Algoma University Business
Ethics Essay Format (provisional)
Your essay is about 8-10
pages, double-spaced. Font –
Calibri, Font Size 12
APA citation style
The sources for your ethical theories will
be your lecture notes and textbook. No other sources are required.
For the workplace ethics topic or business ethics topic, use your
lecture notes, the links below, your textbook, other relevant links,
and/or scholarly sources.
from your textbook is the basis for your argumentative essay. You are
making an argument to defend your thesis. You will defend the thesis
that one ethical theory is more ethically significant on an issue
than the other three ethical theories. Comply with the Essay Format
on the following page.
In previous class assignments, we have applied an Ethical
Decision-Making Modelto an ethical issue in business
or the workplace … (e.g., the movie documentary on Enron … Enron:
The Smartest Guys in the Room – see
Your essay will include the following components of the Ethical
Decision Making Model:
Choose an ethical
issue–Why is it an
Think through the options
of the issue–What should have been done
Highlight the stakeholders–Who
was impacted positively and
Apply the ethical principles–Ethical
Egoism, Utilitarianism, Duty Ethics, Virtue Ethics—Evaluate the
issue according to each ethical principle.
Choose the most ethical
option from your application of Ethical Egoism, Utilitarianism, Duty
Ethics, and Virtue Ethics—Acting
according to which ethical principle would have led to the most
State your justification—Give
reasons why acting according to one of these ethical principles
would have been more ethical than the others.
(Introductory portion of your essay):
1. Introduce the topic, its context, and explain the ethical issue
is the ethical issue? (1 paragraph or more)
2. Who is impacted? —Highlight
(1 paragraph or more)
3. What should have been done or not done? What are the
paragraph or more)
portion of your essay (Your Argument = Thesis & Supporting
Points, as well as the rational justification for your Supporting
4. Then give your Thesis—The
most ethically relevant Choice
for this issue is …
(Here is a sample thesis:
according to Duty
have led to the most ethical action ….)
5. Then give justificationfor your thesis—i.e.
State your supporting points
in the order in which they will appear in your essay. (1 paragraph
for your thesis and supporting
Points & Rational Justification
Supporting point 1.
according to Duty Ethics on this issue would lead to a more ethical
action than acting according to Utilitarianism..)
After you state your supporting point clearly, explain Duty
the key points of Duty Ethics. Apply
them to the issue, and evaluate the issue according to Duty Ethics.
(1 page or more)
Then explain Utilitarianism.—Explain
the key points of Utilitarianism. Apply
them to the issue, and evaluate the issue according to
Utilitarianism. (1 page or more.)
Justification of Supporting
Point 1.: Based on your applications and evaluations
above, give at least one reason why you think Duty Ethics is more
ethically relevant than Utilitarianism on this issue. Explain.
(Write up Part 1 according appropriate paragraphs.)
Supporting point 2.
according to Duty Ethics on this issue would lead to a more ethical
action than acting according to Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics..)
After you state your supporting point clearly, explainAristotle’s
the key points of Virtue Ethics. Apply
them to the issue, and evaluate the issue according to Virtue Ethics.
(2 pages or more.)
Justification of Supporting
on your applications and evaluations, give at least one reason why
you think Duty Ethics is more ethically relevant than Virtue Ethics
on this issue. Explain. (Write up Part 2 according to appropriate
Supporting Point 3.
according to Duty ethics would lead to a more ethical action than
acting according to Ethical Egoism on the issue of … )
After you state your supporting point clearly, explainEthical
Egoism, including Enlightened Self-Interest, and, if you like,
the key points of Ethical Egoism, etc. Apply
them to the issue, and evaluate the issue according to Ethical
(1/2 page or more.)
Justification of Supporting
Point—Based on your applications and evaluations, give
at least one reason why you think Duty Ethics is more ethically
relevant to this issue than Ethical Egoism. Explain. (Write up Part 3
according to appropriate paragraphs.)
