Hi, this is my philosophy course assignment in which you have to write an Argument Reconstruction paper of 800 to 1000 words. In this assignment, you have to reconstruct the argument into the standard

STUCK with your assignment? When is it due? Hire our professional essay experts who are available online 24/7 for an essay paper written to a high standard at a reasonable price.


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper

Hi, this is my philosophy course assignment in which you have to write an Argument Reconstruction paper of 800 to 1000 words.

In this assignment, you have to reconstruct the argument into the standard form: make sure your reconstruction is in your own words and valid, and then you have to defend each premise and conclusion.

In order to write this critical thinking Argument Reconstruction paper, you have to follow some steps which you will see in the attached sample papers.

So, I am attaching 3 sample paper documents and assignment questions, please review all the documents to know about the assignment clearly :

1- the first document is an assignment question ( The paragraph on which you have to write the paper)

2- the other document is sample papers ( all the information and the steps on how to write the  reconstruct the argument into the standard form and defend the premise )

Hi, this is my philosophy course assignment in which you have to write an Argument Reconstruction paper of 800 to 1000 words. In this assignment, you have to reconstruct the argument into the standard
Assignment 2: Argument Reconstruction Write a paper where you reconstruct one (1) of the arguments below. Your paper should: Begin with a brief summary, in your own words, of the argument. Reconstruct the argument into standard form: make sure your reconstruction is in your own words and valid For each line in your argument, note whether it is a premise or a conclusion. If it is a conclusion, indicate which premises it follows from. Give a brief defense of each premise. You should aim for your defense for each premise to be a paragraph of text in length. Have a brief concluding paragraph where you consider which premise an opponent of this argument would try to deny. (1) HEATH ON PROMISES “Imagine a Hobbesian state of nature1, in which everyone treats everyone else abysmally. Such conduct is immoral. Now imagine that, in this state of nature, each person solemnly swears to stop pursing his own interests, and to begin pursuing the interests of the person next to him. What changes? From the moral point of view, nothing much. It is still the war of all against all, except that now it is being carried out by proxy. Certainly the mere fact that each person is acting “altruistically”—advancing the interests of her neighbor, rather than her own—is not enough to transform this into a morally acceptable state of affairs. If it could, then the simple act of promising would permit unlimited “laundering” of immoral acts into moral ones. (Heath, pp. 540) [Identifying the conclusion of this argument is tricky. Take your time on it.] (2) HIMMA ON RIGHTS VS. CONSEQUENCES “Affirmative action defenders often [cite] the beneficial consequences of affirmative action, but this line of argument implicitly concedes the dispositive point to opponents. As Ronald Dworkin has shown, a right can be outweighed by another right, but never by consequences: “[t]he claim that citizens have a right to free speech . . . impl[ies] that it would be wrong for the Government to stop them from speaking, even when the Government believes that what they will say will cause more harm than good.” Thus, if preferences violate a right, they are wrong no matter what their consequences might be.” (Himma p. 278) 1This refers to a hypothetical scenario imagined by Hobbes where there are no laws, rulers, or institutions, and everyone is always only looking out for themselves at the expense of others.
Hi, this is my philosophy course assignment in which you have to write an Argument Reconstruction paper of 800 to 1000 words. In this assignment, you have to reconstruct the argument into the standard
“The short-sightedness [of ethical business advocates] is also exemplified in speeches by businessmen on social responsibility. This may gain them kudos in the short run. But it helps to strengthen the already too prevalent view that the pursuit of profits is wicked and immoral and must be curbed and controlled by external forces. Once this view is adopted, the external forces that curb the market will not be the social consciences, however highly developed, of the pontificating executives; it will be the iron fist of Government bureaucrats. Here, as with price and wage controls, businessmen seem to me to reveal a suicidal impulse.” (Friedman pp. 5-6) Milton Friedman, as discussed during class time, has argued against the notion that corporations and corporate executives carry with them principal social responsibilities which extend well beyond the profit motives of company owners and shareholders. But that is not the main argument in the passage above, although the title of the paper (The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits) can be one of the supporting propositions for it. The argument here, is that businesses should be not “ethically regulated”, that is, ruled in greater or smaller part by exogenous political forces rather than their own internal motivations of maximizing profit. Below is the argument of the passage above in standard format. Effort was made