ACCG 8048 Business And Professional Ethics Assignment Task Solution


Are you looking for ACCG 8048 Business and Professional Ethics Assignment task solution? Connect with our experts for A+ solution Which eliminate the requirement for new research and have an overwhelming control and command over the Topic? is the best online  assignment service provider  you can get services like essay writing service, dissertation writing and Case study writing etc. Place your order now!


Order Now




  • Referencing Styles: APA
  • Words:2000
  • Course Code: ACCG 8048
  • Course Title: Business and Professional Ethics
  • University: Macquarie University
  • Country: AU





1.Almost everyone agrees different people and cultures have different views about what is ethically right and wrong. Explain, using your own example (i.e. an example not covered in course lectures or the textbook) why disagreement about ethics does not in itself prove that there is no right answer to ethics questions.


2.In 2015, Apple refused a request from the US FBI to unlock an iPhone used by a terrorist. In 2021, it has just been revealed that this standoff only resolved when an Australian company called Azimuth Security cracked the I Phone encryption on the FBI’s behalf.


3. Explain the main difference between how a utilitarian decides what is ethical and how a Kantian / deontologist decides what is ethical.


A). Would utilitarian think Azimuth Security was ethically right or wrong to break Apple’s security for the FBI? Give at least two reasons utilitarian’s would consider.


B). Would a Kantian think Azimuth Security was ethically right or wrong break Apple’s security? Give at least two reasons a Kantian would consider.


4. Explain the difference between contractual rights and ethical rights.


A). Outline at least two rights or duties a Kantian might think Hungary Panda has in this case and at least two rights or duties workers might have.


B). Briefly explain Kant’s categorical imperative. State whether you think Hungry Panda’s treatment of Mr. Yang in the case meets this imperative and explain why.