1. Freedom of speech and expression are fundamental human rights that are protected under the U.S. Constitution. Commonly, defenses of these rights are grounded in appeals to autonomy (in order to act autonomously, we must have the freedom to express ourselves). Thus, restrictions on our freedom of expression correlate to restrictions on our autonomy. However, several authors cited within Chapter 4 recognize that sexual harassment can have a detrimental effect on autonomy. On the surface, there seems to be a tension between appeals to autonomy in defense of freedom of speech and expression and appeals to autonomy in order to justify restrictions on freedom of speech and expression, which may result in sexual harassment. Do you believe that there is a conflict between these two positions? How may such a conflict be balanced?

2. Central to Duska's discussion of whistle-blowing is his conception of loyalty. Do you find his account of loyalty convincing? What elements of it might you disagree with? What implications might an altered conception of loyalty have on his contention that whistle-blowing does not require moral justification?

3. Epstein claims that the positions of both employers and employees are essentially even with regard to EAW. Do you find this argument convincing? Why, or why not?

4. Because no job can ever be completely free from hazards, occupational safety requires a balancing of the interests of employees and employers. Using the ethical theories that are discussed in Chapter 3, defend a position regarding how these competing interests should be balanced from a moral perspective.

5. Explain Holley's position in "Information Disclosure in Sales." Next, apply his arguments to the case study "Advice for Sale: How Companies Pay TV Experts for On-Air Product Mentions" On page 331 of the textbook. What would Holley likely conclude about this case? Why? Do you agree or disagree with Holley? Why

6. John R. Boatright in "Individual Responsibility in the American Corporate System: Does Sarbanes-Oxley Strike the Right Balance?" argues that the primary purpose of laws governing corporate responsibility is deterrence. Do you agree with this interpretation? Why, or why not? Appeal to the ethical theories discussed in Chapter 6 to support your position.

7. Consider the practices described by Carl Elliott in his essay "The Drug Pushers." Provide two arguments in support of the practices described in that essay. Next, provide two arguments against the practices described in that essay. Where do you stand on this issue? Explain.

8. Two articles in Chapter 6 raise doubts about the ethical problems that underlie insider trading, primarily relying on utilitarian reasoning to support their positions. Examine the practices of insider trading from the perspective of deontological reasoning. Does this lead to different conclusions regarding the moral permissibility of these practices? Explain.

9. Explain Cooley's argument in "Genetically Modified Organisms and Business Duties." What would Cooley say about the activities of Monsanto and related in the case study "Monsanto's Round-Up Ready Wheat"? In general, do you agree or disagree with Cooley? Why, or why not?

10. In "Intellectual Property and Pharmaceutical Drugs: An Ethical Analysis," Richard T. De George lays out what he comes to call the "Status Quo Approach" as a defense of copyright protection of pharmaceuticals. Do you find this argument persuasive regarding ethical pricing of pharmaceuticals? Why, or why not?

11. In "Intellectual Property and the Information Age," Richard T. De George begins by examining the case of Napster and the practice of sharing digital music over the Internet. He concludes by arguing that determining whether an action with regard to copyright protection is moral or immoral will depend on the balancing of competing conceptions and justifications for copyright protection. Using the positions that De George lays out, examine the case with which De George begins. Do you believe that this activity is morally justified or immoral? Why?

12. In "Internet Content Providers and Complicity in Human Rights Abuse," Jeffery D. Smith argues that while ICPs may be complicit in human rights abuse, they may strive to minimize their complicity. Do you believe that the strategies he imagines are sufficient to absolve ICPs of any moral wrongdoing that arises from their complicity in these abuses? Why, or why not? If not, what do you believe that ICPs should do?

Textbook: Beauchamp, T. L., Bowie, N. E., & Arnold, D. G. (2009). Ethical theory and business (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.