Therefore, it has been demonstrated that
Duty Ethics would lead to the most ethical action when applied to the
issue of …
your main reasons from parts 1, 2, and 3.
you have applied each ethical theory to the issue and since you have
evaluated the issue with each of the ethical theories, discuss the
importance of at least one significant ethical point from the
application of each of the other three ethical theories
(i.e., the three theories which you did not defend).(Write
at least one paragraph per ‘significant ethical point’, which
will, therefore, require at least 3 ‘significant ethical points’.)
Briefly consider how Socrates, Plato or
Gilligan might offer a more or less ethically relevant approach to
Below I have listed a number of
possible topics for the essay. Choose one of them. Or, choose a
business ethics or workplace ethics topic from another source, but
confirm it with me.
Bill Black Deutsche Bank
Bill Black Financial Crisis – 3:00
Fraud, 4:00 Liar’s Loan, 5:00 industry experts found Liar’s loans
were inflated, 6:00 all lenders were on notice that Liar’s loans
were fraudulent, 14:00 Wells Fargo does a study and finds fraud, yet
expands Liar’s Loans. 1700 Elite Fraud
Galbraith Financial ‘Crisis’ 9:00-Fraud—21:00
honest business has lower profits, (27:00 speculation in oil,) skip
AMAZON PAID NO FEDERAL CORPORATE TAX FOR
Pereira was one of the star witnesses in the Charbonneau Commission
on corruption in the construction industry. His explosive testimony
blew the lid off deep ties between Quebec’s largest union and
Pereira, union whistle-blower, tells his full story in new book |
CBC | October 17, 2015
exposed corruption in Quebec’s largest construction union says he did
it for the common man
Angels, Mob ran FTQ construction wing, witness says
testifies he turned police informant after discovering his life was
late 2006, Alayne Fleischmann, a British Columbia native, witnessed
one of the biggest white-collar crimes ever committed in America.
While she was working as a deal manager at
JPMorgan Chase, she saw the bank knowingly sell “scratch-and-dent
loans” to investors without disclosing that they were high risk.
fraudulent activity contributed to the 2008 financial crises.
Fleischmann was laid off and obligated to sign a confidentiality
agreement. She returned to B.C. and had trouble finding work with
Chase on her resume.
2012, a Federal prosecutor asked Fleischmann to be a key witness
in a lawsuit against Chase. But in May 2014, there was still no
follow up from the investigators. In truth, the Justice Department
was using her as a bargaining tool to extract money from Chase’s
CEO Jamie Dimon. This tactic worked. Dimon paid $9 billion to
keep them quiet.
that Fleischmann signed a non-disclosure agreement, could be sued
into bankruptcy, and lose her license as a lawyer, she decided
to speak up eight years after she left the company in a Rolling
January 2018, she was awarded the Wallenberg-Sugihara Civil
Courage Award, which is given to B.C. citizens who have faced
personal risk to stand up for human rights.
Fleischmann said, “It was like watching an old lady get mugged
on the street…I can’t sit by any longer…”
receives civil courage award | Terrace Standard | February
Fleischmann was presented the Wallenberg-Sugihara Civil
Courage Award on Jan. 14, an award given to B.C. connected
citizens who have faced significant personal risk to advance human
‘sick’ over JPMorgan’s settlement after financial
crisis | Toronto Star | December 17, 2014
Fleischmann says even with hindsight, she would do it all over
July 2013 Sylvie Therrien was
suspended without pay for revealing that she, like other Employment
Insurance investigators, was subject to a quota: to achieve savings
of nearly $500,000 per year by denying EI benefits to applicants.
In order to achieve these quotas, many deserving EI claimants were
being harassed and improperly penalized, she said.
felt that she could not ‘send people to the street’ in order to meet
these arbitrary targets, but was soon perilously close to the street
herself. The government fired her for cause, which means that she
would receive no EI assistance, and stripped her of her security
clearance, rendering her unemployable in the public service. Unable
to afford her rent, she found shelter sleeping on a friend’s couch.
October 2013, Therrien filed a complaint to the Office of the Public
Sector Integrity Commissioner, which was created to protect whistle
blowers in the aftermath of speaking out. It has been five years and
she still hasn’t received a response.
