Philosophy & Business Ethics research paper  ORDER NOW

Answer on philosophy & business ethics  Question #1 and Question #2 in an essay format paper. Both questions 3 pages each. Paper Req: Double Spaced, Times New Roman, 12 size font. Need both of them by the 19th. Use atleast 1 source for each and cite at end. Would like above an 90% so only bid if you are familiar with topics. Thank you. Regarding question #2 i think adam smith and aristotle would be the easiest to talk about but you choose whatever based off your research and what you can write.

Final Exam Prompt

INSTRUCTIONS: respond to each of the following short-essay question in 3 to 4 pages
per question (a total of 6 to 8 pages in standard formatting). Please follow all instructions
and policies as detailed in the syllabus for assignment submissions via D2L. The exam is
due Friday March 20 th by 5pm.
1. Toward the end of the class, we examined Wendy Brown’s argument that
neoliberalism poses a threat to overturn the promises of Adam Smith’s vision
of an ethically robust capitalist society (i.e., liberal democracy). In this
response, supply a detailed account of Brown’s argument against neoliberalism
in relationship to Smith. Explain at least two specific ways in which
neoliberalism, on Brown’s account, may contradict or run counter to Smith’s
understanding of a capitalist society (be sure to supply explicit references to
and analysis of Smith’s arguments). Then, evaluate Brown’s argument: does
neoliberalism appear to be as ethically damaging to a capitalist society as she
argues?
2. Throughout this class we have seen a variety of thinkers present
philosophically unique ethical systems,(Aristotle, Adam Smith, Wendy Brown,
Milton Friedman, Bowie, ) all of which seem to agree in a fundamental ethical
task to preserve, what we might just call, human dignity. Pick any two of the
thinkers we have explored in this class and provide an account of how they can
help us to understand this fundamental task of preserving human dignity in
our contemporary world of business and commercial life. In what ways do
your two thinkers agree or disagree about, on the one hand, what that basic
human dignity is and, on the other hand, the ways it is either promoted or
endangered?

 

Question 1

Philosophy & business ethics. Adam Smith was a philosopher who participated in the understanding of democracy in the capitalistic world. He developed the idea of liberal democracy by giving his thoughts on reasonable freedom in trade and business. Adam Smith advocated for free markets in a capitalistic society with minimal influence from the government. He claims that the system of natural liberty allows both the producer and the consumer to benefit. The producer sells a product at a price that adds profit and acceptable to the consumers. Also, the consumers will use their money to buy a product that has a favorable rate with the aim of self-interest. Smith believed that the good of society could be enhanced by individual freedom and the state working without manipulating the market system. His view of liberal democracy is freedom, equality before the law, and increased division of labor (Kim, 2019).

Wendy Brown’s argument on philosophy & business ethics

Philosophy & business ethics. A free market characterizes neoliberalism with increased competition, open trades, removal of tariffs, and the use of economic policies favorable to the business. This system does not consider the poor people, class separation, resource depletion, and poor environment. The system thrives in an authoritarian regime and encourages corruption in a civil society. Neoliberalism views the market and the economy as politically constructed by laws and institutions. Neoliberalism protects the market and the marketplace using policies and regulations to facilitate competition, rational action, and free trade on behalf of society. The system functions under preconditioned decisions and legal procedures to control the market and respond to its need. The state uses policies such as immigration, public education, monetary, and fiscal to return to the needs of the market. The rule ensures that the economy is healthy and has the responsibility to control its growth under the state’s legitimacy (Leshem, 2019).

Wendy Brown’s argument on neoliberalism conflicts with Smith’s ideas of a capitalistic society that he had envisioned. Smith believes that a market is a natural system guided by the needs of the producer and the consumers. He claims that the producer focuses on his benefits and considers the state of the consumers. However, Wendy Brown’s argument counteracts the vision of Smith. Neoliberalism views the economy and the market as a structured system by the state through laws and political contributions. The market is controlled by rules and policies that guide both producers and consumers to act according to the state’s legitimacy. In a competitive world, neoliberalism does not trust that people can control their system in the market (Kim, 2019).

Also, Smith’s vision was a capitalistic society that uses sympathy to achieve one’s needs and considers others. Smith envisioned an organization that can allow capitalistic to exist without government interventions. Neoliberalism claims that liberal democracy was based on hypocrisy and was the anticipation of fantasy without analyzing the facts in society. Wendy’s argument makes sense that neoliberalism does not support Smith’s vision of a capitalistic society. It views the community as a whole and not in individuals. It fails to recognize the poor and distribute resources equally but uses rules and policies to stabilize an economy where each individual is guided by their selfish ambitions (Leshem, 2019).

Does neoliberalism appear to be ethically damaging to a capitalistic society

Neoliberalism puts pressure on individuals to achieve a capitalistic life measured on one’s ownership of properties and monetary values. This aspect damages the liberal capitalistic, where success was based on increased productivity with a high level of division of labor. The individualistic aspect brought by neo-liberalism pushes people into acting against policies and the law. Some people will be compelled to corrupt to achieve a property or gain a highly competitive edge. Neoliberalism views competition as a means of rewarding people who put effort into their works and punishing the ineffective ones. However, this measure is based on monetary value and not on social costs eliminating the ethical aspects of capitalistic (Bloom, 2017).

