Activity in business ethics

1. GENESE, Joana Syl M. March 16, 2022
GED 402- ETHICS
Pandemic Ethics by Michael Sandel
(Reflection Paper)
Michael Joseph Sandel, an American philosopher and a professor, started his discussion with
giving a hypothetical situation where everyone could be tested for the immunity to COVID- 19? How many
would agree and disagree about the idea of immunity passports in deciding who will be allowed to go
back to work? Some agreed for the reasons, it can help the country get out form economic distress and it
allows unemployed people to find opportunities. Some of the students disagreed because it might create
a perverse incentive for people who are not at risk of serious complications to expose themselves to virus
so that they can acquire this passport. By doing this, they are compromising the efforts to flatten the
curves and the issue of privacy grounds, exposing your personal information to the community. According
to one of the students, it is good if the income of those who are able to work could be shared to those
who could not but that might also raise some issues. One of the respondents gave a suggestion where it
should be primarily tested to the most important industries that were greatly affected by the pandemic.
The next proposed question is the availability of straightforward virus testing that would allow the
students to go back to face-to-face learning. The students have to take the test in a daily basis and those
who are virus- free could go back to school and those who aren’t have to stay away until they pass the
virus test. Reasons for agreeing include the comparison on vaccination as a condition for public schools to
return to the campus. One student raised an argument that these daily tests are only beneficial or
advantageous for the people who are already very healthy and strong, and disadvantageous to those who
are weak and have history of illness. One disagreed because of the probable cost if the virus tests would
be done on a daily basis, until we could find a way to provide access to all different people by offering
financial aid for vaccines and the proposed test, then, daily testing would not be an appropriate way to
move forward. This student brought up equality or the issue of being privilege, what if Harvard is one of
the few schools who is privileged enough to re- open its door to the students and provide daily testing
because they have a great medical school, how about the schools who are less privileged? This was
followed by a student where she was also concerned with equity issues but she would not allow equity
concerns to override the desirability of reopening the campus and that benefitting few is better that
benefitting none. Another question was raised that suggests an analogy which has something to do with
life and death. In USA, an average of 40,000 people dies every year because of auto accidents. The
questions go like, should we be willing to pay similar price in lives in order to reopen large parts of the
economy? If they are prepared to do in auto accidents, should they be prepared to do it in the case of
COVID- 19? If the country could reopen large parts of economy in expense of 40,000 annual deaths
because of COVID- 19? Should they be willing to accept the number of deaths in exchange of reopening
parts that could help the economy grow? Objections include the autonomy of an individual, that it is not
the choice of the people to be infected by the virus. And the automobile accidents are not comparable
with the current pandemic situations because automobile accidents are not transmissible. Support
includes the significant impacts of shutting down the economy to the lives of people. Because if the
economy would not re- open, economical and societal problems might arise including poverty, increase
of crimes, etc. Many people rely on shoppers and delivery services with the fear of getting the virus. By

