MGMT 2010 · HKUST BUSINESS SCHOOL
Midterm Essay Question Bank
& Answer Frameworks
Business Ethics & the Individual · Compiled March 2026
Q1 Virtue Ethics Q2 Deontology Q3 Consequentialism Q4 Comparison Q5 Metaethics
How to Structure ANY Ethics Essay — P·A·C·E
Memorise this universal essay skeleton — it works for every question on the midterm.
P A C E
P OS IT ION AP P LY CRIT IQUE E VAL UAT E
State your argument Apply the relevant theory Acknowledge limitations Conclude with a
clearly in 1–2 sentences to the scenario with or counterarguments — reasoned judgment —
upfront. Commit to a precise terminology. show critical thinking. don't just describe, take
view. a stance.
Examiner priority: Reward goes to judgment, not recall. Always evaluate — never just list what the theory says.
Q1 Single Theory — Virtue Ethics VIRT UE E T HICS
E S S AY Q U E S T I O N
"Using virtue ethics, analyse whether a business manager who knowingly sells a defective product to
meet a sales target is acting ethically."
Virtue ethics is the first theory taught and is highly applicable to leadership and character in business — expect it to
appear on case-based questions.
1 Define the Theory
Virtue ethics (Aristotle) asks "what kind of person should I be?" — morality is about character, not rules or
outcomes
The goal is eudaimonia — human flourishing through virtuous activity
Key virtues: integrity, courage, temperance, honesty; guided by phronesis (practical wisdom)
2 Apply to the Scenario
The manager exhibits greed (vice of excess) — placing profit above character
Selling a defective product violates honesty and integrity — a virtuous person is honest regardless of incentive
Lack of courage: a virtuous manager would have the courage to refuse or report the defect
Phronesis would guide the manager to see the long-term reputational and human harm of this action
3 Critique
Virtue ethics gives no precise rule on what exactly to do — it tells you to "be honest" but not whether to resign,
report, or refuse the sale
Cultural relativism: different organisations may define a "successful" manager differently
4 Conclusion
The manager lacks integrity, temperance, and practical wisdom — failing to embody eudaimonia. This action is clearly
unethical under virtue ethics.
Unethical — lacks integrity, courage, and phronesis
Q2 Single Theory — Deontology D E ON TOLOGY
E S S AY Q U E S T I O N
"Apply Kant's deontological ethics to evaluate the practice of deceptive advertising."
1 Define the Theory
Deontology (Kant): morality is about universal duties derived from reason, regardless of consequences
Categorical Imperative — two key formulations:
Universalisability Formula: "Could you will your maxim to become universal law?"
Humanity Formula: "Never treat persons merely as means, always also as ends"
2 Apply the Universal Law Formula
Maxim: "I will deceive consumers to increase sales"
Universalised: if all advertisers deceived, advertising as a system of communication would collapse — consumers
would trust nothing → contradiction in conception
Therefore: deceptive advertising is a perfect duty violation — absolutely impermissible, no exceptions
3 Apply the Humanity Formula
Consumers being deceived are treated as means only — manipulated to extract purchasing decisions without
respecting their rational agency
This directly violates human dignity and autonomy — a core Kantian concern
4 Critique
Kantian rigidity: even a "white lie" in advertising that helps consumers would be impermissible
Doesn't weigh actual harm caused — a minor exaggeration is treated identically to a dangerous lie
5 Conclusion
Deceptive advertising fails both formulations of the Categorical Imperative — it is absolutely impermissible under
Kantian ethics.
Impermissible — violates both CI formulations
Q3 Single Theory — Consequentialism CONSE QUE NT IAL ISM
E S S AY Q U E S T I O N
"A pharmaceutical company decides not to develop a life-saving drug because it is not profitable
enough. Evaluate this decision using consequentialism."
