COSC2130 Tutorial/Laboratory Sheet # 2

Philosophy of Ethics
Tutorial Sheet
1. You were taught how to analyse a case study during lab session 1. Read the
following case and answer the questions that followYou have just been appointed to the board of directors of XYZ.com.
Unfortunately, the company has been experiencing some difficult financial
times, resulting in revenue losses in three of the last four quarters. As you
assume your new position, you discover that two proposals are on the table.
Each proposal has been put forth as a means for dealing with XYZs
immediate financial problems.
Proposal #1 recommends that all employees be retained, but that an
immediate freeze on salary increases (raises) for all employees be imposed
for the next six months. (Employees may even be asked to take a 5% cut in
pay if things do not improve by the end of that period.)
Proposal #2 recommends that wages not be frozen, but that 5% of the XYZs
work force be laid off. (One piece of reasoning behind this proposal is that
taking more drastic measures will protect 95% of XYZs workers and will
send a message to Wall Street and local investors that XYZ is serious about
improving its financial position and that it will soon be a stable company
once again.)
The board is evenly split, seven members favoring proposal# 1 and seven
favoring pro- posal #2. Yours will be the tie-breaking vote.
Analyse the dilemma in the following scenario from the vantage point of both
1.11.2-

utilitarian and
deontological ethical viewpoint.

2. What is ethical relativism?

3. What (empirical) evidence is often presented to support ethical relativism?
4. Why can't happiness be the highest good for humans, according to
deontologists?
5. What is the categorical imperative?

6. Case Study: Read the following scenario and answer the questions that followFitz works in an accounting firm in Sydney. He has a lot of vacant times in his
hands during the lean period of the business. He often chats online with his
friends and some acquaintances. In addition to that he spends a long time
surfing on the net browsing different websites.
Fitzs colleague- Ben makes a complaint about him to the System
Administrator (Marc) who is his friend. Ben mentions Fitzs reckless use of
net to the system administrator while having lunch with him. Marc feels
alarmed about this- as soon as he returns from the lunch he runs a detailed
scan on Fitzs workstation. To his shock, he finds out something suspicious.
But in order to confirm his suspicions, he needs to do some more analysis.
As a part of the whole process Marc installs a script in Fitzs home drive
(which cannot be seen by Fitz as it is hidden). Two days later he finds out that
Fitz has been visiting pornographic websites as well as the adult chatting
websites. He immediately takes the matter to the Managing Director of the
department who then calls Fitz, explains him the situation and suspends him
till any further notice.
Fitz feels that his rights have been violated and files a legal case against the
department. The Managing Director is slightly nervous about it and does not
want any negative publicity.
Note: Those of you who are worndering do people really watch porn during
work?, there is a shocking staistics to prove this assertion. AC Neilsen world
renowned marketing reaserach carried out a survey and found out that porn is
in the top list of time wasters at work, right after Facebook!
The above case has been inspired by a real-life incident that happened in a
Sydney office.
Now answer the following questions:
1. Was the System Administrator ethical in doing what he did? Provide an
explanation for your reasoning.
2. Do you think Managing Director should have suspended Fitz? Provide an
explanation for your reasoning.
3. Do you think Fitz has a right to file a legal case against the department?
Provide an explanation for your reasoning.

Laboratory Sheet
Todays skill set: Moderated group discussion (a very poopular interview technique
used by prospective employers these days)
Your lab-assitant will divide the whole class into 3 groups. Each of the groups will be
allocated one of the following assertions1- Personal morality is an oxymoron.
2- Morality is simply a private matter, as a result we have no right to judge
another person.
3- Big and succesful organisations have no time to practice ethics.
Now follow these stepsEach group will be asked to step in the front and have a 10 minutes discussion on
their topic. Lab-assitant will provide you with a list of rules.
The idea is behind this exercise: potential employers want to find out how you think?
Are you a logical or a reactive person? Can you work in a group enviorment? How do
you add to a group discussion? Does anyone exhibit leadership skills?