too much of any Co., that did not create the poverty,
to impoverish itself by continuing the projects alone and at the
same level, at this time?
(NOT too much to lose. ask me and see syllabus WEEK I)
. At the same level? Is this the maximal option? Are there any
other reasonably viable alternative options (under Hedonism)?
What about the use of Moral Imagination?
Does this fit with the “Guidelines for Strategic CSR Programs”?
03/18/20
KANT’S THREE (3) FORMULATIONS OF THE
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE.
Kant’s theory is stated by Boatright and Smith as:

2. Universalizability
Act according to that maxim which you can at the same time
will that it should become a universal law.
Respect for persons
Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or
that of another, always as an end and never as a means only.
(2017, pgs. 52-53)
While this is not inaccurate, it tends to be insufficient, for a
thorough analysis by most students. Therefore, I will expect that
all of the following formulations, as restated by Norman E,
bowie, will be used in your analyses in this course.
1. Act only on maxims which you can will to be universal laws
of nature.
2. Always treat the humanity in a person as an end, and never as
a means merely.
3. So act as if you were a member of an ideal kingdom of ends
in which you were both subject and sovereign at the same time.
As cited in J. Donaldson and P.Werhanes’ Ethical Issues in
Business, a Philosophical Approach, 2008, pg. 57
The first formulation establishes a duty onhumankind that must
be rational(supported by reason), and not self-defeating
(reasonably impossible to perform and still comply with the
adopted maxim)
As you will notice, the first formulation is informed by the
second and then the third formulation. According to the second
formulation, one can only adopt a maxim that treats persons
who are capable of reasoning, as having intrinsic versus
instrumental value (as a thing).
Further, the third formulation requires that nobody is above the
law, in that one cannot make an exception for oneself. The
adopted maxim must be equally enforced in relevantly similar
situations.

3. Since the above “come as a set” they must each be
separately identified, defined and then applied to the facts in
any analysis which is using this theory for support.
H. 9 NOTES TO STUDENTS
Why is it that we can hold companies to the same legal and
ethical standards and principals as we do human air-breathers?
After all, they are not alive or even sentient beings. They are
legal citizens but not natural citizens. They are incapable of
taking actions independent of the human air-breathers involved
with them. So, why then, can we intelligently consider holding
them morally culpable or legally liable for their actions instead
of only looking to the culpability or liability of the human air-
breathers involved? Wouldn’t that be akin to holding a rock to
those same standards and principals?
Elements of Negligence: Any foreseeable plaintiff (injured
party) can sue anyone in the commercial chain of distribution.
1. Duty; did the defendant (injuring party) have a duty to the
plaintiff (injured party)? How would a reasonable person be
expected by society to act under similar circumstances? I f the
defendant (the injuring party) has special knowledge or skills
then the reasonable person for comparison would be someone
with the same type of skills or knowledge, e. g. MD to MD,
manufacturer (of a like product) to a manufacturer (of a like
product).
2. Breach; was this duty not performed by the holder of the
duty?
3. Causation in many jurisdictions is a two-pronged test as
follows:
a. Actual cause (factual direct cause)-"but for" the defendant's
(injuring party) breach of his duty the plaintiff (injured party)
would not have suffered this injury.
b. Proximate cause (legal cause) --- is it "reasonably
foreseeable" that if the defendant breached his duty that
plaintiff would have suffered this type of injury? As a matter of
public policy, to what extent should the defendant be held

4. responsible for the breach of his duty?
Because this standard for proximate causation can be very
difficult to determine, some jurisdictions have adopted a
"substantial factor" test for causation. Was the defendant's
action a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injury?
Damages; did the plaintiff (injured party) suffer a wrongful
harm which can reasonably be compensated?
Example scenario:
Do you owe a duty to everyone who is in peril? Would it be fair
to impose a duty on anybody if that actor did not know, or have
reason to know, of the other party’s peril? For example, if you
were on shore at a body of water and you became aware that
someone was drowning, would you have a duty to jump in and
rescue? This may surprise some of you, but, the answer is
typically no! Not legally or morally. Why? Unless, we can
establish a duty for another reason, such as a contractual duty—
because you are an on-duty lifeguard – or by special
relationship e. g. a parent/child or employer/employee, etc. and
you have the requisite skills (capability/ability) there is no duty.
Otherwise, we may be imposing too great a burden on you.
Why? Because (in this case especially)we may be unfairly
requiring you to put your life in peril. Often a drowning person,
in an effort to keep from drowning will panic and take down his
would-be rescuer. You may, however, be reasonably expected to
call others – with the requisite skills –to render aid.
Now let’s change the facts (context); suppose you got into a
lifeboat and as you got closer to the drowning person you
realized that it was Bob. Well, you did not have any special
relationship with Bob, and you are not contractually obligated
to rescue a drowning person, furthermore, you never did like
Bob so you put up your oars and watch him drown. Any legal
liability or moral culpability since initially you did not have a
duty to rescue? Surprisingly, yes, to both. Why? Because, by