1 Define the Theory
Consequentialism: moral worth is determined entirely by outcomes — the right action maximises utility for the
greatest number
Bentham's Hedonic Calculus: assess by extent, duration, and intensity of harm/benefit
2 Apply Act Utilitarianism
Stakeholders affected: patients who die without the drug, shareholders who benefit from reallocation, society
(long-term healthcare burden)
Hedonic Calculus: the extent (many patients), duration (permanent — death), and intensity (severe suffering) of
harm vastly outweigh financial gain
Act utilitarianism condemns this decision
3 Consider Rule Utilitarianism
Rule: "Pharmaceutical companies need not develop unprofitable drugs"
If universally followed, medical innovation would be severely skewed toward profitable conditions, massively
harming overall societal welfare
Rule utilitarianism also condemns this decision
4 Critique
Measurement problem: how do you precisely quantify lives saved vs. financial losses?
Consequentialism may justify forced drug development even at company insolvency — is that a reasonable
implication?
5 Conclusion
The net harm to society far outweighs financial benefit to the firm under both act and rule utilitarianism.
Unethical under both act and rule utilitarianism
Q4 Comparison Essay — Most Likely Midterm Format AL L T HRE E T HE ORIE S
E S S AY Q U E S T I O N
"Compare and contrast how virtue ethics, deontology, and consequentialism would each evaluate a
manager's decision to lay off 200 workers to increase shareholder profit. Which framework provides the
most convincing ethical guidance?"
Comparison questions test whether you understand not just each theory, but when and why they diverge. This is the
most likely midterm format.
1 Brief Introduction — Define All Three (1 sentence each)
Virtue Ethics (Aristotle): moral worth lies in character — a good person with phronesis makes the right decision
Deontology (Kant): moral worth lies in following universal duties — treat all persons as ends, never merely as
means
Consequentialism (Bentham/Mill): moral worth lies in outcomes — the right act maximises utility for the greatest
number
2 Apply All Three Lenses to the Scenario
FRAMEWORK VIRTUE ETHICS DEONTOLOGY CONSEQUENTIALISM
Analysis Does the decision reflect greed Are workers treated as ends or Weigh all stakeholders: 200
or prudent stewardship? A merely as means? Laying off workers lose livelihoods;
virtuous leader shows 200 to enrich shareholders shareholders gain; long-term
compassion — exploring all treats workers instrumentally. company may survive and
alternatives. Phronesis asks: is No due process = Humanity rehire. Net utility calculation is
this truly the only option? Formula violated. context-dependent.
Verdict
Possibly unethical — if Likely unethical — Could be ethical IF net
alternatives weren't humanity formula violated welfare is maximised
explored
3 Identify Where They Agree and Disagree
All three agree: how layoffs are handled (with dignity, support, fair process) matters morally
They disagree on: whether the layoffs themselves are permissible in principle
High-marks insight: All three theories may agree on the action but give completely different reasons.
Always articulate this divergence explicitly in comparison essays.
4 Evaluate Which Framework is Most Convincing
Consequentialism captures practical business reality but risks ignoring individual workers' rights
Deontology protects individual dignity but may be too rigid in genuine insolvency situations
Virtue ethics is most nuanced — asks about character and motivation, not just the act itself
5 Conclusion — Take a Stance
A strong answer defends one framework while acknowledging the others. Example conclusion:
"Virtue ethics most convincingly captures the full moral picture because it asks not merely what was done
but who the manager is and how the decision was made — capturing both motivation and method, not just
outcomes or rule-compliance."
Q5 Metaethics Integration Essay ME TAE T HICS
E S S AY Q U E S T I O N
"Does the existence of cultural moral differences prove that ethical standards are relative? What are the
implications for multinational business ethics?"
1 Define the Metaethical Debate
Metaethics examines the nature and origins of moral standards — are they universal facts or social constructs?
