Consumer Ethics Assignment. it is about expending money not about Greer Ethics
Consumer Ethics Assignment. it is about expending money not about Greer Ethics
Pick four of the following prompts to respond to. Each individual answer should be a minimum of 250 words (for a paper that should have an overall minimum of 1000 words). Your paper must be double spaced, in size 12 font with 1” margins. Do not include your name, student i.d. or any other identifying features on your paper. Also, do not include a date or title. Instead start with the number of the prompt you are replying to and begin your response. Once you have finished with your response to the first prompt, go to a new line, put the number of the next prompt you are replying to and begin that response. Do this again for your third and fourth response. Prompts: 1. Forcehimes doesn’t say much about copyright restrictions on works by (recently) deceased authors. In light of his arguments, do you think there’s a good reason for maintaining copyright restrictions once an author is deceased? Why or why not? 2. The argument against stealing e-books that Forcehimes engages with focuses on the issue of authors’ incentives. Are there other reasons to think it might be wrong? Are these reasons convincing, and do they apply to public libraries? 3. Karkiker is probably right about the quantitative difference between sharing copied library materials and sharing an e-book online. But suppose, as is the trend, that libraries will continue to grant more and more online access to e-books. How would this affect Karjiker’s argument? 4. As Karjiker explains, there are fair-use exceptions to copyright protection when it is socially beneficial, which is why public libraries can share copyrighted material. Do you think having public libraries is enough to secure the benefits that are supposed to come from fair use? 5. Cassidy explains our consumption patterns in terms of boredom. First, describe how boredom is supposed to explain our shopping. Next, discuss whether this is a plausible explanation of how we spend. If you think it is a plausible explanation, then defend a view about whether it’s morally problematic to spend money for this reason. If you don’t think that it’s a plausible explanation, explain why, and then defend a better explanation. 6. Explain the care-taking sense of responsibility. Then, discuss how your life would be different if you committed to being responsible in the care-taking sense for the people behind the consumer products you enjoy. Would you buy less? More? Differently? And what would you do beyond how you spend? 7. Explain Norcross’s two responses to the casual impotence problem, Then, choose one of them and offer the best objection to it that you can. Finally, consider how Norcross might respond to your objection. 8. Norcross points out that while most Americans are opposed to eating dogs, people in some countries are not. Ultimately, he concludes that it doesn’t matter what people think about dogs – it matters whether dogs would suffer if abused. Explain how Norcross gets from the observation about cultural difference to the conclusion that cultural difference doesn’t matter, and what matters is what dogs are like. Then, assess his argument. Is it a good one? Why or why not?
