Moral Reasoning Assignment

Instructions:
The aim of this exercise is to help you become familiar with the techniques of moral
reasoning and to encourage you to think critically about moral issues. Remember to
support your particular moral judgments about these cases with reasons. You should
aim to justify your particular moral judgments using relevant moral principles and
moral reasons. These principles may be very general, like the principle of utility
(‘maximize happiness’), or common deontological principles concerned with loyalty,
promise keeping, or those prohibiting deceiving and harming others, etc. Aim to
achieve a consistent fit between your moral beliefs, principles and particular
judgments. Refer to the readings for week 2 in order to find examples of moral
principles and reasons and explanations of moral reasoning and justification.
Make sure you answer every part of each question. Remember to provide sufficient
detail in Section C to give a clear indication of your overall position with regard tothe cases and the principles you endorse. This is a short answer assignment. You do
not need to answer the questions in the form of an essay. Please include a
bibliography with the main sources from the question and any additional sources
you reference directly. Include citations in the body of the assignment where
appropriate. You may use any of the major referencing styles provided you do so
consistently.

Answer ALL the questions below from sections A, B and C
Section A – 7 marks
Read the following news items and answer the questions:
“GlaxoSmithKline to pay $3bn in US drug fraud scandal”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/03/business/glaxosmithkline-agrees-to-pay-3-
billion-in-fraud-settlement.html?_r=0
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18673220
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Drugs/off-label-drug-marketing-free-speech-courtrules/story?id=17883930
2
Information about off-label prescribing andInformation about off-label prescribing and marketing:
http://www.nps.org.au/media-centre/media-releases/repository/Off-labelprescribing-what-does-it-mean
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=20732
Question: Outline the main ethical issues raised by GlaxoSmithKline’s decision to
promote and market anti-depressant drugs for unapproved uses. Do you think that
such practices are morally acceptable or unacceptable? Give reasons for your
answer.
In answering the question make sure to:
a) determine the facts of the case
b) identify affected parties
c) identify relevant moral principles, values and reasons
d) weigh up competing principles, values and reasons
e) reach a principled moral decision about the case
Section B – 7 marks
Watch or read the transcript of the following program and answer the questions:
Globesity: Fat’s New Frontier.
Transcript at http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2012/s3547707.htm
Video at http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5x6qiw
Additional information about Mexico and obesity:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/01/mexico-obesity-taxes-junk-foodsugary-drinks-exercise
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/nov/03/obese-soda-sugar-tax-mexico
Question: What are the main ethical issues raised by the promotion and marketing
of soft drinks and snack foods in countries such as Mexico? Reflect on the different
marketing strategies used by food and beverage companies in the documentary. Do you think it is morally permissible for companies to use these kinds of marketing
tactics in developing countries? Explain why or why not using examples from the
documentary to support your conclusions.
In answering the question make sure to:
a) determine the facts of the case
b) identify affected parties
c) identify relevant moral principles, values and reasons
d) weigh up competing principles, values and reasons
e) reach a principled moral decision about the case
Section C – 6 marks
Compare your responses to the two cases. Do you apply the same principles and
standards of conduct to pharmaceutical companies as you do to food and beverage
companies? Explain why or why not making sure you identify the morally relevant
differences or similarities between the two cases to support your conclusions.

WE ACCEPT