Question 1:
Advertising to children in school is morally objectionable to many people. Some of the reasons used to criticize the practice include the following: First, children at school are a captive audience. Second, children are not yet autonomous and are typically unable to make the kind of rational distinctions that we attribute to adults. Third, schools have epistemic (knowledge) authority and so may be understood by children as endorsing the products. Do you believe that marketing to children in schools is morally wrong? Why, or why not?

Question 2:
What potential benefits do you see as important in integrating different groups that are targeted under affirmative action policies? Are these benefits sufficient to justify affirmative action policies? Why, or why not?

Question 3:
Explain the Kantian arguments Denis Arnold and Norman Bowie use in "Sweatshops and Respect for Persons" to support the claim that MNEs have duties to ensure that their off-shore contract factories meet minimum safety standards and provide a living wage for employees. Explain Ian Maitland's argument that improving health and safety conditions and improving wages will cause greater harm than good. With whom do you agree more? Explain.

Question 4:
Smith argues that there are valuable moral distinctions between direct, indirect, active, and passive violations of human rights. Do these distinctions make sense to you? Do you believe that corporations who merely follow the dictates of an authoritative figure are absolved of much of their moral culpability, even if their compliance knowingly leads to violations of human rights?

Question 5:
The right to refuse workplace hazards has a fundamental conflict with the ability of a business to operate effectively (if employees refuse to work there can be no production). How should these competing interests be balanced? Support your position with appeals to ethical theories.