the disapering degree
Student: Andre Robinson
Grand Canyon University: PHI-305
16 FEB 2014
This paper renders a point of view on the ethical dilemma presented in the case study of the Disappearing Degree from the ethical stand point of view the writer. This paper also weighs in on the philosophical viewpoints of Hobbes, Hume’s and Kent’s theories that are consistent with their views on ethics and human nature. The View of the Writer In this Ethical Dilemma Connie has to take everything into account. First, Connie should look at whether or not the position requires a PH.D, and if it does not have the panel members revote. Second, the committee should consider the type of advantages that would come with having Mr. Craft’s talents. Like increased recognition, the possibility of attracting other top level talent, and the advantage to the children. In light of the advantages of having Mr. Craft on board, Connie has to assess the situation at hand from different viewpoints. Mr. Craft had a very plausible excuse for the mistake made on his resume. It was also verified that he was enrolled in the P.HD. program. Also Mr. Craft stated that he would sue if his was not selected based off his omission, or the mismanagement of his resume. However, his unveiled threat of suing should not force the committee or Connie to make a hasty decision.
The Writers Response Mr. Craft’s explanation, reputation, amiable personality, and talents however, should be enough to persuade the committee that this possible misunderstanding should be overlook. If given Ms. Connie’s position and all other reference’s checked out. Mr. Craft should be called in for a face to face interview with the committee. At that time if the interview went well it would be the moral duty of the committee to hire the best applicant (outside of personal feelings).
Hume’s Response Hume’s, response may have been different given that Hume viewed
Grand Canyon University: PHI-305
16 FEB 2014
This paper renders a point of view on the ethical dilemma presented in the case study of the Disappearing Degree from the ethical stand point of view the writer. This paper also weighs in on the philosophical viewpoints of Hobbes, Hume’s and Kent’s theories that are consistent with their views on ethics and human nature. The View of the Writer In this Ethical Dilemma Connie has to take everything into account. First, Connie should look at whether or not the position requires a PH.D, and if it does not have the panel members revote. Second, the committee should consider the type of advantages that would come with having Mr. Craft’s talents. Like increased recognition, the possibility of attracting other top level talent, and the advantage to the children. In light of the advantages of having Mr. Craft on board, Connie has to assess the situation at hand from different viewpoints. Mr. Craft had a very plausible excuse for the mistake made on his resume. It was also verified that he was enrolled in the P.HD. program. Also Mr. Craft stated that he would sue if his was not selected based off his omission, or the mismanagement of his resume. However, his unveiled threat of suing should not force the committee or Connie to make a hasty decision.
The Writers Response Mr. Craft’s explanation, reputation, amiable personality, and talents however, should be enough to persuade the committee that this possible misunderstanding should be overlook. If given Ms. Connie’s position and all other reference’s checked out. Mr. Craft should be called in for a face to face interview with the committee. At that time if the interview went well it would be the moral duty of the committee to hire the best applicant (outside of personal feelings).
Hume’s Response Hume’s, response may have been different given that Hume viewed
References: Tom Sorell, ‘Hobbes’s Moral Philosophy’, The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes’s Leviathan, ed. Patricia Springborg (Cambridge, 2007), pp. 133–5. Lapidus, A. (2010). The valuation of decision and individual welfare: a Humean approach. European Journal Of The History Of Economic Thought, 17(1), 1-28. doi:10.1080/09672560903204502