Posted: December 6th, 2014

Ethical Implications of Pricing Decisions

Ethical Implications of Pricing Decisions

Order Description

THIS IS MEANT TO BE A DISCUSSION, SO PLEASE USE MORE OPINION THAN RESEARCH THOUGHT PROCESS

This discussion gives you an opportunity to examine a hypothetical budgeting process and analyze how the process is affected by multiple (and often differing) opinions.

Scenario: Forbes & Associates, Inc. uses a participatory budget process in which managers submit budgets for their respective divisions, which are then reviewed by Lee Blackmon, the chief financial officer (CFO). Divisional managers take the task seriously, as salary increases and bonuses are based on how actual performance compares to the budgeted income for each division. Last year, Alan Bennett, the manager of the financial services division of Forbes, had a record-breaking year and received a large salary increase for exceeding the budgeted income of the division by over 60 percent. Lee and Alan are currently negotiating the division’s budget for next year. Whereas Lee believes that the budgeted income for the financial services division should be 10 percent higher than last year’s actual results, Alan argues that last year’s results were extremely unusual and should not be expected to recur. Alan thinks that next year’s budget should be 10 percent higher than last year’s budget rather than 10 percent higher than last year’s actual results. Steve Forbes, the chief executive officer (CEO) of the company, has asked you to look into the issue and provide suggestions to improve the budget process.

In your original discussion posting, please address the following:

• A. Discuss the budgeting process at Forbes & Associates, Inc. Why do you think Lee and Alan are having difficulty agreeing on a budget?
• B. What suggestions do you have with respect to the budgeting process?
• C. How might the process be changed to provide more appropriate incentives for divisional managers like Alan?

PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT 🙂

David Hume and Immanuel Kant’s ideas

Order Description

Make sure your papers are double spaced, in 12 point type, have 1 inch margins and page numbers, and are in Times or New Times Roman font.

Write a (roughly) 5-6 page critical essay that addresses the question below. Your paper should not only exposit the relevant arguments from the text along with appropriate evidence and citations, but also you are required to provide some critical evaluation. The difficulty will be in limiting what you include to those arguments relevant to answering the question. So, think about what’s really important, structure your essay appropriately, and be concise.

Question:

In Prologomena to Any Future Metaphysics, Kant says,

“I openly confess that my remembering David Hume was the very thing which many years ago first interrupted my dogmatic slumber and gave my investigations in the field of … [metaphysics] a quite new direction. […]
So I tried first whether Hume’s objection could not be put into a general form, and soon found that the concept of the connection of cause and effect was by no means the only concept by which the understanding thinks the connections of things a priori, but rather that metaphysics consists altogether of such concepts.” (p. 5)

What was Hume’s argument concerning the relation of cause and effect (necessary connection) that awakened Kant from his “dogmatic slumber,” and what is Kant’s solution to re-establishing metaphysics as a legitimate science?

In order to address this question you should explain Hume’s division of knowledge into relations of ideas and matters of fact. Then you should explain how Hume arrives at the skeptical problem of causation, what is his skeptical solution, and what are his conclusions concerning the nature of necessary connections in natural world. Once you have done that, explain why Kant thinks Hume’s conclusions are problematic. Then explain what Kant thinks he must establish in order to set metaphysics aright? According to Kant, how are these kinds of judgments possible? Provide an answer that appeals to Kant’s explanation of how we make judgments of causation (necessary connection). Why does Kant think these kinds of judgments succeed in saving metaphysics as a legitimate body of knowledge? Whose account of metaphysics do you think is more convincing, Kant’s or Hume’s? Explain why you think so?

Please refer to the several lecture notes and two book. I will upload seven lecture notes. Please use same tone from the lecture notes- vocabulary, words, etc. The two books are David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, ed. Eric Steinberg, (Hackett Publishing, 1993), and Immanuel Kant, Prologomena to Any Future Metaphysics, ed. J. Ellington, (Hackett Publishing, 2002). Please read these books, specifically, Hume, Enquiry, sections 1-3, 4 (pp. 1-25) Enquiry, sections 4-5, Enquiry, 4-5 (pp. 15-37), Enquiry, 7 (pp. 39-53), Enquiry 7, 12, (pp. 39-53, 102-114) – Kant, Prologomena, Preface, “Preamble”; Prolegomena, “First Part of the Main Transcendental Question” (pp. 1-8, 8-34), “Second Part of the Main Transcendental Question: How is Pure Natural Science Possible?” (pp. 35-63), Kant, Prolegomena, “Third Part of the Main Transcendental Question” (pp. 64-84), Kant: Prolegomena, “Third Part of the Main Transcendental Question”; Prolegomena, “Solution to the General Question” (pp. 64-84, 99-112)

PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT 🙂