Moral universalism: objective moral truths exist independently of culture (natural law, Kantian reason, biology)
Moral relativism/constructivism: morality is culturally constructed (Nietzsche, Foucault, postmodernism)
2 Present Evidence for Relativism
Hofstede's dimensions: power distance, individualism, long-term orientation vary dramatically (e.g., USA
individualism 91 vs. China 20)
Michigan Fish Test (Nisbett & Masuda): even basic perception is culturally shaped — let alone moral judgment
Yang Liu's art: truth, authority, and problem-solving are interpreted fundamentally differently East vs. West
Sub-cultural variation: even within China, Northern vs. Southern Chinese differ morally (rice vs. wheat farming
traditions)
3 Counter-Argument — Universalism
Cultural difference ≠ cultural relativism — people can be wrong across cultures (e.g., slavery was widely practised
but is universally condemned today)
Mirror neurons and empathy are biologically hardwired — suggesting some prosocial morality is innate, not purely
constructed
Kant: rational beings everywhere can derive the same moral law through reason alone
4 Apply to Multinational Business
Relativist implication: adapt ethical standards to local norms ("when in Rome") — e.g., accept local gift-giving
practices
Universalist implication: uphold the same ethical standards globally — e.g., no child labour regardless of local law
Key tension: when does cultural sensitivity become moral relativism?
5 Conclusion — Strongest Position
"Cultural differences show how morality is expressed differently, but do not prove there are no universal
moral standards. Multinational firms should maintain core universalist commitments (human dignity, anti-
corruption) while adapting style to local cultures — the distinction between universal substance and local
form is key."
Quick Essay Technique Tips
Never just describe — always evaluate. Examiners reward judgment, not recall. Tell them what you think, then
justify it.
Use precise terminology throughout: eudaimonia, phronesis, Categorical Imperative, Hedonic Calculus,
universalisability, moral relativism. Demonstrate you know the language of the field.
Acknowledge the strongest counterargument to your position — this shows critical thinking and earns marks
for intellectual honesty.
For comparison essays: show that theories can agree on the action but disagree on the reason — that insight
scores high marks and distinguishes strong answers.
For metaethics questions: connect back to how metaethical commitments affect which normative framework
you apply and why.
For business scenario questions: name specific stakeholders and explain how each theory treats them
differently — this demonstrates applied analytical depth.
Use the P·A·C·E structure in every answer: Position → Apply → Critique → Evaluate. This ensures you never
just describe without taking a stance.
Midterm Essay Question Bank
& Answer Frameworks
Business Ethics & the Individual · Compiled March 2026
Q1 Virtue Ethics Q2 Deontology Q3 Consequentialism Q4 Comparison Q5 Metaethics
How to Structure ANY Ethics Essay — P·A·C·E
Memorise this universal essay skeleton — it works for every question on the midterm.
P A C E
P OS IT ION AP P LY CRIT IQUE E VAL UAT E
State your argument Apply the relevant theory Acknowledge limitations Conclude with a
clearly in 1–2 sentences to the scenario with or counterarguments — reasoned judgment —
upfront. Commit to a precise terminology. show critical thinking. don't just describe, take
view. a stance.
Examiner priority: Reward goes to judgment, not recall. Always evaluate — never just list what the theory says.
Q1 Single Theory — Virtue Ethics VIRT UE E T HICS
E S S AY Q U E S T I O N
"Using virtue ethics, analyse whether a business manager who knowingly sells a defective product to
meet a sales target is acting ethically."
Virtue ethics is the first theory taught and is highly applicable to leadership and character in business — expect it to
appear on case-based questions.
1 Define the Theory
Virtue ethics (Aristotle) asks "what kind of person should I be?" — morality is about character, not rules or
outcomes
The goal is eudaimonia — human flourishing through virtuous activity
Key virtues: integrity, courage, temperance, honesty; guided by phronesis (practical wisdom)
2 Apply to the Scenario
The manager exhibits greed (vice of excess) — placing profit above character
Selling a defective product violates honesty and integrity — a virtuous person is honest regardless of incentive
Lack of courage: a virtuous manager would have the courage to refuse or report the defect
Phronesis would guide the manager to see the long-term reputational and human harm of this action
3 Critique
Virtue ethics gives no precise rule on what exactly to do — it tells you to "be honest" but not whether to resign,
report, or refuse the sale
Cultural relativism: different organisations may define a "successful" manager differently
4 Conclusion
The manager lacks integrity, temperance, and practical wisdom — failing to embody eudaimonia. This action is clearly
unethical under virtue ethics.
