1. Define the term ‘ethics’ with appropriate examples.

Ethics is based on well-founded moral norms that dictate what humans should do,
usually in terms of rights, obligations, societal advantages, justice, or special qualities.
A sequence of questions that pose ethical concerns can be used to show the case.
Should you, for example, download movies from unlicensed websites? Is it safe to talk
on your phone while driving on the highway? Is it a good idea to hire low-paid
international programmers? Should you inform potential consumers that the smartphone
app you're selling requires them to hand over their contact information?

2. Who is virtuous person according to Aristotle?

Aristotle defines a virtuous person as someone who excels in the unique activity of
being human. The virtuous individual exemplifies both rational and moral excellence.

3. What are positive rights and negative rights? Explain with example
Positive rights are those rights that give the bearer of the right the ability to sue another
person or the government for a good, service, or treatment. For example, right to
education. A negative right is one that restricts the conduct of other people or
governments toward or against the right holder. For example, right to avoid defamation.

4. What is Socratic Method and Stoicism?

Socratic method refers to the method of inquiry and education used by Socrates, as
depicted in Plato's dialogues, which consists of a series of interrogations with the goal of
eliciting a clear and consistent expression of something assumed to be implicitly known
by all rational people.
Stoicism is an ancient Greek philosophical school that claimed that virtue, or the highest
good, is based on knowledge; the wise live in harmony with the divine Reason that
controls nature and are unaffected by the fluctuations of fortune, pleasure, or suffering.

5. Aristotle : “You can have too much of a good thing”. What does this term mean?
Explain with examples
The term refers to the fact that excessive amount of something is unhelpful or even
helpful that is otherwise enjoyable.
For example, exercising excessively can hurt body parts.
6. What are the problems with act and Rule utilitarianism.
It is an atrocious system in either of the forms indicated, the core of which would have
us commit openly horrible things in secret because it results in an increase in some
measure of enjoyment. This entire system is based on the idea that it is the goals that
matter, not the individuals. Regardless of what Utilitarian adherents claim, the system is
corrupt to the core and devoid of any morality.

1. Describe the four ethical theories with relevant examples.

Dentology
According to deontology, when faced with ethical dilemmas, our initial thoughts are on
our responsibilities and obligations. According to this hypothesis, our perceptions of our
responsibilities influence how we act in certain situations. For example, we may make a
decision based on our adherence to the law or our commitment to friends or family
members.
Utilitarianism
People pick their activities depending on how their decisions would benefit the most
people, according to utilitarianism. You make a judgment that is in the best interests of
all parties involved. This theory has two sides to it. Act utilitarianism states that you
should make decisions to aid others, whereas rule utilitarianism states that you should
act fairly.
Rights
People make decisions based on the rights that their society has agreed to, according
to the rights theory of ethics. Decisions will be influenced by what the majority of people
in that society believe is significant. According to this theory, our constitutional rights as
Americans should be considered in our decision-making. Our rights, such as freedom of
expression and religion, should guide us in our decisions.
Virtue
We can appraise a person's decisions based on his or her character and morality,
according to the ethical notion of virtue. According to this theory, the way a person lives
his or her life can explain any ethical decision. According to the virtue hypothesis, a
person who lies and cheats to get ahead in life is likely to make decisions based on
advancing his or her own interests.

2. What are the difference between Act and rule utilitarianism?

 Act Utilitarianism Rule Utilitarinism
Act utilitarianism is a philosophy that rule utilitarianism takes into account not
assesses the morality of a decision just whether the outcome was good or
primarily on its immediate implications, negative, but also how likely it was that
rather than its long-term ramifications. the action would result in a favorable
outcome.
Act utilitarians would be more prone to Rule utilitarians are less inclined to take
act quickly and without much thought to rapid action unless it is absolutely
the implications. essential and after careful consideration
of the consequences.
Act utilitarians would rate an event based Rule utilitarians, on the other hand, are
on its immediate advantages to oneself or more prone to consider how their actions
others, without considering what might will effect them and others in the long run.
happen in the future as a result of this
action.
Act utilitarians would require a rule that A more precise rule for a rule utilitarian
always benefits people in the same way would be "always offer food for individuals
each time it is applied. who request it."
For example, delivering food to those in
need could be considered a utilitarian
activity