Therrien learned that the integrity commissioner wouldn’t
investigate her case because it was involved with the labour board,
she appealed. In January 2017, the Federal Court of Appeal said the
commissioner was able to assess the case, but decided not to.
declared bankruptcy earlier this year.
is torturous’: Federal whistleblower says Canada doesn’t protect
people who speak out | CBC | September 2, 2018
the reputation internationally of being the Titanic of whistleblower
insurance whistleblower still seeking justice three years later
Toronto Star | Jan 31, 2016
a former EI fraud investigator who spoke out about being pressured to
meet savings quotas by reducing payouts, says her …
law does little to protect public servants |
Spectator | Nov
lost her job with Service Canada after telling the media … OTTAWA
law, enacted by Prime Minister …
of EI whistleblower sets dangerous precedent, critics say | Toronto
Star | Jul
leaked documents that revealed federal investigators were told to
find $485,000 of Employment Insurance fraud every year.
Michèle Brill-Edwards is a pediatrician and clinical pharmacologist
who in 1988 became Health Canada’s senior physician responsible for
the regulation of clinical trials and market approvals of
1996 she resigned from Health Canada to speak publicly against the
undue influence of the pharmaceutical industry on the drug approval
process, and the resulting unreliable decisions endangering human
is a Canadian whistle-blower. She is a lecturer and emergency
physician in the Department of Pediatrics at the University of
Dialogue with Dr. Michele Brill-Edwards | rabble.ca | May
Michele Brill-Edwards, former senior physician with Health Canada
shares her first hand experiences with how Big Pharma influences
Flags Dangerous Flaws In Drug Regulation
Michele Brill-Edwards is a senior physician who spent 15 years with
Canada’s Health Protection Branch (HPB). She resigned after becoming
convinced that …
Vokes is a metallurgical engineer who learned that his employer,
Pipelines, often failed to comply with the engineering codes that are
essential to ensure the safety and reliability of pipelines.
raising his concerns through the line of command to the senior
executive and to the regulator without any satisfactory response, he
went public with his allegations,
which were featured on the CBC National news program in October 2012.
Apparently stung into action by public criticism, the regulator
launched an investigation which validated many of Vokes’ concerns.
Evan Vokes standing by soccer field, where pipelines are laid
underground, in Cochrane, Alberta, 2015. Photo by Mike De Souza.
whistleblower’s complaints validated by NEB | CBC.ca | Feb
whistleblower’s complaints validated by NEB … system conducted
after the complaints of whistleblower Evan Vokes were …
Whistleblower Warns Of Shoddy Pipeline Practices | Huffington
Post | Jun
TransCanada Corp. employee Evan Vokes’ impassioned testimony before a
Canadian Senate committee last week painted “a very, …
1998 Dr. Shiv Chopra and two colleagues at Health Canada testified to
the Senate that they were being pressured to approve drugs into the
food supply without the legally required evidence of human safety.
revelations created headlines around the world and led to bovine
growth hormone rBGH — a product used to boost cows’ milk production
— being banned in most developed countries except the USA.
2004 the three scientists were fired simultaneously for
2014, Chopra founded the Canadian
Council for Food Safety and Health,
saying he still had concerns about what he called the “five pillars
of food safety” — hormones, antibiotics, slaughterhouse
byproducts used in animal feed, pesticides and genetically modified
Chopra died January 7, 2018 at the age of 84 after spending much
of the past three decades in the spotlight.
Shiv Chopra (Author)
Shiv Chopra remembered for ‘speaking truth to power’ |
January 11, 2018
Chopra did not fear wading into controversy. He would do it again and
again. The government scientist said it was his job to blow the
whistle when the evidence showed that drugs used for animals posed a
danger to the safety of Canada’s food system.
scientist not entitled to get job back, court rules | CBC |
Sept 6, 2017
Chopra has lost his 13-year battle to regain the Health Canada
job from which he was fired in 2004. The ruling came from the Federal
Court of Appeal on Wednesday. Chopra called it a “travesty of
justice.” Chopra was one of three Health Canada veterinary
scientists who spoke out in the 1990s
Shiv Chopra brings anti-TPP message to Chilliwack | Chilliwack
Times | Apr
Thursday, former Health Canada senior scientist and whistleblower Dr.
