INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE ARGUEMENT

EXPLAINING THE OUTLINE : Instructions for Contributing to Outline

This is a file I have just created 2/8/17. It is experimental. If you have questions about any part of these instructions, please ask. I’ll need to know what is confusing so I can reword, etc.

Here are the parts of the outline, explanations of the purpose of that part of the outline, and what is expected for each part. The parts of the outline for the 1st Discussion & for 2nd Discussion are:

INTRO CASE DETAILS ARGUMENT POLICIES & PROCEDURES TECH FIX

Here is explanation and special requirements of each part:

INTRO —the Intro for this class is a précis. A précis is a summary, usually a logical summary, using as few words as possible. The précis for this class is two parts: statement of action and verdict is the first part, that’s the part you have to fill in. The second part is a summary of the logical content, in other words, the second part is the outline itself. The outline I give you to write the Result is summarized in the INTRO, but I have done this for you, you just copy/paste it.

So for the INTRO all you are doing is copy/pasting the template, and filling in the first part, indicated here in brown. That’s why team lead has to do Intro, because the Intro is not really doing much work. Only work for the Intro is the copy/paste and then trying to define the action of the case in as few words as possible.

INTRO This paper will examine the case of NAME OF ORGANIZATION & or INDIVIDUALS and NATURE OF INCIDENT OR ACTION OR NEGLECT. It will be shown that this INCIDENT OR ACTION OR NEGLECT violates [or demonstrates] the ethics of STATE THE ETHICAL PRINCIPLE OR THEORY YOU WILL ARGUE FOR . First, details of the case will be described. Then a precise definition of the ethical theory will be given. Next it will be shown how the details of this case relate to the ethical theory being discussed. Finally, suggestions will be made for future guidelines such that this ethical principle may be applied in this case or in similar cases.

So, the Intro we might write for the recent Samsung phone cases, defining the action of Samsung being sued for injury caused by phones exploding:

INTRO EXAMPLE This paper will examine the case of John Stone suing Samsung for damages due to exploding phones. It will be shown that marketing exploding phones violates the ethics of virtues. First, details of the case will be described. Then a precise definition of the ethical theory will be given. Next it will be shown how the details of this case relate to the ethical theory being discussed. Finally, suggestions will be made for future guidelines such that this ethical principle may be applied in this case or in similar cases.

Notice, you could instead discuss the ethics of bringing the lawsuit itself, but you’d probably want to go for the simpler action, because your decision about the ethics of the lawsuit will probably be determined only by the ethics of the phone’s exploding. I say “probably”, because maybe we agree marketing exploding phones is wrong, but the lawsuit itself might be bogus, or asking too much, etc. What you define as the action must be carefully chosen and will vary depending on what you think is important about the case.

CASE DETAILS Case Details are facts, and only facts. If you give opinion of anyone you must state that it is opinion, a claim, etc. Never mention the ethics or make ethical judgements in the Case Details. The Case Details are the facts. Here is the outline for CASE DETAILS:

• Chronology of events of case . Chronology means dates, a timeline, a list of who, what, when, and where. When is the organizing factor. You must find as many dates as you can, and the chronology should start from earliest events to most recent, in that order.

• Principal people involved . This is just a list of names, you don’t even have to say why they are involved or how. The list of people is there to signal to the people doing the argument & reading the argument, that these named parties will be discussed in the argument.

• Those most responsible . This is just a list of names, you don’t even have to say how or why they are responsible. This might not be relevant for all theories, and it might be crucial for some (list them even if responsibility is not relevant to the theory). For example, utilitarianism never assigns blame or guilt, so who is responsible will not much matter for that theory. But for virtues ethics and maybe rights theory, who is responsible will be crucial info. But again, better to just list names. If you justify why they are responsible, you are going beyond facts.

• Results . Only discuss known results or maybe you can speculate about possible results. But if you speculate about unconfirmed results, be sure to explain that this is just speculation. If we have no results yet, best probably to just say so. o Those affected by results. This is just a subset of RESULTS.

ARGUMENT Each ethical theory has its own argument outline. You find the outlines at the end of the NOTES for that ethical theory. Follow that outline exactly. Also, never begin the ARGUMENT with a summary of the facts of the case. Notice please, the paragraphs directly before the argument are summary of the facts of the case. Summarizing again would be redundant. You have to see your Contribution to the paper as an integrated part of the whole paper. Also, never say “I believe”, etc. This is a team paper, a team voice, not your individual view.

POLICIES & PROCEDURES Do not begin Policies with a summary of the case or the ethics for the case. By the time we read Policies, we already know what the case is about. Begin with the sentence: These events could have been avoided if . . .

This is the tricky part. Don’t tell us that the events could have been avoided if they had not happened. That tells us nothing, certainly nothing helpful. We want to know what policies or procedures should have been in place. Example: How could events of Samsung exploding phones lawsuit have been avoided? Don’t tell us that it could have been avoided if Samsung had not marketed exploding phones. That doesn’t help, that just says “don’t do it.”. We need more, We need to understand what kind of policies should have been in place that would have stopped Samsung from marketing those phones. Well, could we say Samsung should have better testing? Well, Samsung knows that already. We want to find a way to make sure Samsung does what they know they should do.

The problem seems to be that there is too little regulation of phone devices at the government level. We shouldn’t have to wait for a new device to explode in our hands, etc, to find out the product is defective. There needs to be demand for proper testing and punishment for when proper testing does not take place. So, the events could have been avoided if there were more regulation of phone and other electronic devices. Then, you answer the second question: future guidelines/procedures

Here you would describe the kinds of regulations and punishments needed, such as a clear testing department demanded for all electronics companies. Maybe amount of a fine, etc. Be sure to never say “I think”. It’s not your opinion, it’s a team voice, a team paper.

TECH FIX Do not begin Tech Fix with a summary of the case or the ethics for the case. By the time we read Tech Fix, we already know what the case is about. Instead, begin directly with the fix. Be sure to never say “I think”. It’s not your opinion, it’s a team voice, a team paper.

Tech Fix is not about policies to fix the problem. Do not discuss different approaches, values or policies for the industry or the company. That is Policies/Procedures and not Tech Fix. Instead, we want discussion or description of an app or a device that would fix the problem. Best if it is something you think up. Tech Fix will describe how the new app or device would function. For example, a tech fix for the Samsung phone might be something similar to the way cars are tested for pollution. Any new device, any upgrade of a device, from toasters to phones should have to be rigorously tested to hooked up equipment that sends an electronic testing report to the FTC. That way, if a company does sub-par testing, they would have to fudge results by illegally tampering with the test. So I just thought this up. How feasible would it be? What might be some problems with this Tech Fix? So consider what might be flaws in your proposed Tech Fix.

Having trouble coming up with a fix? Think up a website. For example, in the Samsung case, there could be a website where FTC & FCC report all product failures or reported dangers, and users could report problems to this site. I suspect there already is such a site, but clearly it is not sufficient, and within the next 4 years will probably just disappear. So, maybe some IEEE arm that has such a site? Something like that, and tell us how the website would work.

Tech Fix is very important to this class, that’s why the paper ends with the Tech Fix instead of a standard conclusion. We aren’t just looking at problems, we want to use Silicon Valley to solve problems.