CaseStudyAnalysesAssignment.docx

Case Study Analyses Assignment #3 (DUE: June 18th at 11:59pm)
Case Study Analyses (CSAs) are short assignments in which you analyze a case using
two of the ethical theories we have learned as well as your own judgment.
For the purposes of this assignment, each of the following counts as an ethical
theory: Act Utilitarianism, Rule Utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, Ross’ Prima Facie
Duties, Virtue Ethics, Care Ethics and Feminist Ethics. You may choose any two of
these ethical theories for your CSA, and you may choose the same two from assignment
to assignment. NOTE: Ethical Relativism (and its variations – Cultural Relativism,
Ethical Subjectivism), Ethical Objectivism, Shareholder Theory, etc., ARE NOT
ethical theories. DO NOT use them as ethical theories!
I will be grading each CSA based on how well you understand your chosen ethical
theories. I want you to demonstrate to me that you understand how to apply the chosen
ethical theories. That means you must work through the necessary rules, formulas, etc.
For example, if you are using Act Utilitarianism, you must construct a utility chart,
calculate utility for each person, etc. If you are using Kantian ethics, you must test it
using both formulations of the categorical imperative – i.e. Create a maxim; Universalize
it, Test it for contradictions, etc.
It is also very important that you explain why you assigned a particular utility, virtue,
duty, etc., to each person or action. Doing so demonstrates to me that you understand
how the ethical theory works and how to apply it.
CSAs should be no longer than 4 double-spaced pages, with regular font, font size,
margins, and paragraphing. They can be shorter than this and still receive an excellent
grade. However, if you exceed 4 double-spaced pages or try various tricks to avoid the
appearance of doing so your mark might noticeably suffer for that reason. NOTE: I do
not count charts, tables, etc. as part of the page limit.
There is no provision for accepting late work as you have the ability to hand the
assignment in at any time prior to the deadline. If you choose to leave it to the last minute
you run the risk of something happening that makes you unable to do your work. You
will therefore not earn any credit for that assignment. Similarly, I cannot accept deferrals
or adjusted timelines unless there are truly extraordinary circumstances.

Seek to answer the following questions in each CSA:

1. How would you characterize the main ethical issue in this case? For example, is the
main ethical issue an instance of fraud, employer loyalty, deception? (5 marks)
2. How would a proponent of [INSERT FIRST ETHICAL THEORY HERE] react to the
main ethical issue in this case? (15 marks for the ethical theory/5 marks for
incorporating concepts from the applicable chapter. 20 marks total)
3. How would a proponent of [INSERT SECOND ETHICAL THEORY HERE] react to
the main ethical issue in this case? (15 marks for the ethical theory/5 marks for
incorporating concepts from the applicable chapter. 20 marks total)
4. Which analysis of the main ethical issue is more convincing? Why? Why is the other
ethical theory not as convincing? (5 marks)
NOTE: You might find it useful to review the EDMF from Lecture #7 and apply it when
working through the case study. You aren’t receiving marks for this, but it may help you
identify the ethical issue, alternative actions, pros/cons, etc. – things for which you are
receiving marks.
Further, when applying the chosen ethical theories, you MUST also incorporate
concepts that we have studied since the midterm. (i.e. CSR, Fairness & NonDiscrimination, Social Action Problems, Business and the Environment, Marketing &
Advertising Ethics) Integrating chapter concepts into your ethical analysis will make for
a better answer and will result in a better grade. i.e. How might Shareholder/Stakeholder
theory affect Kantian ethics? (5 marks for each ethical theory.)
This assignment is designed to assess performance on Intended Learning Outcomes 1-4
& 6.

For CSA #3, please choose one of the cases below:

Case Study #1 – Peppermint and Gold

Yukon Cornelius is a geologist who works for a small geological company. He is
hired by an elderly woman to investigate an old family claim that the family land she
resides on contains gold. She is considering selling the land and would like to know if
there is gold present, so as to get a fair price for her property since she has many children
and grandchildren and would like to ensure that they are all well taken care of after her
death. Yukon conducts a full geological investigation of the woman’s land and
determines that there is no gold present on the property. However, he does discover that
the land contains a very large peppermint mine – enough to make the elderly woman
extremely wealthy.
While Yukon likes being a geologist, he would also like to be very rich. While
preparing his report for the woman, he begins to feel conflicted. Should he include in his
report that although gold is not present on the property, it does contain a peppermint
mine? He considers leaving out the finding of peppermint on the property and buying the
land from the elderly woman – for a price greatly below its actual value – without
revealing what he knows. Not only would he profit as a result of owning the land, but he
also owns stock in a large peppermint company. If he were to allow the company to
work the peppermint mine on the land, he would also profit from an undoubted increase
in their stock value. What should Yukon do?

Case Study #2 – Beer and Jackalopes

Drunkard’s Cloak, a well-known beer company, has one of its factories in Ontario
along Lake Superior. The factory produces substantial air and water pollution; however,
it does not exceed government regulations and is not breaking the law.
Unfortunately, the air and water pollution is of a high enough level that it has
begun to affect the local Jackalope population. Jackalope’s are rare and highly intelligent
animals, and lab experiments have demonstrated that they are the most intelligent
mammal aside from human beings. However, Jackalopes are extremely vicious and
troublesome, often goring unsuspecting farmers, stealing whiskey from sleeping
cowboys, and attacking family pets. It is unknown why they do these things. Jackalopes
are also an oddity in nature as they contribute nothing to the ecosystem, and if they were
to go extinct, there would be no serious consequences. In fact, when troublesome
Jackalope broods have been relocated in nature, the ecosystem from which they are
removed flourishes, while the ecosystem they are transferred to suffers. Flora and fauna
are so detrimentally affected that the government has made it illegal to relocate Jackalope
broods.
Lately, Jackalopes around the Drunkard’s Cloak factory have been dying. Initially
suspected to be foul play, authorities later determined that the Jackalopes died as a result
of the pollution from the Drunkard’s Cloak factory. The pollution is within government
regulations and reducing the pollution will require Drunkard’s Cloak to either reduce
production at that factory resulting in a substantial profit loss, or to equip the factory with
a state-of-the-art pollution reduction system – a system costing tens of millions of dollars.
At the factory’s current operating levels, it is estimated that all Jackalopes in the
surrounding area will be dead within two years. What should Drunkard’s Cloak do?