Homework question for college level Ethics class?
927900
Nozick illustrates and defends the entitlement theory in a famous thought-experiment involving the basketball player Wilt Chamberlain. Imagine a society in which the distribution of wealth fits a particular structure or pattern favored by a non-entitlement conception of justice - suppose, to keep things simple, that it is an equal distribution, and call it D1. Nozick's opponent must of course grant that this distribution is just, since Nozick has allowed the opponent himself to determine it. Now suppose that among the members of this society is Wilt Chamberlain, and that he has as a condition of his contract with his team that he will play only if each person coming to see the game puts twenty-five cents into a special box at the gate of the sports arena, the contents of which will go to him. Suppose further that over the course of the season, one million fans decide to pay the twenty-five cents to watch him play. The result will be a new distribution, D2, in which Chamberlain now has $250,000, much more than anyone else - a distribution which thereby breaks the original pattern established in D1. Now, is D2 just? Is Chamberlain entitled to his money? The answer to these questions, Nozick says, is clearly "Yes." For everyone in D1 was, by hypothesis, entitled to what he had; there is no injustice in the starting point that led up to D2. Moreover, everyone who gave up twenty-five cents in the transition from D1 to D2 did so voluntarilyand thus has no grounds for complaint; and those who did not want to pay to see Chamberlain play still have their twenty-five cents, so they have no grounds for complaint either. But then no one has any grounds for a complaint of injustice; and thus there is no injustice.\n\nWhat this shows, in Nozick's view, is that all non-entitlement theories of justice are false. For all such theories claim that it is a necessary condition for a distribution's being just that it have a certain structure or fit a certain pattern; but the Wilt Chamberlain example (which can be reformulated so that D1 is, instead of an egalitarian distribution, a distribution according to hard work, desert, or whatever) shows that a distribution (such as D2) can be just even if it doesn't have a particular structure or pattern.\n\nMoreover, the example shows that "liberty upsets patterns," that allowing individuals freely to use their holdings as they choose will inevitably destroy any distribution advocated by non-entitlement theories, whether they be socialist, egalitarian liberal, or some other theory of distribution. And the corollary of this is that patterns destroy liberty, that attempts to enforce a particular distributional pattern or structure over time will necessarily involve intolerable levels of coercion, forbidding individuals from using the fruits of their talents, abilities, and labor as they see fit. As Nozick puts it, "the socialist society would have to forbid capitalist acts between consenting adults." This is not merely a regrettable side-effect of the quest to attain a just distribution of wealth; it is a positive injustice, for it violates the principle of self-ownership.\n\nDistributive justice, properly understood, thus does not require a redistribution of wealth; indeed, it forbids such a redistribution. Accordingly, the minimal state, far from being inconsistent with the demands of distributive justice, is in fact the only sure means of securing those demands.
287678
Try this, http://www.collegeboard.com/appt/qotd/question
144417
a good question to make us do your homework
659964
ethics is the most difficult. simply because it does not exist! you learn it but very few people or corporations that use them. there are such rare companies like TAHITIAN NONI INTERNATIONAL.
465365
do your own homework!
70018
Do your own homework.  If you read your assignments you'll be able to answer this question.
370172
DO YOUR OWN HOMEWORK!
769138
1. There are no ethics in business.\n\n2. Business is in and of itself dishonest.\n\n3. White collar crime does not need to be taught, it is inherent.
841650
An ethical dilemma could be if a child that she is involved with the investigation of is the child of a family member.  If she knows of abuse of a program of aid and doesn't report it because she personally knows the person that's abusing it...stuff like that....it would be a dilemma if she is personally at gain or loss from it.
118128
Just try Googling "gambling sports" and maybe the words "discussion debate morality ethic" and see what comes up.  It's a common enough topic of discussion.  Try your local librarian, too - they are really very good at what they do, they want to help you more than I do, and it's free!
512606
Okay, I'm tempted to offer to put you out of your misery.\n\nThis is a big topic and you have to find a meaningful focus. Do you want to talk about the ethical debate? Do you want to discuss the legal issues? \n\nHere's one idea, since it's civics: Look at the one country where euthanasia is legal, Holland, and talk about whether the law there would be a good or bad model for the United States to follow. Is the enactment of such a law desirable? Would it be workable in the climate of the US given the polarization over the abortion issue? Is this something that could be enacted nationally or only statewide, as the mercy-killing law in Oregon. \n\nI've cited a few websites below that could be useful starting points, but you problem need to delve into hard-copy stuff, journals and books.\n\nHope this idea is helpful. Better get going.
280827
see here http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mikuleck/courses/ch4/sld029.htm
768907
Do your own homework!
433016
Michael Josephson, in Chapter 1 of "Ethical Issues in the Practice of Accounting," 1992, described the "Ten Universal Values." They were as follows: honesty, integrity, promise-keeping, fidelity, fairness, caring, respect for others, responsible citizenship, pursuit of excellence, and accountability.\n\nCatherine Gowthorpe and John Blake, in "Ethical Issues in Accounting," 1998 cover the ethical implications of several aspects of accounting. For information on this book, see sources.
209046
Do your own homework. (At least don't put the question down exactly as it is on your paper.)
1035976
I can't offer you any examples (that would be a violation of policy and ethics), but I can tell you what you should include.\n\nWho am I (education, experience, awards, skills, distinctions, etc.)?\nWhy am I interested in this field of study?\nWhy am I particularly qualified for graduate study in this area? How have I prepared for study in this field?\nWhy am I interested in this particular program?\nWhat is my potential specific area of interest? Why?\nWhat are my interests or influences in terms of theory?\nWhat are my long-term goals?\n\nAnd for goodness sake, PROOFREAD for grammar and spelling errors!  Your application statement should be in PERFECT English (or whatever language the program favors).\n\nIf there are any blemishes on your undergraduate transcript, or gaps in your preparation, explain them.\n\nAlso, it's always a good practice to show familiarity with current literature in the field, *especially* if you are not submitting a current writing sample.\n\nOne other piece of advice: Tailor each statement of intent for each program. Speak with your current professors before you apply, and ask about the strengths of various programs. You should already know which scholars are of greatest interest to you as mentors, but it is always wise to ask current professors if they know these scholars. (You may learn that Professor XX, while brilliant, is a lousy mentor for grad students.) \n\nHope this helps!
1141124
Come on now, What have I always told you in class- NO CHEATING!  Do your own homework!