Business Ethics

Description

YOU HAVE TWO PAPER TOPIC CHOICE

S Background for paper topic one: In reading 10.2, George Brenkert analyses a challenging and timely social issue to argue that our current doctrine of strict product liability is inadequate. The issue is harm caused by guns being used in ways that were not intended by the manufacturers (namely to kill or harm innocent people). Here are three facts that make strict product liability rules inadequate in the case of gun deaths, according to Brenkert: 1) The product is not defective 2) It does what it was designed to do 3) It seems unreasonable to blame the harm on any direct negligence on the part of the manufacturers Brenkert outlines a new kind of product liability, which he calls “Social products liability”, to argue that gun makers share some of the moral responsibility or burden for harm caused by guns. Guns are just the product Brenkert examines to justify a theory he feels should apply to a broad group of products. Brenkert is not a lawyer, and he is not sketching out a legal doctrine, but a MORAL one. Nonetheless, were society to adopt his proposal, laws regarding product liability would have to change or expand. Paper topic One Brenkert presents four conditions which he feels are individually necessary and collectively sufficient to assign partial responsibility to gun manufacturers for the unintended harm caused by guns. Pick one or two of these conditions and explore in depth Brenkert’s reasoning behind including them in determining “social product liability.” In your analysis, raise at least one potential complication or objection to the condition(s) you are examining in Brenkert’s argument. Conclude your essay by giving at least one substantial paragraph of your own critique of his overall proposal for expanding our notion of liability to include “social products liability”. 

Background for paper topic two: Playgrounds across America have undergone a massive change in the last several decades in response to lawsuits and liability challenges regarding old fashioned playground equipment deemed hazardous. On the surface, this seems like a success story of liability laws leading to the creation of safer products. But what has been lost in the trade-off? Are there some situations or behaviors (in this case, risk-taking behavior by children) we should tolerate, even encourage, as a society, because they lead to other benefits? Can product safety standards come at the expense of other social goods? Paper topic two Base your paper on a discussion of some of the arguments against making playgrounds ever safer, as raised by Hanna Rosin’s article, “The Overprotected Kid” (available online here (Links to an external site.). Also available for download in the files folder of our course). There are a number of directions you could take this, and I am giving you free reign to decide. Reading the article will generate a lot of ideas. Since your paper is only 3-4 pages, do not attempt to cover to much ground. I will reward depth over breadth. Whatever way you choose to approach this topic, you must relate it to the discussion of product liability in your textbook.