Shiv Chopra speaks in Chilliwack about his opposition to the TPP …
silencing Canada’s whistleblowers | Toronto Star | Aug
scientists — Dr. Shiv Chopra, Margaret Haydon and Gerard Lambert —
had for years valiantly resisted repeated efforts by Health
of 3 Health Canada ‘whistleblowers’ reinstated | CBC News | Aug,
Shiv Chopra is one of three former Health Canada scientists who was
fired in 2004. He lost a recent decision by the public service
at Health Canada: Chopra speaks out | NCBI | Sept
1998, Dr. Shiv Chopra and two colleagues testified to a Senate
Committee that Health Canada managers had pressured them to release
suspect veterinary …
Land was in charge of testing meat for pathogens at the Pitt Meadows
Meats plant in BC. When he received a positive test result for the
deadly E. coli O157 he immediately told his bosses, but the plant
manager told him to keep quiet about it and threw the test result
into the garbage can, said Land.
company also did not notify the authorities – a serious breach of
regulations. The company fired Land and made various accusations
against him: telling the media that it was because of his inability
to get along with co-workers, that he was a disgruntled employee, and
that they suspected him of tampering with the meat samples.
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) ordered a recall and launched
an investigation that resulted in a report being sent to federal
Crown. No charges have been laid. The company changed its name to
Meadow Valley Meats and gave up its federal license: it is no longer
inspected by CFIA and does not have to test for E. coli since BC
provincial regulations do not require this.
Meadows Meats apologizes, pleads guilty in E. coli case | CBC | Apr
Meadows Meats pleaded guilty on Monday to selling E. coli-tainted …
Daniel Land says the Pitt Meadows plant manager ignored a
industry whistleblower says problems persist | CTV Vancouver | Oct
Land, who worked as a quality assurance inspector for Pitt Meadows
Meats, is slamming the Canadian Food Inspection Agency for not …
meat plant covers up positive E. coli test – British Columbia | CBC
cover-up came to light when Daniel Land, who oversaw the plant’s
quality assurance, contacted CBC News, saying officials at Pitt
Nancy Olivieri a scientist at the Hospital for Sick Children and
clinical professor at the University of Toronto discovered in 1998
evidence suggesting that a drug she was testing might be life
threatening. Apotex Inc. which partly funded her research, insisted
that she should not publish her results and threatened legal action
if she were to inform the patients in the trials. The U of T refused
to intervene, in spite of its responsibilities for public health and
for scientific integrity. Critics observe that the U of T was at that
time negotiating with Apotex Inc. for a multimillion dollar donation
for a new building.
independent investigations vindicated Dr. Olivieri, she took a leave
of absence to pursue her research. In 2004, after six years of legal
proceedings, Olivieri reached a settlement with Apotex which included
a substantial payment to her. However, the company then refused to
pay, claiming that Olivieri had violated the terms of the settlement
by ‘disparaging’ the company or its drug.
2008, after another four years of litigation, Apotex was ordered by
the Ontario Superior Court to perform all the terms of the
settlement. The company immediately announced its intention to
challenge this ruling, and launched a new lawsuit against Dr.
Nancy Olivieri | Canadian Association of University Teachers
case of University of Toronto clinician, Dr. Nancy
gained international attention when her research at the Hospital for
Sick Children in the late 1990s …
Drug Trial: Nancy Olivieri and the Science Scandal that Rocked the
Hospital for Sick Children – May 3 2005 by Miriam Shuchman
research ethics whistleblower Nancy Olivieri honored again | Health
News Review | May
of the saddest stories about drug company influence on clinical
trials and on the integrity of research is the story of Dr. Nancy
John O’Connor, an Alberta doctor, was startled to encounter several
cases of a very rare cancer in Fort Chipewyan, in the Athabasca oil
patch. His further investigations revealed unusually high rates of
cancers among the residents, and he called for a thorough health
review of the community. His findings contributed to concerns that
oil extraction operations may be contaminating the environment with
what was perceived as an attempt to muzzle him, Health Canada doctors
lodged four complaints against O’Connor with his professional body –
charges which could have resulted in the loss of his license. Doctors
were alarmed by this incident, since such reports from doctors in the
field have been vital to the detection of new diseases such as AIDS.
