E&Y reasoned this as it creates an exception to the general rule of reserving for expected future product returns at the gross sales price and deferring the recognition of an equal amount of revenue. This justification is invalid. The company’s customers are not “ultimate customers,” but are wholesalers that sold their product to retailers. In addition, Medicis’s returns were not returns of products in exchange for products of “the same kind, quality, and price,” but of unsalable product for
It could be argued it doesn't really help the patient; it just makes their behavior more acceptable to others. As well patient’s behavior may just be superficial. They might only produce desirable behavior knowing they’re going to receive a token. Showing that token economy isn't
Simpler questions would be “Is Dr. Smith’s intentional practise of omitting important information relevant to his client’s treatment ethical?” or “Is Dr. Smith’s failure to report his client’s actions to the authorities morally justifiable?” Both would be good questions, but I believe the question the study guide asks us to consider embrace both of these questions. The possible answers to the question are “yes” or “no”. I will be using rule-based utilitarianism and Kantian deontology to analyse this case study. There is not enough information to consider act-based utilitarianism: Act-based utilitarianism essentially says that one should perform that act which will bring about the greatest amount of good (“happiness”) over bad for everyone affected by the act. Each situation and each person must be assessed on their own merits (Thiroux, 2004, p. 42).
According to Nagel, there is a paradox in moral responsibility caused by two concept: moral luck and the Control Principle. Moral luck designates blame on someone for actions outside of their control. The Control Principle, on the other hand, is the belief that blame should only be designated on someone for actions within their control. These two ideas are in direct contradiction of one another and it would be foolish to believe both. However, Nagel argues that we cannot plausibly reject either of them.
Adequacy of Consideration Adequacy of consideration refers to the fairness of the bargain. Ordinarily, courts will not evaluate the adequacy of consideration, unless it is so grossly inadequate as to “shock the conscience” of the court—if, in terms of its amount or worth, it indicates fraud, duress, or undue influence. The con¬tract may be declared unconscionable. A BAD BARGAIN is not failure of consideration Court do not consider the adequacy of the consideration given for the promise – the fact that the consideration supplied by one party is slight when compared with the burden undertaken by the other is immaterial as long as 1. the parties freely agreed to the exchange III. Agreements That Lack Consideration A. PREEXISTING DUTY Under most circumstances, a promise to do what one already has a legal duty to do is not legally suffi¬cient consideration.
Thomas Nagel’s “Moral Luck” Nagel begins his argument by explaining the problem with moral judgment upon individuals is that it does not take into consideration the actions that are not within one’s control, or is not their fault. That when we place the moral judgment upon a person as an object, independent of the external forces involved, and whether the outcome is good or bad, this would be considered ‘moral luck’. This brings in to question the validity of any moral judgment, because the more one looks into the given situation and what factors were outside the control of the person being judged, the more one sees that any moral responsibility is diminished. And with this statement, the addition that even our system of belief that we use to make these moral judgments is also largely based upon things, internal and external, that are beyond our control. Nagel’s basic thesis of this issue
Transition: First of all let me make everyone understands that I’m not trying to say people who wear sagging pants are lesser individuals. By no means am I trying to say they are irresponsible or incompetent. A. Main Idea 1: I think it’s a conflict between casual and professional dress. To say that people who prefer comfort are irresponsible would be wrong in fact.
She argues that not only is moral isolationism the view that one ought to respect other cultures but not judge them not right but it is logically incoherent. She presents four arguments that judgment is logically antecedent to respect that outsiders can judge foreign cultures if on a provisional basis and that moral isolationism leads to a complete inability to make moral judgments of any kind, and that cultures are not as moral isolationism holds isolating barriers. Her first argument is if moral isolationism is correct then one can respect a culture without judging it. But this is logically incoherent because judgment is logically antecedent to respect. One must judge a culture to some degree in order to respect it.
Welfare: Prevents non-rich from accessing needed goods, but incentivizes suppliers to send more b. Liberty: Diminished purchasing power diminishes reach of freedom of buyers, but allowing “gouging” respects freedom of retails to sell at the price the market dictates c. Virtue: “Gougers” seem to be taking unfair advantage of customers, which seems to be a mark of less than admirable personality traits – greediness, selfishness, a lack of compassion, etc. 2. Refusing to award the Purple Heart to Veterans suffering
Under this situation, if the other members just conform blindly for the fear of being left alone by others, the out-of-date food sold in the market might hurt the health of the consumers and negatively harm the company’s long term benefit in the end. On the other hand, there is also another reason why we should avoid conformity that is because to conform blindly to the former conclusion might limit the process of innovation. Think about all the great inventions in human history, none of them is result of conformity but instead they are the result inventor’s innovation and the result of breaking the stereotype. Only by getting rid of conformity can we increase the speed of a society’s