Moral Standing Essay
PHIL 434 Business & Professional Ethics
Assignment 2
Please read all of these instructions carefully!
Choose either the “Fane Robinson” case (pp. 157-159) or the “Andrews Weatherfoil” case (pp. 159-162). Write a short explanation, in your own words, of how the reasoning behind the judgment issued in that case is consistent with, or inconsistent with, Peter French’s analysis of corporate responsibility.
You do not need give an assessment of whether you think the court’s judgment was correct — simply explain the arguments presented by the Court(s) and how they relate to French.
Note about vocabulary: When these cases refer, for example, to “Ford J.”, that’s just a fancy legal way of saying “Judge Ford” (that is, the “J” stands for “Judge.”)
Hint: These cases are a little complex. At least one of those cases involves an appeal court’s judgment as to the correctness of the original trial court’s decision. And in one case, the Court of Appeals produced two decisions (a “majority” decision and a “dissenting” decision.) For this short essay, you should choose one judge’s decision and focus on that.
Rules:
Papers must be word-processed, 275-325 words long. Please provide a word-count (e.g., at the top of your assignment, type “word count = 323” or whatever). Only the body of your essay counts for your word count. Also, there is no need to include a Bibliography or References section.
Your assignment should be double-spaced, and in 12-point font (preferably Times New Roman or Arial). Papers not meeting these requirements will be penalized.
Your NAME should be typed at the top of your essay, just as if you were handing it in on paper.
Grading:
The focus of this assignment is clear writing. A significant portion of your mark will be based on spelling, grammar, punctuation, sentence structure, and overall clarity. (Proof-read, spell-check, and then have someone else proof-read for you.) The rest of your mark will be based upon the accuracy with
Assignment 2
Please read all of these instructions carefully!
Choose either the “Fane Robinson” case (pp. 157-159) or the “Andrews Weatherfoil” case (pp. 159-162). Write a short explanation, in your own words, of how the reasoning behind the judgment issued in that case is consistent with, or inconsistent with, Peter French’s analysis of corporate responsibility.
You do not need give an assessment of whether you think the court’s judgment was correct — simply explain the arguments presented by the Court(s) and how they relate to French.
Note about vocabulary: When these cases refer, for example, to “Ford J.”, that’s just a fancy legal way of saying “Judge Ford” (that is, the “J” stands for “Judge.”)
Hint: These cases are a little complex. At least one of those cases involves an appeal court’s judgment as to the correctness of the original trial court’s decision. And in one case, the Court of Appeals produced two decisions (a “majority” decision and a “dissenting” decision.) For this short essay, you should choose one judge’s decision and focus on that.
Rules:
Papers must be word-processed, 275-325 words long. Please provide a word-count (e.g., at the top of your assignment, type “word count = 323” or whatever). Only the body of your essay counts for your word count. Also, there is no need to include a Bibliography or References section.
Your assignment should be double-spaced, and in 12-point font (preferably Times New Roman or Arial). Papers not meeting these requirements will be penalized.
Your NAME should be typed at the top of your essay, just as if you were handing it in on paper.
Grading:
The focus of this assignment is clear writing. A significant portion of your mark will be based on spelling, grammar, punctuation, sentence structure, and overall clarity. (Proof-read, spell-check, and then have someone else proof-read for you.) The rest of your mark will be based upon the accuracy with