Unethical — lacks integrity, courage, and phronesis
Q2 Single Theory — Deontology D E ON TOLOGY
E S S AY Q U E S T I O N
"Apply Kant's deontological ethics to evaluate the practice of deceptive advertising."
1 Define the Theory
Deontology (Kant): morality is about universal duties derived from reason, regardless of consequences
Categorical Imperative — two key formulations:
Universalisability Formula: "Could you will your maxim to become universal law?"
Humanity Formula: "Never treat persons merely as means, always also as ends"
2 Apply the Universal Law Formula
Maxim: "I will deceive consumers to increase sales"
Universalised: if all advertisers deceived, advertising as a system of communication would collapse — consumers
would trust nothing → contradiction in conception
Therefore: deceptive advertising is a perfect duty violation — absolutely impermissible, no exceptions
3 Apply the Humanity Formula
Consumers being deceived are treated as means only — manipulated to extract purchasing decisions without
respecting their rational agency
This directly violates human dignity and autonomy — a core Kantian concern
4 Critique
Kantian rigidity: even a "white lie" in advertising that helps consumers would be impermissible
Doesn't weigh actual harm caused — a minor exaggeration is treated identically to a dangerous lie
5 Conclusion
Deceptive advertising fails both formulations of the Categorical Imperative — it is absolutely impermissible under
Kantian ethics.
Impermissible — violates both CI formulations
Q3 Single Theory — Consequentialism CONSE QUE NT IAL ISM
E S S AY Q U E S T I O N
"A pharmaceutical company decides not to develop a life-saving drug because it is not profitable
enough. Evaluate this decision using consequentialism."
1 Define the Theory
Consequentialism: moral worth is determined entirely by outcomes — the right action maximises utility for the
greatest number
Bentham's Hedonic Calculus: assess by extent, duration, and intensity of harm/benefit
2 Apply Act Utilitarianism
Stakeholders affected: patients who die without the drug, shareholders who benefit from reallocation, society
(long-term healthcare burden)
Hedonic Calculus: the extent (many patients), duration (permanent — death), and intensity (severe suffering) of
harm vastly outweigh financial gain
Act utilitarianism condemns this decision
3 Consider Rule Utilitarianism
Rule: "Pharmaceutical companies need not develop unprofitable drugs"
If universally followed, medical innovation would be severely skewed toward profitable conditions, massively
harming overall societal welfare
Rule utilitarianism also condemns this decision
4 Critique
Measurement problem: how do you precisely quantify lives saved vs. financial losses?
Consequentialism may justify forced drug development even at company insolvency — is that a reasonable
implication?
5 Conclusion
The net harm to society far outweighs financial benefit to the firm under both act and rule utilitarianism.
Unethical under both act and rule utilitarianism
Q4 Comparison Essay — Most Likely Midterm Format AL L T HRE E T HE ORIE S
E S S AY Q U E S T I O N
"Compare and contrast how virtue ethics, deontology, and consequentialism would each evaluate a
manager's decision to lay off 200 workers to increase shareholder profit. Which framework provides the
most convincing ethical guidance?"
Comparison questions test whether you understand not just each theory, but when and why they diverge. This is the
most likely midterm format.
1 Brief Introduction — Define All Three (1 sentence each)
Virtue Ethics (Aristotle): moral worth lies in character — a good person with phronesis makes the right decision
Deontology (Kant): moral worth lies in following universal duties — treat all persons as ends, never merely as
means
Consequentialism (Bentham/Mill): moral worth lies in outcomes — the right act maximises utility for the greatest
number
2 Apply All Three Lenses to the Scenario
FRAMEWORK VIRTUE ETHICS DEONTOLOGY CONSEQUENTIALISM
Analysis Does the decision reflect greed Are workers treated as ends or Weigh all stakeholders: 200
or prudent stewardship? A merely as means? Laying off workers lose livelihoods;
virtuous leader shows 200 to enrich shareholders shareholders gain; long-term
compassion — exploring all treats workers instrumentally. company may survive and
alternatives. Phronesis asks: is No due process = Humanity rehire. Net utility calculation is
this truly the only option? Formula violated. context-dependent.
