How good a friend was Jackie to Betty?

When Jackie bought Betty's land, was she helping a friend or taking advantage of a rare business opportunity?

If Jackie intended to take advantage of her friend's distress to enrich herself, and Betty knew but did not care as long as she got enough money to do the operation, did Jackie do anything wrong?

If Jackie knew that the value of the land was over a million dollars, was she obligated to advise Betty as such?

If Jackie had a million dollars available to invest but offered her friend the bare minimum for her to survive knowing that Betty had little choice but to accept it, did Jackie act morally?

Is it always immoral to take advantage of a weakness of another person?

Does it often occur in business where the weak is exploited by the strong?

X Corp, after many years of research, found a cure for a disease, which kills hundreds of thousands of people every year. It costs the company less than a dollar to produce each tablet needed for the cure. Patients may need up to three tablets a day for thirty days to be reasonably confident of being cured. X Corp with its patented formula has a monopoly on the drug and through its marketing analysis, found that a retail price of $150.00 per pill would maximize profits. It was also projected that half of the people who suffer from this disease would not be able to afford the cure.

Should managers and owners of businesses be guided by moral considerations when transacting business?

If a business is financially strong and makes excellent profits every year but does no good service for mankind, can it be called successful?

In business does the law of demand and supply often mitigate against the poorer and weaker members of society?

How do we measure success?

In our human family (the human race), who should be attended to first, the strong or the weak?

Should businesses be concerned or even share responsibility for the weaker members of society, even if it means cutting profits?

After years of trying, a university professor finally was able to develop a super battery. It was estimated that his invention could hold twenty times the amount of energy than the best battery on the market. The consequences of such an invention were mind boggling.

Petroleum, which for the last hundred years was held as the world's most economic energy source and storage, was about to be grossly devalued. The economic and political balance of power in many countries would probably be changed forever. Inexpensive sources of energy, such as solar and wind energy, harnessed in the new battery would be accessible to the poorest countries. The international motor vehicle industry would change. The price of transport, refrigeration, and even agricultural products apart from so many other items would be drastically reduced. Generally, it was thought that this new invention would do much to reduce the economic imbalance between rich and poor countries in the world.

This drastic change of paradigms, however good for poorer countries, would not be taken well by those who have vested interests in the crude oil companies. Countries with oil-based economies were fearful of losing economic dominance, even though their standards of living would also increase.

The idea that many poorer countries would gain greater economic independence was very disconcerting to them. They needed the poorer countries to need them. How else could they sell their petroleum-based products? Consequently, one large international oil company bought the patents from the professor and simply did nothing with them. The world would have to wait for economic equality.

Was it morally right for a company to try and stop the production of the super battery?

Generally, who tries to keep the status quo, those who are privileged or those who are not?

How far should one go to keep one's financial status?

Whether one is speaking about countries or individual people, is it morally right for the privileged to do anything to keep their status if that thing hinders the progress of the less privileged?

Is there a moral basis for a woman to have an abortion because she feels that having the baby would put her in a less favourable financial position?

In what ways does the independence of people threaten others who wish to control them?

Are there people who would wish to keep you in a state of dependence in order to control you?

Rhonda was a troubled child. She never knew her real father. The man who lived with her mother defied definition. He was not a father and from how she was treated by him, he had no aptitude to ever be one. He was just one who she and her mother fed, and whose forced authority they both lived under. But he was not a father. Not a stepfather even. No one with that title could demand from her the things he did when they were alone at home.

With her friends Ronda was as regular as a girl could be, but no one knew her pain. It was well hidden like the deeds of her mother's friend. Disillusioned with life there was nothing sacred anymore. She felt used and abused and discarded and so her peers found no resistance from her. She was game for anything, and the boys knew it. With each encounter there was sometimes a faint hope but never an expectation. Hope that she could feel something real, that he would find and show her that sacred thing that she lost so long ago.

When a boy encourages and gets a girl to have intercourse with him, what are some of the reasons she normally agrees?

To get their way do boys and girls sometimes use the weaknesses of others?

Do they consciously or unconsciously use the other's weaknesses to know what to say or do to get what they want?

Compare and contrast the exploitations of people in the four scenarios.

Is it our responsibility to help the weak or is it right to exploit their weaknesses in striving to promote a better life for ourselves and our loved ones?

Activity: Describe any situation, real or imagined, where one person exploits the weakness of a friend or family member.