Neoliberalism leads to widening disparities in socioeconomic aspects. Health inequalities are seen in several countries that initiated the neoliberal programs and policies in the healthcare sector. The poor and the disabled experience health inequalities in such countries. Privatization of public services and reduced public expenditure makes the poor and the vulnerable people of society have limited access to the best social services such as healthcare. Countries are more focused on the need to minimize direct spending on people. Thus, people are given pressure to work for welfare including disabled people and giving them state benefits. These programs and initiatives do not consider that some of the people living with a disability cannot work at all. Neoliberalism does not consider traditional ethics to foster capitalism. The system leaves people to personally conduct their lives ethically but not a comprehensive aspect (Astroulakis, 2014).

The free market is a trait of neoliberalism. The free market involves the system in the economy that has minimal government control. This system is crucial in mending the financial crisis. However, it damages the ethical aspect of having a communal need to support one another. The poor continue to be reduced because the government does not mitigate or bridge out programs for them. The rich become cunningly able to manipulate the supply-demand of products leading to a heightened disparity. People are motivated by profit-making that deprives society of the need for cohesion and social attributes to everyday wellbeing (Bloom, 2017).

Question 2

Similarities of Aristotle and Smith on human dignity

 

Both Aristotle and Adam Smith have profound contributions to the element of moral traits. The two philosophers contributed to have contributions to moral judgment, motivation, and ways in which character shapes understanding and action. Their theories expound on the role of nature and its contribution to moral life as well as social order. Both philosophers agree on the need for human dignity in society and political institutions. Both relate the concept of human dignity with justice in society. In the contemporary world, human dignity is highly valued and considered in societies and institutions (Zeng, 2018).

Aristotle concept on philosophy & business ethics

Aristotle’s concept of human dignity of importance and value in society. His work in Nicomachean ethics brings out the kindness that relates to the final good in his contributions. Magnanimity considers dignity as proper self-awareness and attracts how people treat you. Aristotle contributes to the concept of human dignity by answering the question of the best life to live in this world. He connects human dignity as living a happy life that has valuable goods such as courage, wisdom, moderation, knowledge, among others. Final social good is crucial in defining one’s life on self-sufficiency to create an ultimate end (Ramos, 2001).

Aristotle claims that self-sufficient determines whether one’s life is complete or lacking something. They are sufficient with self-determines the good that makes life worthy. Self-sufficiency can be an end in determining one’s experience of dignity. When an individual is satisfied with themself, other things possessed by people are not necessarily crucial in determining propriety. When an individual realizes that his pride is held by his interpretation of good, then all decisions and actions undertaken are geared towards achieving the sufficiency (Ramos, 2001).

A person of dignity gives attention and becomes responsible for his surroundings and the people around him or her. However, the attention that one gives to others is not measured by magnitude. The attention given to others is per the position that one holds in society. Thus, all people can practice human dignity from the slave, a prominent politician. Human dignity helps to uphold moral virtues in the community. People should perform their daily lives and activities with high consideration of others. Seeking self-sufficiency in life should not overpower the attention of others and their needs. Thus, Aristotle upholds self-regarding virtue and dignity together but as distinct concepts (Dierksmeier, 2015).

Adam Smith concept of human dignity

According to Adam Smith, human dignity is the concept of valuing one another. It involves some rights, restrictions, and treatment by others that demonstrate human dignity. Smith claims that people can hold each other naturally in the concept of equality. He has a deep understanding of the aspect natural way of living in a society that looks upon each other. Smith believes that an organization can be guided by the people who live in it without government control. As a result, the people are able to live with each other supporting one another and exercising dignity. Human rights are crucial, and Smith is keen on upholding them in the face of an economic society (Debes, 2012).

Differences between the two thinkers

The two thinkers disagree on the concept of human dignity and its occurrence. Aristotle claims that human dignity occurs in the process of seeking sufficiency in life. Pride and self-sufficiency go hand in hand but are different concepts. This philosopher argues that as one is seeking his higher sense of personal satisfaction, he or she should consider the good of others. Whereas Smith recognizes the virtue of self-dignity as a natural system where people treat each other with equality. Aristotle claims that human dignity is meeting other people’s needs in one’s position in society. Whereas, Smith illustrates that human dignity is part of life where people value one another in the community they co-exist (Debes, 2012).

Smith has a direct explanation of how people treat each other with dignity to achieve equity in the community. On the other hand, Aristotle connects pride with self-sufficiency and the means to achieve happiness. Smith does not separate dignity from other aspects of life and fails to connect it to life satisfaction. However, Aristotle discusses dignity as a means of achieving an end that can be happiness. He describes justice separate from other virtues of ethics. Justice guides the souls into having a stable moral judgment. Smith claims that social ethics are ingrained in the cultural aspects of living without separating it from other concepts (Debes, 2012). Unlike Aristotle, Smith views human dignity in a world of liberty and free society.

Promotion and endangering of human dignity

Human dignity is promoted in contemporary society through laws and policies. The current world is complex, unlike the world that Smith and Aristotle claim to exist. People can be selfish, and the world can be hostile. In this case, human dignity is promoted through human rights with institutions placed to oversee its execution. The political institutions and non-profit organizations are committed to upholding human dignity through social programs and initiatives that meet their needs. However, the social imbalance and discriminations endanger the concept of human dignity in society and institutions. In most cases, people are guided by policies and social structures to uphold dignity in a diverse community characterized by globalization (Debes, 2012).

 

 

 

 

 

Looking for a similar assignment? Our writers will offer you original work free from plagiarism. We follow the assignment instructions to the letter and always deliver on time. Be assured of a quality paper that will raise your grade. Order now and Get a 15% Discount! Use Coupon Code "Newclient"