2. this, we can actually think that we ae paying other people to take the risk for us. Isit ethically objectionable
to hire a shopper or someone who works part- time/ gig, to do our shopping for us in exchange of paying
them, or not? One participant pointed out that society should not be structured in a way that an individual
would be left with no choice but to take the risk because of the situation he/ she is in. Just because a
person is doing because it is the way how the society functions does not mean that is the way it should
be because by doing that, we are basically trading off life for money. It depends on the situation of the
one hiring, if he/ she can’t, then hiring someone would be reasonable. But if you are in a situation where
you are able, then, putting someone else’s life in danger is not the necessary and moral thing to do. Some
thinks it’s morally acceptable for the reasons that the person taking that risk is making an informed choice
and that we are already operating in a system where we pay others to take the risk for us. For instance,
we pay doctors for them to treat us but they would be taking the risk of getting infected especially if the
patient has a transmissible disease or a virus. It is not ethically objectionable because people aren’t forced
to do it, it is their choice and way for them to survive. One said that as long as people are finding some
way to compensate one another for the risks that others take as a form of service, no one’s autonomy is
being violated. Also, I agree that there is a powerful consequentialist argument, that is benefits everyone
and minimizes the total amount of risk on the collective. For instance, instead of going out with your family
to buy groceries, a person can do it for you. For that person doing the job, it is an opportunity for them to
earn more. In my experience, when I buy from grabfood, the riders usually say “thank you po sa order
ma’am”, it is an opportunity for them to earn more for them to provide for their family. Mr. Sandel
expanded the situation and connected it to the current phenomenon. Is it morally permissible to pay
people to test the vaccine or not? One said that it is morally permissible as it is about respecting the
autonomy of an individual as long as his consent is informed, also with conditions that they are being
taken care of by medical experts and the bets of their ability and they are in a controlled environment.
The discussion ended by the testimonies of two people who experienced the virus.
The proposed questions were all interesting and made the students participative especially by
voicing out their grounds and defending it. The participants were from different departments and some
of them were professionals, young professionals, and students. Despite the difference of their status, they
got to share their thoughts confidently. In this style of teaching, the students would really focus on the
topics and be participative. As I was watching the discussion, I learned a lot from the different perspectives
of different people with different professions. And if I were to ask those questions, I don’t think I could
answer them the way the participants defended their point of views. I learned and understand the
approval and oppositions of the participants and was amazed by the way they defended every bit of their
answers. On the first situation, I actually agree on immunity passports as a way to determine those people
who can go back to work. There was this one argument that immunity passport could be good if the
populations who could not go back to work would benefit from the income of those who could. I disagree,
because I believe that helping someone should be voluntarily. I also agree to virus testing for students to
determine whether they could go back to face-to-face classes or not. But I disagree on the concept that it
should be done daily. We should consider the factors in doing daily virus testing. How much would it cost
the students? How much time would it take to tests all the students daily? But this argument also made
me think, it would be more beneficial for those who are fit, healthy, and strong. How about those who
are not? Are they going to be left out? No, they could participate in alternative learning similar to what
we are experiencing right now. Because, if we do not try the possible solution that we have, when are we
going to be okay? Are we just going to wait until the last virus disappears? On the third situation, am I
willing to reopen large parts of the economy in expense of 40,000 annual COVID- 19 deaths? This is a very

3. risky question for me as it talks about life and death. I understood the different sides and learned about
the understanding of different participants. Some said yes while other said no. Yes, because if we examine
the annual deaths of COVID- 19, it ranges around 30, 000 to 50, 000 so it does not make much difference
to the given example. But at least in the example, there is a condition that we could open large parts of
the economy which would benefit many people. No, because it is not the individual’s choice to be infected
by the COVID-19, so it has something to do with the autonomy of the person. On the last situation, Birukti
answered that just because that is how the way we do it, does not mean it is right. It is impossible to be
ethically correct in all parts of our lives because we are not perfect and we do not have a perfect society.
But because of the situation we are experiencing right now, it is unethical and morally objectionable
because the risk is serious, it is more that just somebody falling or slipping but that somebody could die
and also could spread the virus. At first, for me, hiring someone to do groceries for you in exchange of
paying them is not ethically objectionable because it is the person’s choice. But the question is that, is it
ethically objectionable? Out of all the participants, she made the most impact to me. When she said that
the situation between the hiring someone to do grocery shopping for you and paying someone to test
vaccines is different, I was amazed by her answer. She said that the purpose of the two situation is
different, the other is selfish while the other is not. When you hire someone to do something for you
because you do not want to take the risk yourself, then, that is selfish. But when you pay someone to test
vaccines, given the conditions that you are the CEO of a testing company and you do not have enough
volunteers, it is not selfish because those vaccines might be the answer to the phenomenon and this
would help the majority. During the 48 minutes of the video, I was focused on the discussions. I learned a
lot of things from different people. I also learned how to properly defend my beliefs. In every situation,
we must consider the words, ethical and moral.