3. What are the difference between Utilitarianism and Deontology

Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is the principle that the
correct form of action be taken to benefit
the greatest number of people.
Utilitarianism summarized is making the
right decision followed by the right actions
that has the best outcome for the largest
number of individual.
The purpose of the morality is by making
life better and increasing that amount of
good deed.
Deontology
Deontology is defined as the area of
ethics involving the responsibility, moral
duty and commitment.
Deontology is the understanding and
practice that there is a respect for life,
fairness, and honesty despite the
consequences.
Deontology is considered as morally good
because of the characteristic itself, not
because of the product of action is a good
thing already.

4. Explain the deontological theories.

Agent-Centered
The most common classification scheme for deontological theories is to categorize them
as agent-centered or victim-centered (or "patient-centered") theories. First, consider
deontological theories that are oriented on agents. According to agent-centered
theories, each of us has permissions and obligations that provide us with agent-relative
reasons to act.
Patient-Centered
All deontological theories focusing on patients are correctly described as theories based
on people's rights. An example version proposes the right against being utilized just as
a means of creating positive outcomes without one's consent as its basic right. A core
right like this should not be confused with more specific rights like the right not to be
killed or the right not to be killed on purpose.
Contractualist
Contractarianism is a moral philosophy that says moral rules derive their normative
validity from the concept of a contract or mutual agreement. Contractarians doubt that
morality or political power may be grounded in either divine will or any perfectionist ideal
of humanity's nature.

5. Explain the conflict between claim rights and liberty with suitable examples.
Liberty rights and claim rights are diametrically opposed: a person has a liberty right to
do something only if no one else has a claim right to prevent him from doing so;
similarly, if a person has a claim right against someone else, that person's liberty is
therefore constrained. To give an example, the claim that smokers have a right to
smoke turns out to be a claim to smokers' liberty to smoke because the act in question,
namely smoking, is an act performed by them and not by others. While people may
have the freedom to smoke under certain circumstances, their freedom is limited by the
rights of others, and they have a responsibility to abstain from smoking if their choice
violates others' rights.

• Should you fire Employee who criticizes your business in Social Media?
Anyone who has ever worked has had a horrible day at work. We've all encountered
those toxic employees who seem to whine deliberately all of the time. Should a boss, on
the other hand, fire an employee for criticizing the company? Yes, if an employee
speaks negatively about the company at work, you should fire them. Employees can be
fired at any moment for any cause in an At-Will state. Creating a hostile work
environment, however, is grounds for disciplinary action, up to and including
termination, in other states. If they're criticizing the company, it's possible they're dealing
with a deeper issue. You should talk to them about their problems. If you can't come to
an agreement on a mutually agreeable position, perhaps you should split ways. If the
employee decides to stay, you should explain the company's policies and options for
retaliation. Ascertain that these policies and options are documented. If it happens
again, you might want to consider terminating the relationship. Of course, this may not
be enough to quell the criticism.

• Should you attempt to prosecute employee who whistle-blows?

Whistle-blowing is the act of disclosing fraud, waste, and abuse in the context of fraud.
Whistleblowing is defined as reporting any act of misconduct, whether to public or
private employees, or to others inside or outside the victim organization. So persecuting
someone for blowing the whistle is not a good idea. Anyone can report misconduct, but
the level of protection an employee receives depends on whether they work for the
government or for a private company, who they report to, how they report, the type of
wrongdoing they disclose, and the law they report under. However, the employee must
report the infringement in good faith, show that the retaliation is due to the whistle-
blowing, and identify the laws broken and the people who broke them. Employees can
be paid for their losses, but the company can defend itself by claiming that its actions
had nothing to do with the whistleblowing. This is an affirmative defense that any
employer can raise. Employers who use an affirmative defense agree to taking
unfavorable personnel action, but claim it was due to circumstances unrelated to the
whistle-blowing.