Gender Discrimination
Week 3 Guidance
I would like to do two things in this week’s guidance. First, I would like to go over some basics about writing argumentative essays. This will be very concise, and it is assumed that you will supplement this with sections 9.1 and 9.2 on writing argumentative essays in the book With Good Reason: A Guide to Critical Thinking by Hardy, Foster, and Zúñigo y Postigo (2015). Then I will review arguments from the reading from our course textbook.
Writing an Argumentative Essay
Most of you have taken PHI 103 at Ashford and learned about the components of arguments. Let me briefly review some important vocabulary that’s relevant and that provides a reliable approach to writing argumentative papers.
There are two sides to any issue. In a debate about an issue, we take a position and provide an argument for our position. The position is the conclusion of our argument, and the reasons we give for that conclusion are the premises. Take, for example, the following issue: Is New York style pizza the best pizza? There are basically two possible answers to this question, and they are the two possible conclusions: 1.) New York pizza is the best pizza; and 2.) New York pizza is not the best pizza. Those two options answer the question raised by the issue.
A side note: If we wish to learn the issue that an argument attempts to settle, all we need to do is identify the conclusion of the argument and re-phrase that conclusion in the form of a question.
After providing an introduction to the topic and issue taken up in the argumentative paper, the next step is to state the thesis. The thesis in an argumentative paper is the conclusion to the argument made in the paper. (This shouldn’t be confused with the concluding paragraph or paragraphs of the essay as such.) When formulating a thesis, I suggest keeping in mind that the thesis is simply your answer to the question raised in the issue. And keep it just that simple. The remainder of the argumentative paper will be the justification for that position asserted in the thesis.
(The Week 3 written assignment requires two premises and each should have a paragraph devoted to supporting it. It also requires that the opposing position be examined by looking at how a different ethical theory would view the same issue.)
One of the most important elements in any argumentative essay is the rebuttal of the opposing side’s strongest points or premises. This is important for a number of reasons. By giving careful consideration to the other position in the debate, our own understanding of the issue is likely to become much more subtle and less one-sided.
It is often the case that issues seem simple at first glance, and that the answer to the question raised by the issue appear obvious. However, there tend to be reasons why people argue about topics. They issues tend to be controversial. And while it may be the case that people who argue on one side of the debate are merely wrong, things are rarely so simple. So it behooves us to understand the position of our opponents. We are likely to realize that the issue is more complicated and characterized by more nuance than we at first believed.
In additional to encouraging us to look deeper into the given issue, another reason for addressing the strongest of the objections to our position is that by doing so we are much more likely to actually engage the interest and consideration of those members of our reading audience who disagree with us. Addressing the strongest objection shows that we are sincerely engaged in the debate, that we have considered the other side of the issue, and that we acknowledge that there is something to be said for the other side. The audience is more likely to listen to our points, and they are also more likely to learn from the argument and potentially change their own position with respect to the issue. If we ignore their position entirely, opponents of our own position are more likely to dig in their heels and become defensive. No progress is possible, at the point.
Chapter 7, Financial Ethics, addresses ethical issues related businesses financial accounting and reporting.
Our textbook take up the issue (in section 7.3, Government Regulation in Accounting) whether or not the government should regulate business accounting.
You will recall that capitalism in its complete form includes three fundamental ideas, one of which is that the economy should be run by the markets themselves rather than by government regulation (2.1.). Some argue that such matters as accounting fraud and misrepresentation of earnings need not be regulated but will take care of themselves. Market forces will address the issue without the need for external intervention.
Ethicists Adolf Berle and Gardiner Means (1932) argue that governments must regulate accounting; businesses cannot do so for themselves. Essentially, they maintain that businesses cannot be trusted because people are driven by self-interest. Corporation managers are likely to exploit workers as much as they are able in order to keep costs low and profits up; managers are likely to do whatever they can to increase their own salaries and profits of the company; and even accountants and auditors are not immune to self-serving behavior whereby they may ignore violations of ethics and accounting procedures. People are disinclined to trust financial institutions due to fraud, so it is up to the government to provide transparent auditing principles and rules. This is most likely to result in a flourishing business culture.
Henry Manne (2009) argues the opposing position, that the marketplace can govern itself. Businesses will not be able to hide their misreported earnings, for instances, without that being discovered; and once the public is aware of the deception, profits will decrease. Also, investors themselves have the responsibility and the motive to carefully examine corporate reports, which attention will likely reveal deception.