Consequently, in 2007 the Canadian Medical Association passed a
resolution (#103) calling for whistleblower protection for doctors –
apparently to protect them from Health Canada.
Alberta oil sands doctor fired abruptly | National Observer | May
hastily was this letter of dismissal sent to Dr. John O’Connor,
on-call family physician for the 1200 citizens of the remote
community of Fort …
This is a
Complaint brought under the Human
Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19
as amended (“the Code”), alleging discrimination and harassment
in employment on the basis of sex, in violation of sections
The Complaint was filed October 14, 2003 and was referred to the
Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (“the Tribunal”) on April 20,
The subject matter of the
Complaint involves allegations of gender discrimination and sexual
harassment in employment. The Complaint was originally filed
against both the Complainant’s former employer (“the employer”),
a technology firm serving the health care industry, and Dr. Gerry
Koop, who was at all material times a senior managerial employee of
the employer. Prior to the Complaint being referred to the
Tribunal, the Commission, the Complainant and the employer entered
into a mutually agreed upon settlement, so that the subject matter of
the Complaint referred to the Tribunal was restricted to allegations
of wrongdoing by Dr. Koop.
in 2001, the Respondent began asking the Complainant and other female
employees for hugs.
and around the same period, the Respondent began
at the Complainant.
on a number of occasions that he regularly visited a strip bar
adjacent to the employer’s office.
Respondent regularly had the “Sunshine Girl” page of the Ottawa
Sun newspaper opened and displayed on his desk.
Respondent maintained for some time, a
screensaver of women in bikinis in suggestive poses on his computer
Following complaints by employees, the Respondent’s immediate
supervisor, who was a woman, asked that the screensaver be removed.
He refused. It was not until the senior executive officer, a
male, and personal friend of the Respondent spoke to him, that the
Respondent removed the offensive material from the computer.
a common work area, the Respondent told
the Complainant and another female employee
that he had hired a prostitute the night before and attempted to draw
the Complainant into a conversation about this.
mid-May 2003, the Complainant was talking with fellow employees at
the office reception area. The Respondent walked up behind the
Complainant and slapped
her on the buttocks with a “post-it” note in his hand.
the week of June 5, 2003, the Respondent asked the Complainant for a
digital camera, and then proceeded to tell the Complainant that
he needed it to take pictures at a live-sex show that he was going to
attend while at a work related trade show in Las Vegas.
or about June 9, 2003, the Complainant was in the office kitchen
preparing her lunch. The Respondent was walking down the hall,
stopped and approached the Complainant. He
grabbed her belt buckle and pulled it open.
The Complainant shocked and frightened said, “What the hell were
you thinking?” He said, “I wanted to see if the belt
worked.” The Complainant told the Respondent that if he ever
touched her again, she would not be responsible for her reaction.
In response, the Respondent laughed and said, “Oh Sarah, everyone
is responsible for their own actions.”
or about June 16, 2003, the Complainant was again in the office
kitchen area preparing her lunch and talking to a co-worker.
came in and pressed his entire body against the side of the
Complainant’s body. He was so close she could feel his breath on
forehead. Then he stuck his finger in the chicken she was
preparing for lunch. She turned around and pushed him away with
both hands. She told him to “get the hell away from me”,
that he was making her claustrophobic.
or about July 16 or 17, 2003, the Complainant was in the reception
area waiting to speak with a co-worker. The
Respondent saw the Complainant and immediately came straight towards
her. He tried to press his entire body against the side of
hers, but she managed to step around the corner of a desk.
The Complainant asked the Respondent if he had received a copy of the
employer’s “Code of Ethics”, which had been delivered to all
employees at their homes. He responded, “Why haven’t you
received it, haven’t you been home? So what your telling me
is that you have been out having sex with multiple partners?”
or about July 16, 2003, the Complainant met with the employer’s
Director of Human Resources to formally complain about the actions
and behaviour of the Respondent. After the meeting, as the
Complainant was returning to her office, she passed by the front
reception desk where the Respondent was having a meeting. As she
passed, he interrupted his meeting, stood up in front of other work
colleagues and loudly stated, “Hold on, Sarah wants
August 12, 2003, the Complainant was speaking with Ms. Shannon
Juneau, a co-worker who had witnessed much of the harassing behaviour
the Complainant had been subjected to, and who had spoken to the
Respondent in an effort to have the conduct cease. Ms. Juneau
explained that while the Complainant was away on vacation, the
Respondent had approached her (Ms. Juneau) holding a zucchini and in
a suggestive manner asked if it was hers. When Ms. Juneau dismissed
his comment saying she did not know whose it was, he responded, “Oh,
I thought Sarah could use it anyhow.”
