It’s about Anna Belen Montes who was a former American senior analyst at the Defense Intelligence Agency in the United States. On September 21, 2001, she was arrested and subsequently charged with conspiracy to commit espionage for the government of Cuba

This essay focuses on the particular counterintelligence case examined by students for their earlier presentations.

It should provide a brief narrative of the case and examine it from a social science perspective within the context of the theme described above.

The essay should address one of the counterintelligence cases as allocated, usually the same case that the student has already presented, and should incorporate the challenges and observations made at that time, although each essay will be assessed as a stand-alone work only.

Business and Professional Ethics ,
Reading Assignment 1: Moral Reasoning Exercise
Length: 700-800 words if you over this limit I will lose mark

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 killing and harming, 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.

the readings for week 2
**Stephen Cohen, ‘Top-down and Bottom-up Reasoning’ and ‘Reflective Equilibrium’, Chapters 4 and 5 of The Nature of Moral Reasoning, (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2004), pp. 59-74.
**Joan C. Callahan (ed.), ‘Some Major Distinctions and What Morality is Not’ and ‘Kinds of Moral Principles’ in Ch. 1 of Ethical Issues in Professional Life, Oxford University Press: Oxford), 1988, pp. 10-14 and 19-21.
**Damian Grace and Stephen Cohen, ‘Consequentialism’, ‘Nonconsequentialism’, ‘Virtue Ethics’, and ‘Relativism’, in Ch. 1. , Business Ethics, (Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2010), pp. 15-27.
Further Reading
**Mark Dowie, ‘Pinto Madness’, reprinted in Lisa H. Newton & Maureen M. Ford (eds.). Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in Business Ethics and Society, 8th edition, (McGraw Hill, 2004) pp. 248-262.
**Peter Singer, ‘What ethics is: one view’, in Practical Ethics, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1979), pp. 8-13.
James Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 3rd ed., Boston: McGraw-Hill College, 1999. See especially chapters 5, 7, 9 & 10. (Reserve collection) (This is a very accessible introduction to moral philosophy)

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 to the 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.

Answer ALL the questions from sections A, B and C (questions 1-6) Section A Read the following news items and answer the questions: “GlaxoSmithKline to pay $3bn in US drug fraud scandal”

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/03/business/glaxosmithkline-agrees-to-pay-3billion-in-fraud-settlement.html?_r=0 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18673220

1. What are the main ethical issues raised by GlaxoSmithKline’s decision to promote and market drugs for unapproved uses? Do you think that such practices are morally permissible or unethical? Provide detailed reasons to support your conclusions. 2. Do you think it was morally acceptable for GlaxoSmithKline not to release relevant research data and to make unsupported safety claims for one of its diabetes drugs? Is there a moral difference between merely failing to provide relevant information and actively making false claims about the safety of a drug? Give reasons for your answer. 3. GSK’s activities were found to be illegal. Would it make a difference to your assessment of the case if such activities were not against the law? Why/Why not?
Section B Watch or read the transcript of the following program and answer the questions: Globesity: Fat’s New Frontier.

https://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2012/s3547707.htm Additional information about Mexico and obesity: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/01/mexico-obesity-taxes-junk-foodsugary-drinks-exercise

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/nov/03/obese-soda-sugar-tax-mexico

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/03/coca-cola-drops-controversialchristmas-video-set-in-indigenous-mexico

4. Do large food and beverage companies have any moral obligations or responsibility to consider the consequences for public health of marketing and distributing certain kinds of food and drink products? Why/Why not? Answer this question using examples from the documentary to support your conclusions. 5. The program describes a range of marketing techniques used by food and beverage companies in different countries: the marketing of soft drinks to schools in Mexico; the door to door selling of snack foods fortified with micronutrients and marketed to low income families in Brazil; a snack food boat that visits small villages along the Amazon to promote and sell food and drinks. Do you find any of these marketing techniques morally problematic? Explain in each case, why or why not.
Section C 6. 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.

Watch or read the transcript of the following program and answer the questions:
Globesity: Fat’s New Frontier.
https://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2012/s3547707.htm
Additional information about Mexico and obesity:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/01/mexico-obesity-taxes-junk-food-sugary-drinks-exercise
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/nov/03/obese-soda-sugar-tax-mexico
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/03/coca-cola-drops-controversial-christmas-video-set-in-indigenous-mexico

Additional information

The Nature of Ethics and Moral Reasoning Analysing Case Studies

1. Determine the facts of the case
2. Define the ethical issues: E.g. Is it morally permissible to sacrifice one life to save five?/Is it morally permissible to risk the lives of customers in order to minimize production costs?
3. Identify major principles, rules and values
4. Weigh up competing principles and reasons and assess alternatives in order to reach a justified conclusion about the moral status of the acts and policies in question.