If corporations engage in fraud there will likely be lawsuits that will cut into profits; and if corporations are run contrary to the interests of shareholders so that share prices decrease, the possibility of the corporation’s being taken over or forced to merge with another corporation are likely.
Eventually, by allowing the markets and profit-driven self-interest to have its way, fraud and deception will be addressed and punished. There is no need for extra, government regulation.
Essentially, the one side argues that human nature is such that people will cheat and deceive out of self-interested desire for profit; the other side argues that the self-interested drive to profit will eventually reveal deception.
Not long after the stock market crash of 1929 which lead to the Great Depression in this country, and after Berle and Means presented their arguments for government regulation of corporation financing, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 instituted the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) to develop standards for accounting and corporate reporting. Regulations continued to be developed, such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which restricted the ability of companies to misrepresent their earnings and worth and thus to protect investors. Surely there is a great deal of debate about the merits of such regulations, but by and large it has been accepted that some regulations are required in order to protect investors from fraudulent activities on the part of corporation agents.
Another debate taken up in this chapter concerns insider trading (7.5) and whether or not insider trading should be allowed. Again, there are grounds for allowing insider trading in the conception of complete capitalism, and arguments have been put forth to make the case for it.
Insider trading happens when an “insider” -- which according to the SEC is any company officer or director or any shareholder who owns more than 10% of the company – takes advantage of information they have by virtue of being an insider. In 1980, the SEC, following a Supreme Court decision, developed the principle that trading with the benefit of private, insider information was a form of fraud. The reasoning behind this is that insiders have a fiduciary duty to represent the interests of their shareholders (those who buy and sell stock in the company). Insider trading violates that responsibility since the insider places her or his interests above the shareholders she or he represents.
The case can be made that insider trading is valuable to capitalism and the flourishing of the marketplace since insider trading is a form of communicating information to other investors. Investors, knowing that insider trading is common, follow the trading habits of insiders and, if they see a trend based on obvious insider knowledge, will act on that trend just as others will then act on the trend. The word gets out, and the money follows, often for gain on the part of those who are attentive. There is no need for the government to regulate this. Additionally, there are internal rules that companies can develop to make sure that employees who are insiders do not share or benefit from information that they get due to their insider status. Again, there is no need for the government to get involved.
On the other side of the issue, it is argued that insider trading is simply not fair. It is not fair that an insider with possession of knowledge in advance of others can profit from that knowledge well before the information becomes public. Moreover, insider trading represents a breach of trust, since the information was obtained with the implicit agreement that it was private. Finally, there is evidence that suggests that when insider trading is addressed through regulation there tends to be less volatility in the stock market, and this encourages investment in the markets. So, when insider trading is regulated, it is not only morally better but it is also better for the marketplace.
Chapter 9: Environmental Issues
Reading related to BP case study: Varieties of Environmental Positions (in section 9.1); Free Market Response to Environmentalism (in 9.1); The Regulatory Response (in 9.3); and Social and Private Costs (in 9.6).
While there are no arguments, Varieties of Environmental Positions provides the basic position of the environmental movement, including the population explosion, unsustainable economic growth, short-sightedness for profit with respect to the environment, with respect to profit, as well as an arrogance regarding the human being’s value while not acknowledging the intrinsic value of other living creatures on the earth.
The two main positions with respect to the environment are environmental anthropocentrism and biocentrism.
Environmental anthropocentrism holds that our moral responsibility towards the environment begins and ends with our moral responsibility towards other human beings. The environment itself is not considered to have any direct moral worth, but is valuable only to the extent that it impacts human beings in their activities and interests.
Biocentrism holds that the environment is intrinsically valuable outside of human interests. In this view, unlike the former, it is morally wrong to poison the waterways, even if people might not be affected in any way.
Free Market Response to Environmentalism
In keeping with the position that capitalism in its complete form should include no regulations by the government, it is argued that environmental restrictions are unnecessary. Restrictions on human behavior and business runs contrary to human value and the value of human activities in pursuit of the fulfillment of desires and needs.
And our textbook gives examples of unintended negative consequences of regulations. Attention is often brought to such regulations and their consequences as evidence that the environmental restrictions are unfair to businesses.
The Regulatory Response (in section 9.3) describes actions on the part of the government to address the impact by business on the environment, on the one hand, and the impact of regulations on jobs.
