Case 1: Off-Duty Smoking
1. Was Rob's choice justified? Why or why not?
2. Is it fair for any employer to refuse to hire a smoker? What about an overweight person? (Are there any relevant differences between a smoker and an overweight person?). Be sure to define what you mean by 'fair.'
3. Does the job position being filled - floor manager - make any relevant difference in this case? If not, can you think of a position where smoking would be relevant?
4. Should employers be free not to hire employees whose personal behaviors are considered high risk?
5. Should employers be able to restrict employeer's high-risk behavior? Why or why not?
Case 2: Sing's Chinese Restaurant
1. Is Sing's defense a good one under the law? Why or why not?
2. Is Sing's defense a good one under the standards of morality? Why or why not?
3. Is this a case of preferential hiring? Of "reverse discrimination?"
Case 3: Merck and River Blindness
1. Given the fact that Merck is spending corporate resources to manufacture and distribute Mectizan, is the Merck Mectizan Donation Program morally justifiable? Explain.
2. Would Friedman approve of the Merck Mectizan Donation Program? Explain.
3. Should the fact that Merck's values are clearly stated in corporate publications that are widely available to investors make a difference to someone who accepts Friedman's position? Explain.
4. Should the Merck Mectizan Donation Program serve as a model for other pharmaceutical companies who are in a unique position to facilitate the eradication of other diseases in the developing nations? Explain.
Discussion for each case is included in three separate, attached Word documents in the CS Template format. The original cases are not included because they consist of copyright material; therefore, the student should have their own copy of each original case from the textbook.