INTRODUCTION — Hard Hat (head protection) vs Turban
complainant, Deepinder Loomba, filed a complaint on January 25, 2006,
under the Ontario Human
R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as
Home Depot Canada Inc. (the “corporate respondent”) and Brian
Busch (the “personal respondent”) discriminated
against him in the areas of employment and contracts on the basis of
race, colour, ethnic origin, and creed. The complainant is Sikh and,
in observance of his faith, wears a turban. On
December 6, 2005, the complainant was assigned by his employer,
Reilly’s Security Services, to work as a security guard at a new
Home Depot store which was under construction in Milton, Ontario. The
complaint alleges that the personal respondent, an assistant store
manager, refused to allow the complainant to work at the site because
the complainant would not wear a
hard hat. The complainant
contends that the respondents selectively enforced the hard hat rule
and further alleges that the personal respondent subjected him to
rude and offensive behaviour because of his turban.
SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE
December 6, 2005, the complainant was assigned to monitor security,
along with a second guard (Zaldivar), for a 12-hour shift starting at
7 a.m. at the Milton Home Depot store. The store was approximately
six weeks from opening and still under construction. Entry into the
store was through a set of large doors (approximately 10 feet wide
and 15 feet high) used to move lumber, which opened into the
vestibule area of the store. The vestibule area was approximately 780
security access desk was located inside the store building, near the
cashier stations, approximately 40 feet from the vestibule’s lumber
doors. The primary responsibility of the security guards was to
oversee the access desk where workers, contractors, and visitors
presented themselves to gain entry into the body of the store. The
access desk consisted of two fold-out portable plastic tables.
Sitting next to the desk were boxes of hard hats and toe protectors.
The security guards were to ensure individuals entering the store
wore proper personal protective equipment (hard hats and safety
shoes). The security guards were also expected to conduct regular
patrols throughout the shift.
there is some dispute about the nature and amount of construction
that was actually underway on the morning of December 6, there is
agreement that a number of construction workers and tradespeople were
at the site; mechanical equipment, such as scissor lifts and
forklifts, was in the building; gravel and unfinished roads were
around the property; exterior landscaping had begun to take place;
and temporary washrooms were erected outside of the store. Although
the parties also debate the size and location of the protective
equipment signage, the parties agree that there was at least one sign
inside the store building indicating mandatory compliance with the
hard hat and safety shoes rules.
parties agree that sometime after the start of the shift, the
personal respondent approached the complainant at the security access
desk. A verbal exchange ensued between the men about the
complainant’s turban and the requirement to wear a hard hat. While
the parties dispute the content, tone, number, and location of the
exchange(s), they agree that the personal respondent told the
complainant several times that he was not permitted to remain in the
building without a hard hat.
sometime during the exchange(s) both men spoke by way of a cell phone
with a Reilly supervisor to seek clarification about the situation.
The personal respondent was informed by the Reilly supervisor that
the complainant could not remove his turban because of his religion.
The parties agree that, at some point after the calls, the personal
respondent instructed the complainant to leave the building and that
the complainant called the personal respondent a “prejudiced”
man. The parties further agree that during the exchange(s) the
complainant asked the personal respondent for his name and title and
that the complainant was writing in the personal respondent’s
presence. The parties also concur that, during the events, the
complainant expressed his intention to seek recourse against the
personal respondent. The complainant eventually left the site and
Reilly dispatched a replacement guard soon thereafter.
December 16, 2005, CanIndia News Service published a story entitled
“Home Depot denies discrimination charge”, in which the
complainant and a senior communications manager of the corporate
respondent were interviewed regarding the complainant’s allegations
I will include more topics. If you think of a topic, please let me
Let’s block ads! (Why?)