Alia: Hawthorne admits that he has influence with high government officials. He further admits that he sold that influence to an environmental interest group. There can be no justification for this kind of unethical behavior.
Martha: I disagree that he was unethical. The group that retained Hawthorne’s services is dedicated to the cause of preventing water pollution. So, in using his influence to benefit this group, Hawthorne also benefited the public.
Alia and Martha disagree on whether
A: H is unethical
M: I disagree that he is unethical
Disagreement: H was unethical (A) the meaning of ethical behavior has changed over time --
Over time? We have no idea how much time has passed during the actions taken. Out. (B) the consequences of Hawthorne’s behavior can ethically justify that behavior --
Perfect, as described above. (C) the standards for judging ethical behavior can be imposed on Hawthorne by another --
This is talking about allowing people to judge others. But they do not disagree about WHO can judge Hawthorne. The argument is talking about in this specific setting. We have no idea who can judge Hawthorne. Maybe it is only the King? Out.
(D) the meaning of ethical behavior is the same in a public situation as in a private one --
Public vs. private is never mentioned in Martha's argument, and it could be argued that you have to assume that private is the environmental group. Either way, this is not the point of contention because we do not care about these two definitions. We are not arguing that you can be ethical in one setting but not in another. We are arguing about two people's definitions of ethical. Out. (E) the definition of ethical behavior is rooted in philosophy or religion --
Nothing mentioned about either of these. Out.