The purpose of the Discussion Board is to allow students to learn through sharing ideas and experiences as they relate to course content and the DB question. Because it is not possible to engage in two-way dialogue after a conversation has ended, no posts to the DB will be accepted after the end of each unit. 

A very prestigious events planning firm, Verlon, has approached John Sanders, vice president of Echo Industries to secure a contract as a vendor. The president of Verlon Events Planning would like Echo Industries to consider their company for planning Echo’s several corporate upcoming conventions. Echo hosts 3 large events per year, which results in the awarding of more than $500,000 dollars in contracts. David Smith is in charge of researching suppliers and vendors for Echo Industries to ensure compliance with their ethics department. One of the ethical stipulations for awarding contracts is that agreements cannot be awarded to relatives of upper management employees. Vice president Sander, David’s boss, recommends Verlon catering as a choice, and states to David, “There is not a need to do research on the Verlon, I can vouch for the company.” He also states that David would be up for a promotion if the upcoming events are successful. David is excited about this news; he was unemployed for 2 years before landing his present position 6 months ago. A promotion would certainly help him catch up on bills and provide for his family of four. However, out of curiosity about the Verlon company, David conducted some research. He discovered that the Verlon Event Planning’s president is the ex-sister-in-law to his boss. At the monthly general finance meeting for approving contracts, the finance manager, William Young, asks David two questions: “Is the company reputable?” “Would there be a conflict of interest according to our company policies?” Vice president Sanders and William looks in David’s direction for the answers. 

Consider this ethical dilemma, and then answer the following:

1.     From a deontological perspective, what should David do in this situation? Define deontological ethics, and then explain how your answer evolved from that definition.

2.     What should David do from a teleological perspective? Define teleological ethics and explain how your answer evolved from that definition.

3.     Should David have discussed the research findings with his boss before the meeting?

4.     What ramifications, if any would David answers have for the companies? For David?

Hey SolutionsPro, here is my Philosophy Week 3 DB assignment. Thank you.

Week 3 DB assignment:

Assignment Details

The ancient Greek philosopher Socrates is known for a technique called the Socratic Method, in which the teacher leads the student through a process of questioning to come to a logically valid conclusion.

Born in 469 B.C., Socrates is considered one of the founding fathers of Western philosophy, even though he left no writings behind and very little is known about him. Everything that is known of his teachings is found in the works of his students, like Plato. Much of Plato’s writings are dialogues between Socrates and his students.

Using the Socratic method, answer the following questions:

Part 1

• What do you think of Socrates’ conclusion that no person knowingly does evil, and therefore, all evil is ignorance?
• Do you agree or disagree, and why? If you disagree, state why.

Part 2

• If people accepted that all evil is ignorance, what implications would that have on the justice system?
• How would prison sentencing or the death penalty be affected?
• Discuss with 2 or more classmates their opinions and whether or not you agree or disagree with their statements.

Week 3 Philosophy DB response to classmates:

Michael Williams