5. starting to rescue, you may have prevented or seriously
discouraged others to rescue. You have now voluntarily
undertaken a duty where there was no initial duty. And you
must now act like a reasonable person in executing that duty—
even if it is to Bob. Also, you may now be “the last chance” for
Bob. Although you still are not required to put your life in peril
by jumping in.
Again let’s change the context. Now you are rowing out to
rescue Bob and he is sufficiently struggling so that he is
temporarily keeping his head above water. In your haste to
rescue you are not paying real close attention and hit Bob on the
head with one of the oars and rendered him unconscious. Are
you obligated to do more than just throw Bob a lifeline? Yes,
since you have now put Bob in greater peril than he was
initially, you may be reasonably expected to even jump in to
rescue Bob. Why would this not constitute “ not too much to
lose by the actor”? Because when one is the cause of another’s
peril we expect the actor to shoulder a greater burden to correct
or prevent the wrongful harm created by his unreasonable
wrongful action or failure to act. In fairness, the greater burden
should be borne by the relatively innocent of the two parties—
Bob.
Defenses to Negligence:
Contributory Negligence:
1. The injured party was responsible for his own injuries due in
any way to his negligence.
2. This is a complete bar to any recovery/compensation.
3. Even if the injured party was only 1% responsible (through
his own negligence) for his injury, he cannot expect
compensation from the other party. This means that someone
can injure a person up to 99% and still not have to compensate
the victim! Although, this may be legal-does it pass the test for
fairness and therefore be ethical? Because of the unfairness of
this doctrine, many jurisdictions have adopted the last clear
chance doctrine which allows the injured party to recover, even

6. though he may have also been negligent, if he can prove that the
injuring party had the last opportunity to avoid injuring him but
failed to take it.
Comparative Negligence:
Because some jurisdictions found that the above results were
too harsh on victims and that it condoned negligent behavior,
they adopted a doctrine that compares the negligence of the two
parties to determine liability for compensation.
In some jurisdictions have adopted a pure comparative
negligence test so that the injured party can recover (be
compensated) for any percentage of his injuries that did not
result for his negligence, even if it is 90% his fault. Notice,
however, that he cannot recover compensation (in this case) for
more than 10% of his injury, because he is responsible for the
other 90%. After all, is it fair to allow anyone to injure others
in any degree without compensation the injured?
Other jurisdictions have adopted a stricter modified comparative
negligence standard which combines the old contributory
negligence standard with a modified version of the more liberal
standard above. This means that the injuring party can avoid
compensating for the injury, if, he can prove that he is not
responsible for the injured party's injury by more than 50%.
This means that if someone injures another by 50% or less no
compensation is due the victim. Does it seem fair to allow
anyone to injure another up to 50% and not be required to
compensate for that percent of the injury which he caused?
Misuse
What is the merchants' duty to users of its' products?
Define "reasonable foreseeable misuse".
Even if there was some misuse by some consumers, would this
be a valid defense, in this case, considering the lack of warning
and attempts to notify all potential end-users?
ASSUMPTION OF RISK ELEMENTS
1. Injured party knew of the possible risk/ harm to himself