replace some of the exaggerated original wording (e.g. “suicidal impulse”, “evil”) to make this argument relatable to the more germane libertarian attitude towards business regulation seen in Friedman’s paper as a whole. (1) If we advocate “ethical business” → then we also believe that the profit motive should be curtailed by external forces. premise (2) If we believe that the profit motive should be curtailed by external forces → then political interests will interfere in the market. premise (3) If we advocate “ethical business” → then political interests will interfere in the market (1,2) sub-conclusion (4) If political interests interfere in the market → competitive businesses cannot thrive to their full potential. premise (5) Therefore, if we advocate “ethical business” → competitive businesses cannot thrive to their full potential. (3,4) sub-conclusion (6) if (5) is true, then we should not advocate “ethical business”. premise (7) Therefore, we should not advocate “ethical business”. (5,6) Conclusion Premise (1) may as well be a descriptive statement such as [to ethically regulate business is to curtail its profit motive for ethical reasons]. Friedman would argue that to impose ethical regulations to businesses is to dictate how they conduct their business, which in turn is to dictate how they should earn and spend their money, effectively resulting in taxation. Since ethical regulation of business presumes a form of taxation, advocating “ethical business” is to believe in curtailing the profit motive of firms with external forces (government or some other entity). (2) Could have also been another descriptive statement such as [these external forces are those political interests], and such reasoning is in fact Friedman’s reasoning. But stating is as such would lose the consequential form of Friedman’s writing. The implication is that once popular opinion sides against the corporate profit motive, political interests will demand monies from businesses and thereby interrupting the otherwise free economy. (3) is a Hypothetical Syllogism following from (1) and (2). (4) If political interests interfere in the market, then that market is no longer free. Friedman would argue that the free unregulated market is a precondition for competitive businesses to succeed. (5) is a Hypothetical Syllogism following from (3) and (4). (6) This is more-or-less a moral statement, rather than a premise with internal logical structure. The IF-THEN formation is only superficial. The moral statement is that we should not advocate ideas whose adoption will be detrimental to the success of competitive businesses. Friedman would argue in this vein to advocate free competition in the marketplace. (7) is a conclusion from Modus Ponens (Affirming the Antecedent) from (5) and (6). Clearly, the premises that an opponent of Friedman’s argument would reject first would be (6). While someone who takes the opposite view may happily agree with Friedman’s analysis about how advocating ethical business will result in political interests taking shares of the market, he/she might argue that such a cost is worthy of taking in consideration of the expected welfare benefits to society. That is to say, he/she might argue that it is okay if competitive business do not thrive to their full potential, so long as the benefits to society outweigh the costs of the firms.
Hi, this is my philosophy course assignment in which you have to write an Argument Reconstruction paper of 800 to 1000 words. In this assignment, you have to reconstruct the argument into the standard
Assignment 1: Argument Reconstruction INTRODUCTION In this paper we will be reconstructing and motivating argument 2 titled “An Argument Against Profit as an Obligation.” In this argument, Heath is convincing the reader that business ethics should constrain the pursuit of profit. Heath argues that profit is connected to self-interest, which is the opposite of altruistic behaviour and a consequent of ethics. Therefore, he is stating that because ethics is against the pursuit of self interest, it should also be against the pursuit of profit. ARGUMENT IN STANDARD FORM 1 The practice of ethics can be considered altruistic behaviour. 2 If the practice of ethics can be considered altruistic behaviour, then ethics is the constraint on the pursuit of self interest. 3 So, ethics is the constraint on the pursuit of self interest. (1, 2) 4 If ethics is the constraint on the pursuit of self interest, then business ethics should constrain the pursuit of profit. 5 So, business ethics should constrain the pursuit of profit. (3, 4) DEFENSE OF PREMISES P1: “Ethics is considered altruistic behaviour.” Ethics is defined as the discipline of dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation (Ethic, 2021). Altruism is defined as unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others (Altruism, 2021). The moral duty referenced in the definition of ethics is closely related to altruism, in that, altruism is considered the behaviour that is “good” in ethics. Therefore, we can state that the practice of ethics is considered an altruistic behaviour. P2: “If the practice of ethics can be considered altruistic behaviour, then ethics is the constraint on the pursuit of self interest.” Assume that ethics is considered altruistic behaviour. Ethics is a discipline of moral duty and obligation, and morality can be more precisely understood as a “principled constraint on the pursuit of self-interest.” Therefore, ethics is considered