HOW TO WRITING PHILOSOPHY ESSAYS

Writing a philosophy essay provides you with the chance to work out what you think about an important philosophical question. Sometimes, you will already know what you think (at least, you will think that you know). In this case, working on the essay will provide you with the opportunity to reflect on and clarify your thinking – and perhaps to change your mind.
It also provides you with the opportunity to learn about the views of significant philosophers and to develop your own views in critical relation with theirs.
Finally, writing a philosophy essay provides you with the opportunity to present your views in a form appropriate for public discussion. It requires you to provide reasons why others should accept your views; it also means that your views are subject to the critical scrutiny of others.
RESEARCH For 100 and 200 level units, the major research required is reading – carefully and critically – the book, articles, etc., on the reading lists provided. You may if you wish seek other relevant material in the library, or on the web, but use it very cautiously. If in doubt about its relevance, consult your tutor.
In later undergraduate units, you will be encouraged to undertake independent research and will be given advice as to how to go about it.
Before you start reading, however, you should think carefully about the topic. Make sure you know what it means, and if possible, work out what your own – tentative – views are. If you do not find the recommended books and articles relevant, this may well mean that you have misunderstood the question. Think more about the topic, and talk to fellow students and/or your tutor, before you proceed any further.
It is not necessary to read a lot for most philosophy essays. The Reading Lists for Philosophy Essays are usually a good deal shorter than those of other Humanities and Social Science Subjects. However it is very important to read with care and attention. Try to work out what the author is saying and what his/her reasons are. Take special care to read and consider authors with whom you disagree. Think about how you might criticise their arguments, and how they might respond to your criticisms. But also ask yourself whether an author’s arguments give you reason to reconsider your own position. Think of reading as a way of entering into a dialogue with the author.
Always make notes on your reading. Even scrappy notes are useful reminders when you want to recall what you have read.
WRITING Before you start writing, draw up a rough plan of your projected essay, covering all the relevant issues.
As you write, you will find that issues that originally seemed easy are more difficult than you had thought, and sometimes you will find that you want to change direction, or even your mind, as you write. It is not uncommon to discover that you need to do more reading. So it is very important to leave yourself enough time to do this.
– 19

When you have completed your first draft, you need to make sure that you have covered all the issues, and that it develops in a coherent fashion from beginning to end. (Often you will find that you have changed course half way through and that the early material may no longer be relevant to your conclusion).
It is important to give yourself enough time to spend a day or two thinking about your first draft, and then to rewrite it for submission.
Your final aim must be to present your views so that they are comprehensible and plausible to your reader. By and large, your marker will be less concerned about the positions you adopt than with your ability to provide reasons for them. (Of course, there are some positions that are more difficult to support than others.) So, whatever view you argue for, make sure that you have provided reasons why your reader should take it seriously and that you have taken into account possible objections to it (especially those canvassed in the reading list). That you believe it is not a reason for your reader to believe it. Use argument rather than assertion, and reason rather than rhetoric.
Things to bear in mind: • Give yourself time to think about your essay. Good philosophy cannot be done in a hurry or at the last minute. • Have a plan, but be flexible about it. • Give yourself time to rewrite. • Provide reasons that will persuade others that your views are correct or plausible. • Show that you have read and understood the views of the main philosophers who have contributed to the debate (ie. those who appear on the reading list). • Show that you have considered the main alternatives to your position and can criticise them effectively. • Make sure that you have covered all the required aspects of the essay topic. If there are specific questions asked, make sure that you have answered them all. • Avoid pretentiousness. Try to write as simply as is compatible with what you are trying to say. Do not try to impress your reader with inflated language and terminology. • Most branches of philosophy have their own technical terms (‘jargon’). Before you use these terms, make sure that you understand them. • If possible, do not sit on the fence. Try to argue for a position, though taking into account its problems and the criticisms that have been made of it. • Do not assume that your reader already knows what you are talking about. If you are talking about an author or an example, provide enough detail for someone who does not know your source to understand what you are talking about (and incidentally, to show that you know what you are talking about). • Quote sparingly. Use quotation to illustrate your argument, not to replace it. • Do not simply reproduce lecture notes. Where you make use of lecture notes, provide a reference. If you use lecture material without acknowledgment, you will be guilty of Plagiarism (see below). • If possible, ask someone else (friend, parent, sibling) to read the first draft of your essay, to help identify areas where your essay may need to be clarified or expanded.
– 20