7. 2. He appreciated the severity of the risk/harm
3. He knew of the probability of the risk/harm occurring
4. With this knowledge, he still unreasonably went forward with
the action that caused his harm.
Although there are other defenses to negligence, they are
beyond the scope of this course and you will not be expected to
use them in your analyses.
Contractual Theory of Liability
Implied Warranty of Merchantability: Any purchaser, family
member or guest of same can sue any commercial seller
Defenses: Misuse disclaimer and Assumption of the Risk.
According to Boatright, J. and Smith, J. :
One of the usual understandings is that a product be of an
acceptable level of quality and fit for the purpose for which it is
ordinarily used These implicit contractual provisions are part of
what is described in Section 2-314 of the {Uniform Commercial
Code} UCC as an implied warranty of merchantability.
Manufacturers {and sellers} have both a moral and a legal
obligation, therefore, by virtue of their contractual relation, to
offer only products free from dangerous defects.
While this may apply to those who purchased the product
initially, would it apply for other end-users such as non-guest
caregivers or secondhand users?
Strict Liability: Anyone injured can sue anyone in the
commercial chain of distribution. Defenses: Misuse and
Assumption of the Risk.
See Boatright J. and Smith J., (2017, pgs. 200-2001).
Is this a better legal theory for the parents of the injured
children?
Does this theory cover both Kolcraft and Hasbro?
Define "unreasonably dangerous". Would this standard be
overly burdensome, and therefore unfair to impose on any
manufacturer or seller?

8. What are the ethical bases for determining moral culpability
suggested by the authors?
KANT'S THREE (3) FORMULATIONS OF THE
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE.
Kant's theory is stated by Boatright and Smith as:
Universalizability
Act according to that maxim which you can at the same time
will that it should become a universal law.
Respect for persons
Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or
that of another, always as an end and never as a means only.
(2017, pgs. 52-53)
While this is not inaccurate, it tends to be insufficient, for a
thorough analysis by most students. Therefore, I will expect that
all of the following formulations, as restated by Norman E,
Bowie, will be used in your analyses in this course.
1. Act only on maxims which you can will to be universal laws
of nature.
2. Always treat the humanity in a person as an end, and never as
a means merely.
3. So act as if you were a member of an ideal kingdom of ends
in which you were both subject and sovereign at the same time.
As cited in Donaldson J. and Werhanes P. Ethical Issues in
Business, a Philosophical Approach, 2008, pg. 57
The first formulation establishes a duty on humankind that must
be rational(supported by reason), and not self-defeating
(reasonably impossible to perform and still comply with the
adopted maxim)
As you will notice, the first formulation is informed by the
second and then the third formulation. According to the second
formulation, one can only adopt a maxim that treats persons
who are capable of reasoning, as having intrinsic versus

9. instrumental value (as a thing).
Further, the third formulation requires that nobody is above the
law, in that one cannot make an exception for oneself. The
adopted maxim must be equally enforced in relevantly similar
situations.
Since the above "come as a set" they must each be separately
identified, defined and then applied to the facts in any analysis
which is using this theory for support.
One of the problems with Kant’s theory is that once a maxim --
establishing a duty -- is adopted it is not subject to change.
Therefore, one must be careful in the wording of the maxim. If
the maxim is “always tell the truth” this would obligate one to
tell the truth in situations that conflict with other duties to
members of one’s society. For instance, one would be obligated,
upon request to tell an enemy the whereabouts of members of
one’s society, thereby, ensuring their great bodily harm or death
--- a clear violation of the duty not to unjustifiably injure
members of one’s society.
So would a better maxim be “one has a duty to tell the truth so
long as;
1. one knows that the person requesting the truth is not going
to use that information to wrongfully injure members of one’s
society;
2. or that the naked truth would unfairly diminish the self-
esteem of another;
3. or that the requesting party is not reasonably expecting the
truth”?
Examples 2 & 3. Say that you and your significant other are
planning an evening out with friends and you are late because
your partner has spent a lot of time, money and effort to look
especially nice. She or he comes out of the bedroom and asks;
“How do I look”? You’re thinking “ it is not circus-tent ugly,
but, I’ve seen a better look”. There is no time to change. Do you
tell the naked truth? Will this revelation unfairly diminish the
self-esteem of the inquirer? Is the inquirer truly asking for your

10. opinion or validation of his or her opinion? Is there time to
change outfits?
Is this rather like playing poker where a bit of bluffing is
expected by all the players? But, cheating is not allowed.
If you know that true information is expected, are you
obligated to give it? Can one lie by omission?
Would the second maxim as stated above comply with the 2nd
and 3rd formulations of the categorical imperative?
What would the maxim look like that both Kolcraft and Hasbro
were adopting? Can this be applied by all other companies
without contradicting the purpose of a free market system?
Would anyone have confidence as to the quality or safety of
products and services? Would this maxim comply with Kant's
second and third formulations above? Would it treat other
market participants as having intrinsic value or only as having
instrumental value as means to gain profits? Would either
company wish to be similarly treated by other market actors?
Would they be able to transact with confidence with their
suppliers or retailers etc.?