Verdict
Possibly unethical — if Likely unethical — Could be ethical IF net
alternatives weren't humanity formula violated welfare is maximised
explored
3 Identify Where They Agree and Disagree
All three agree: how layoffs are handled (with dignity, support, fair process) matters morally
They disagree on: whether the layoffs themselves are permissible in principle
High-marks insight: All three theories may agree on the action but give completely different reasons.
Always articulate this divergence explicitly in comparison essays.
4 Evaluate Which Framework is Most Convincing
Consequentialism captures practical business reality but risks ignoring individual workers' rights
Deontology protects individual dignity but may be too rigid in genuine insolvency situations
Virtue ethics is most nuanced — asks about character and motivation, not just the act itself
5 Conclusion — Take a Stance
A strong answer defends one framework while acknowledging the others. Example conclusion:
"Virtue ethics most convincingly captures the full moral picture because it asks not merely what was done
but who the manager is and how the decision was made — capturing both motivation and method, not just
outcomes or rule-compliance."
Q5 Metaethics Integration Essay ME TAE T HICS
E S S AY Q U E S T I O N
"Does the existence of cultural moral differences prove that ethical standards are relative? What are the
implications for multinational business ethics?"
1 Define the Metaethical Debate
Metaethics examines the nature and origins of moral standards — are they universal facts or social constructs?
Moral universalism: objective moral truths exist independently of culture (natural law, Kantian reason, biology)
Moral relativism/constructivism: morality is culturally constructed (Nietzsche, Foucault, postmodernism)
2 Present Evidence for Relativism
Hofstede's dimensions: power distance, individualism, long-term orientation vary dramatically (e.g., USA
individualism 91 vs. China 20)
Michigan Fish Test (Nisbett & Masuda): even basic perception is culturally shaped — let alone moral judgment
Yang Liu's art: truth, authority, and problem-solving are interpreted fundamentally differently East vs. West
Sub-cultural variation: even within China, Northern vs. Southern Chinese differ morally (rice vs. wheat farming
traditions)
3 Counter-Argument — Universalism
Cultural difference ≠ cultural relativism — people can be wrong across cultures (e.g., slavery was widely practised
but is universally condemned today)
Mirror neurons and empathy are biologically hardwired — suggesting some prosocial morality is innate, not purely
constructed
Kant: rational beings everywhere can derive the same moral law through reason alone
4 Apply to Multinational Business
Relativist implication: adapt ethical standards to local norms ("when in Rome") — e.g., accept local gift-giving
practices
Universalist implication: uphold the same ethical standards globally — e.g., no child labour regardless of local law
Key tension: when does cultural sensitivity become moral relativism?
5 Conclusion — Strongest Position
"Cultural differences show how morality is expressed differently, but do not prove there are no universal
moral standards. Multinational firms should maintain core universalist commitments (human dignity, anti-
corruption) while adapting style to local cultures — the distinction between universal substance and local
form is key."
Quick Essay Technique Tips
Never just describe — always evaluate. Examiners reward judgment, not recall. Tell them what you think, then
justify it.
Use precise terminology throughout: eudaimonia, phronesis, Categorical Imperative, Hedonic Calculus,
universalisability, moral relativism. Demonstrate you know the language of the field.
Acknowledge the strongest counterargument to your position — this shows critical thinking and earns marks
for intellectual honesty.
For comparison essays: show that theories can agree on the action but disagree on the reason — that insight
scores high marks and distinguishes strong answers.
For metaethics questions: connect back to how metaethical commitments affect which normative framework
you apply and why.
For business scenario questions: name specific stakeholders and explain how each theory treats them
differently — this demonstrates applied analytical depth.
Use the P·A·C·E structure in every answer: Position → Apply → Critique → Evaluate. This ensures you never
just describe without taking a stance.
