Discount Tutor
Maoxiaoying
reply5.docx1. Farmville was a subtle game that you didn’t expect to be making such meaningful contributions. Many people that have money will think hard about giving directly to a cause or someone poor. In the game, you think of spending little amounts of money to achieve higher in a game, but in the end, you are contributing to a less fortunate country or cause. In your process of thinking it is the steps of conscience. While playing these games like Farmville the small rice is tempting because your purchase is not a large amount so you are just spending a couple of dollars here and there. Sometimes your superego is saying you don’t need to spend money on this game save it for an important day. While your Id is saying I need to get more plants, speed up my farm growth, or wanting to complete that next challenge quicker to get a badge. You are so tempting on spending how ever amount of money, but your ego trying to find a middle trying to stretch out your spending through out the week.
The company is not prioritized about money, but it is one of its goals. They have a steward type mindset of helping others with the resources that they have. Since a lot of the money is coming from the game it not like they are fishing for people to give money it is an even trade-off. They buy in the game, in turn, they spend it on all of the other causes are committed too. Their path is a good one and not just trying to make money for investors but actually, look out for the less fortunate. The only pitfall would be keeping people entertained with their game and having incentives for people to want to spend money.
2. In our case study for the week, we read about how Zynga, an online gaming producer, offers charitable contributions to a variety of critical development projects. Here we attempt to analyze the ethical foundations of the organization with application of concepts from the readings in the chapter leading up to our study.
The preferential option for the poor, as discussed in our chapter, is defined as a form of "justice" with a "broader social focus." This genus is different from the concept of charity, as it provides opportunity for the long-term focus and targets the social fabric of marginalized sectors. To address our first question, that is how Zynga can use there content to fulfill social missions, we must first address their ability to aim properly at the identifiable goal it may have. If Zynga, can operate profitably and offer a broad form of altruism to a marginalized community, then they will have ability to contribute to which ever cause they deem fit for a just contribution. With this in mind, operating with such a principle must be kept just. If this form of business catches steam, they must keep their budget locked and use these profits to give towards altruistic endeavors. Attempting to adjust their margin while utilizing this form of advertisement should be seen as an opportunity to take advantage of their social aim, which is morally unethical. They can develop several different projects aimed at different social needs. For example, a game about farming can be aimed to serve the farming communities, or a game about fishing can be used to give benefit towards sea life.
Addressing question two and three, as mentioned, I believe wholeheartedly that this form of business will indeed entice an individual to support their platform versus another that offers a similar product. The idea that altruism leads to a greater profit has been well documented by economists (See work of economist Gary Becker if interested). Gary Becker attempted to measure whether or not forms of altruism leads to greater utility in the long run. When measured within the single family household, this parameter suggests that households that are more altruistic with their children are better suited to be more profitable in the long run (when their children eventually support them).
Regarding the last question, my opinion, from an economic point-of-view, is that it depends. The preferential option for the poor differs from charity in that it provides opportunity for projects to become self sufficient. For example, a charitable act would be a donation of a sum of money to a food pantry. A preferential option for the poor would be to take the same amount of money, develop a operation that creates food, employs the poor, and thus provides for those in need and sustains a cycle of operation. If this indeed is the case for Zynga, then yes I believe that this would be a preferential option for the poor versus a charitable contribution.
