Working For Eli Lily And Company Essay
Albor, Emilio Gabriel P. March 12, 2013
MAS-3 MAS70 – B2
Case Study No. 2: Working for Eli Lily and Company
Analyze and discuss the case using: A. Utilitarianism SOCIETAL BENEFITS | SOCIETAL COSTS | * Less crime in the streets * Can cure disease * Job offer * Offered shelter * Number of alcoholic people will decrease * Number of homeless people decrease. * Increase of motel customers * New medicine * Cleanliness in the streets * Less annoyance in the streets * Increased succession rate of drug researching * Can help find missing persons * Safer in the streets * More secure | * Increase of death toll * Faster productivity of drug research * New medicine or drugs * More will be injured * …show more content…
Increased number of the ill * More contagious disease * Inhuman practice |
Therefore, it can consequently bring to a close that continuing on getting human test subject or homeless alcoholics is morally acceptable since the societal benefits outweigh the societal costs.
B. Rights
Homeless Alcoholic * The right to choose * The right to live * The right to work * The right to be safe * The right to have fun
C. Kant’s Categorical Imperatives * Categorical Imperative 1: Morally wrong, because not all people are aware or have agreed to be a human research or test subject. Though many homeless alcoholic chose to be one, there are still some who chose to be not. * Categorical Imperative 2: Morally wrong, simply because the homeless alcoholics are used as guinea pigs or tools for the success of the research.
D. Justice and Fairness
Distributive Justice
Benefits
* The benefit is that eli lily will not pay almost $250/day for the test subjects. * Eli Lily won’t have problems with getting test subject to volunteer. * Provides the test subjects easy money
Burden
* The burden Is for the test subjects that has felt the side effects of the drugs * Eli lily’s reputation has been stained
E. Virtue of
Ethics * Eli Lily * Greed * Because they gave the lowest type of benefits so they could cost less on the research. * Pride * Because they still stick to using homeless alcoholics as test projects even though they are aware of the interviews of the homeless alcoholics.
* Homeless Alcoholics * Greed * Because they ignored the risks of the job exchange for the money. * Lust * Because they just use their money for sex and pleasure instead of using it more important cause.
“In a free enterprise society all adults should be allowed to make their own decisions about how they choose to earn their living” Discuss this statement in light of the Lilly case.
The statement greatly contradicts the Lilly case, because they took advantage of a homeless drunk who’ll agree to any kind of offer if money is involved. So they clearly didn’t give him the right to make his own decision about how he’ll choose to earn his living.
In your judgment, is the policy of using homeless alcoholics for test subjects morally appropriate? Explain the reasons for your judgement. What does you judgement imply about the moral legitimacy of a free market in labor?
No, I know it’s legally appropriate but in my judgment, it’s not. Because alcoholics especially those who always roam in the streets carry diseases that is potentially dangerous, which makes them vulnerable to being severely harmed by certain type of drugs.
How should the managers of Lilly handle this issue?
They should manage the issue by giving more benefits to those individual who volunteers to be a test subject. Not like what they did with the homelss alcoholics they’ve been taking advantage of.
MAS-3 MAS70 – B2
Case Study No. 2: Working for Eli Lily and Company
Analyze and discuss the case using: A. Utilitarianism SOCIETAL BENEFITS | SOCIETAL COSTS | * Less crime in the streets * Can cure disease * Job offer * Offered shelter * Number of alcoholic people will decrease * Number of homeless people decrease. * Increase of motel customers * New medicine * Cleanliness in the streets * Less annoyance in the streets * Increased succession rate of drug researching * Can help find missing persons * Safer in the streets * More secure | * Increase of death toll * Faster productivity of drug research * New medicine or drugs * More will be injured * …show more content…
Increased number of the ill * More contagious disease * Inhuman practice |
Therefore, it can consequently bring to a close that continuing on getting human test subject or homeless alcoholics is morally acceptable since the societal benefits outweigh the societal costs.
B. Rights
Homeless Alcoholic * The right to choose * The right to live * The right to work * The right to be safe * The right to have fun
C. Kant’s Categorical Imperatives * Categorical Imperative 1: Morally wrong, because not all people are aware or have agreed to be a human research or test subject. Though many homeless alcoholic chose to be one, there are still some who chose to be not. * Categorical Imperative 2: Morally wrong, simply because the homeless alcoholics are used as guinea pigs or tools for the success of the research.
D. Justice and Fairness
Distributive Justice
Benefits
* The benefit is that eli lily will not pay almost $250/day for the test subjects. * Eli Lily won’t have problems with getting test subject to volunteer. * Provides the test subjects easy money
Burden
* The burden Is for the test subjects that has felt the side effects of the drugs * Eli lily’s reputation has been stained
E. Virtue of
Ethics * Eli Lily * Greed * Because they gave the lowest type of benefits so they could cost less on the research. * Pride * Because they still stick to using homeless alcoholics as test projects even though they are aware of the interviews of the homeless alcoholics.
* Homeless Alcoholics * Greed * Because they ignored the risks of the job exchange for the money. * Lust * Because they just use their money for sex and pleasure instead of using it more important cause.
“In a free enterprise society all adults should be allowed to make their own decisions about how they choose to earn their living” Discuss this statement in light of the Lilly case.
The statement greatly contradicts the Lilly case, because they took advantage of a homeless drunk who’ll agree to any kind of offer if money is involved. So they clearly didn’t give him the right to make his own decision about how he’ll choose to earn his living.
In your judgment, is the policy of using homeless alcoholics for test subjects morally appropriate? Explain the reasons for your judgement. What does you judgement imply about the moral legitimacy of a free market in labor?
No, I know it’s legally appropriate but in my judgment, it’s not. Because alcoholics especially those who always roam in the streets carry diseases that is potentially dangerous, which makes them vulnerable to being severely harmed by certain type of drugs.
How should the managers of Lilly handle this issue?
They should manage the issue by giving more benefits to those individual who volunteers to be a test subject. Not like what they did with the homelss alcoholics they’ve been taking advantage of.