solved ALL WOK MUST BE ORIGINAL. MUST USE RELIABLE ACADEMIC RESOURCES

ALL WOK MUST BE ORIGINAL. MUST USE RELIABLE ACADEMIC RESOURCES FOR ALL REFERENCES AND IN TEXT CITATIONS.undefinedPlease respond to one of your colleague’s discussion postings. This response posting is limited to 250 – 350 words. Your response is intended to further the discussion and express your thoughts and opinions about the discussion topic as if you and your colleague are having a discussion in person about the topic.undefinedDiscussion Topic:undefinedIn the first chapter of the e-book, Business Ethics, Brusseau makes the statement, “One characteristic . . . of good ethical arguments is that, paradoxically but not contradictorily, they tend to provoke counterarguments”. Through the use of definition and example, explain what you believe this statement means.undefinedCOLLEAGUE RESPONSE:undefinedIn his book, Business Ethics, Brusseau makes the statement, “One characteristic . . . of good ethical arguments is that, paradoxically but not contradictorily, they tend to provoke counterarguments” (Brusseau, p. 9, 2018). The point I believe Brusseau is trying to make here is that an ethical argument, constructed correctly, should stimulate discussion and discourse. It is important for people to have these discussions and dialogues about ethics because by having these conservations, people get to introduce a whole new perspective that maybe the first argument missed or ignored. These ethical arguments are meant to be tested, they “need to make sense to outside observers” (Brusseau, p.6, 2018) because that is how we determine if they are good or not. In other words, “the test of an ethical argument resembles the test of a recipe for a cook: others need to be able to follow it and come to the same result” (Brusseau, p.6, 2018). The arguments are not meant to brainwash individuals, or make them follow these positions blindly. Their purpose is to spark conservations and talk through their beliefs on why this is right and clearly explain their whole proof. The main point is to get the other person to understand your reasoning, and that can only occur if your conclusions are “composed from clear values, recognized facts, and solid arguments” (Brusseau, p.6, 2018). In the first chapter of his book, Brusseau details an example of a practice by the University of Alabama, that was questioned for not being ethical. He made a clear argument, first by deciding what was most important and valuable in the situation, then by gathering and understanding all the facts, and then, he was finally able to construct his argument for why he believed the high textbook prices and kickbacks received by the university off them was unethical. This then, opens up the topic for discussion because since “well-developed ethical positions expose their reasoning so openly (as opposed to “it doesn’t smell right”), they tend to invite responses” (Brusseau, p.9, 2018) . In many cases, ”there may remain disagreements about facts and values at the end of an argument in ethics, but others need to understand the reasoning marking each step taken on the way to your conclusion”(Brusseau, p.6, 2018). Everyone has their own ideas about what is ethically right and wrong, and that is why it is important to discuss all sides of these stories. The book illustrates 3 ways people can formulate counterarguments, “you can attack the 1.facts, 2. values, 3. Reasoning” (Brusseau, p.9, 2018) . Differences and counterarguments are welcomed when you have clear-good ethical arguments. You want to make your argument clear enough for people to fully understand it and have questions about it. Discourse should not be looked down upon or discouraged, what is most important to remember is that, “well-reasoned arguments, by reason of their clarity, invite counterarguments” (Brusseau, p.11, 2018) and that is what you should strive for when making ethical arguments. undefinedBrusseau, J. (2018). The Business Ethics Workshop. Boston, MA: FlatWorld. Retrieved March 28, 2021, from http://www.saylor.org/booksSaylor.org undefined