the constraint on the pursuit of self interest. P:4 “If ethics is the constraint on the pursuit of self interest, then business ethics should constrain the pursuit of profit.” Assume that ethics is the constraint on the pursuit of self interest. As defined by Heath pursuing the maximization of profit above all else is an act of self interest, which is more obvious in the business sector. Therefore, business ethics should constrain the pursuit of profit. CONCLUSION In conclusion, Heath’s argument regarding the role of business ethics on constraining the maximization of profit can be considered a sound argument. If someone were to object to his argument, they would most likely target the premise “If ethics is the constraint on the pursuit of self interest, then business ethics should constrain the pursuit of profit.” This is because someone may argue that for a manager to pursue profit is not within their own self interest but rather on behalf of the business. This could then be considered the devotion to the wants/needs of others, in other words a form of altruism. Works Cited “Altruism.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/altruism. Accessed 13 Jul. 2021. “Ethic.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ethic. Accessed 14 Jul. 2021.
Hi, this is my philosophy course assignment in which you have to write an Argument Reconstruction paper of 800 to 1000 words. In this assignment, you have to reconstruct the argument into the standard
ASPER SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF MANITIOBA PHIL 2830 (A02): Business Ethics Instructor Damian Melamedoff-Vosters 15th July, 2021 Argument Reconstruction Assignment An Argument against Profit as an Obligation Brief Summary of Heath Argument: According to Heath (pp. 540-41), many people think that the problem is that profit is associated with self-interest. Nevertheless, on the other hand, business ethics associate with a behavior that is altruistic or unselfish in some sort. Therefore, the moral status of profit can be described as a “principled constraint on the pursuit of self-interest.” Consequently, if profit is substituted with self-interest, then business ethics refer to some sort of principled constraint on the pursuit of profits rather than a mode of maximizing it. Heath’s argument can be summarized as follows: (1) Every action that brings self-interest is unethical. (premise) (2) Every action that makes profit is self-interest. (premise) (3) So, every action that makes profit is unethical. (1-2) ( Conclusion ) (4) If every action that makes profit is unethical then business ethics refers to principled constraint on the pursuit of profit. (premise) (5) So, business ethics refers to principled constraint on the pursuit of profit .(3-4) (Conclusion ) Heath argues for premise (1) by induction . He presents a case: ethics is associate with behavior that is altruistic or unselfish in some sort. Assume if the presented case by Heath is true then any action that is selfish or self-interested are unethical, so any action that beings self-interest is unethical. Heath does provide a reason to think that (2) is true, since in most people minds profit is associated with self-interest and that is true because an action is self-interest if the consequence of that action is that the person who does it getting rewarded for doing so. Adding more to this premise assume company main goal is to make profit and mangers are company’s employees, so mangers every action would be self-interested to make profit. Therefore, we should think that every action that makes profit is self-interest. Health does not argue for (4), because he thinks it is obviously true. To see why, assume that every action that makes profit is unethical. This only leaves actions that makes profit is not unethical: actions that makes profit is ethical. Business ethics is associated with behavior that is selfless or altruistic. So, there is no reason to think that profit making actions wouldn’t in fact be unethical. Therefore, on the assumption that every action that makes profit is unethical, we should conclude that business ethics refers to principled constrained on the pursuit of profit. Conclusion In this paper, Heath’s claim that an economic system based on the pursuit for profits to be morally impartial has been explained, and the foundation for its proof. The pursuit for profit is ethical since most firms undertake their daily activities to achieve morality and get people to operate more cooperatively rather than maximize their profits. The basic idea is that any socially induced collective action problem poses specific challenges based on moral justification. However, the system of market competition is justified based on the scarcity of practical alternatives. The challenge is showing that the moral status of profit ethics shows that a firm can maximize its profits without exhibiting any form of self-interest. This challenge is a burden of proof that remains impossible to explain. Works cited Heath, Joseph. “Business ethics and the ‘end of history’in corporate law.” Journal of Business Ethics 102.1 (2011): 5-20. Heath, Joseph. Morality, competition, and the firm: The market failures approach to business ethics. Oxford University Press, 2014.

Writerbay.net

Everyone needs a little help with academic work from time to time. Hire the best essay writing professionals working for us today!

Get a 15% discount for your first order


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper