360 Paper 2


Everybody must do case 4.  In addition to case 4, select one of the other two.

Select one of the case studies below as your topic.  In your paper, you should answer the questions associated with the case, justifying your answers.  I will evaluate the papers on the following criteria:

Organization: the paper should be well organized and present information in a logical manner

Depth of understanding of ethical issues: the paper should demonstrate that the student understands the features of the case that are relevant to business ethics.

Quality of ethical reasoning: the paper should explicitly use accepted methods of ethical reasoning correctly and completely.

Length: The response to case 4 should be no more than 300 words. The response to cases 5 or 6 should be no more than 700 words.

Due Date: Final Exam Date (The final exam is scheduled for Wednesday, May 15 1:30-4:00.  I will be in our regular classroom from about 1:30 to 2:00 collecting papers)

You may, of course arrange to get me the paper sooner, or may (at your own risk) send it with a friend or classmate.

Case Studies:

Case 4 (Required)


Is Chantale morally permitted to blow the whistle? Why or why not? Is she morally obligated to blow the whistle? Why or why not? If you need more information to answer either questions, specify what further information you would require and why that information is necessary.

Case 5


Identify two unethical practices of Ginny’s employer in this case. For each unethical practice, describe what makes the practice unethical. Also, point out where Ginny’s employers might be acting illegally as well as unethically.

Case 6


If Peter is committed to following an Affirmative Action hiring policy, what several options does he have?  Develop an argument from the moral perspective that supports an Affirmative Action hiring policy.  Does Steve have a right to the job? Why or why not?