Ethics in Business/Why do ethics matter?

In the past, various companies only thought that ethical issues in business are only a term used to define administrative rules and regulations that everyone must adhere or a standard that must be followed. However today, top level management and small business owners have now realized that it is more than that. Big and small companies are now slowly realizing the importance of ethics that is crucial for them to succeed. A successful company must learn that confidence and respect of its customers are vital to its business.

Business people are now held accountable for their own actions, as more and more people are now demanding that they meet their social duty not just for their country but most especially to their customers, which are considered as their life and blood. An unsatisfied customer can definitely hurt any company, something that no one would want to happen.

A discussion of ethics is actually a subjective issue. Everyone will always have their own concept of righteousness; therefore a one definition of business ethics can be difficult. Moral standards are created by home environment, religious beliefs and traditions and thus making ethics hard to define, but not impossible to make. So just as an ethical relativist would say “there are no morals because there is no universal code” that no longer applies to the business world today. Consequences matter, and employees are held directly accountable for their actions based on each act, this would be reflective of Act Utilitarianism, vs., the Rule system. It also rules out Kant, and the categorical imperative, because these standards are not universal, and rational thinking isn’t presumed to be inherent to all people. Still, this ask the most basic ethical questions that humans are confronted with daily, such as; what is my responsibility to others, To myself, And so the environment in which I’m a part of? If you can answer any, or all of these questions, then you will surely be closer to understanding exactly why ethics matters in the world today.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203436904577148940410667970.html

What would a libertarian do?

The outrage over the Upper Branch Mine Disaster in West Virginia is profound even almost two weeks after the horrific event. One of the first instincts driven by outrage is to clamp down more tightly,more rules, greater punishment,so this won't happen again. The reaction is utterly understandable. One needs to look no further than the families and loved ones of the 29 miners to leap in that direction.

 But as much as the outrage is legitimate and the desire to clamp down is understandable, clamping down harder will not necessarily reduce the probability of another such disaster.

 To understand why, we need to understand why disasters happen. Because the facts are not yet clear in the Upper Branch disaster—and there is undoubtedly litigation to follow—I will use other examples to illustrate. Disasters can happen for two entirely different reasons: error and cover up of error.

Contrast this with another disaster, an e-coli outbreak in the water system of a small Ontario town about a decade ago that killed seven people and sickened hundreds more, some of whom will live with terrible side-effects for the rest of their lives. The reason that the seven died is that a chlorinator in the town's central water system failed and the general manager of the public water utility knew that the chlorinator had failed.

 Tragically, not only did he do nothing about it, he both falsified the water readings coming out of the failed chlorinator and when questioned early in the disaster by the Medical Officer of Health, denied that there was any problem in the water system. Had the general manager phoned the Medical Officer of Health the minute the chlorinator failed, the Officer would have gone door to door in the town to issue a boiled water warning and nobody would have died or been sickened. So in this case, error (break down of the chlorinator) was not the problem: cover up of the error was the killer.

Now, as yourself this, what would a libertarian do in these instances? To clarify, a libertarian believes that the role of any Government should be to protect the rights of the individual to life, liberty, and property and that nobody should interfere with those rights. Based on this definition, government would not have any authority to regulate the agencies mentioned above to ensure they are operating safely. No independent group would be permitted to ensure the air quality isn’t being damaged due to their operations, or that the water supply for communities isn’t being contaminated by run-off. Does this serve the greatest good for the greatest number, or is it all about the individual?

http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/apr2010/ca20100420_479716.htm

Wealth and Buddha

Everywhere you look, there's compelling evidence that the single-minded pursuit of wealth often leads smart people to do incredibly stupid things, things that destroy what money can't buy. How is it that brilliant people with more money than they'll ever need, allow their hunger for even more money to cause them to lose everything? How much is enough, and why are people willing to risk so much to get more? If money is so alluring, how is it that so many people of great wealth also seem so unhappy?

It's easy to pass judgment from afar on the misdeeds and missteps of wealthy people in the news. But look in the mirror. What's your relationship with the pursuit of wealth? How do you think about money and the meaning of life? For those practicing Buddhism, the pursuit to end suffering is explained through the teachings as follows. To end suffering, one must cut off greed and ignorance. This means changing one's views and living in a more natural and peaceful way. It is like blowing out a candle. The flame of suffering is put out for good. Buddhists call the state in which all suffering is ended Nirvana. Nirvana is an everlasting state of great joy and peace. The Buddha said, "The extinction of desire is Nirvana." This is the ultimate goal in Buddhism. Everyone can realize it with the help of the Buddha's teachings. It can be experienced in this very life. The path to end suffering is known as the Noble Eightfold Path. It is also known as the Middle Way. Are these teaching applicable in a capitalist system such as that of the American financial sector? How do we, as citizens view the responsibilities of those who have accrued vast wealth with society? My position in this posting is not to take a side on the issue, but rather present the argument and open to discussion the idea that we should at the very least begin to ask ourselves, and each other, just how do we define success today.

http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/may2011/ca20110517_527245.htm

What's wrong with bribery?

A former Yonkers councilwoman and her benefactor, a political operative who testified that he had lavished her with gifts because he had fallen in love with her, were both convicted on Thursday in a corruption case in Manhattan.

Federal prosecutors had contended that the former councilwoman, Sandy Annabi, 41, accepted about $195,000 in secret payments over the years from the operative, Zehy Jereis, 40. In return, they said, Ms. Annabi dropped her opposition to a proposed luxury mall and housing complex, known as Ridge Hill, and a second, smaller project.

The answer to this question, what's wrong with bribery, is reflective of ones own ethical sytem. For example, an Act Utilitarian would say that consequences should only be focused on a single act, and not the results of that act. In this system, we'd ask, is taking, or offering a bribe, in and of themselves wrong? The answer being, if the consequences of each act, individually in and of itself leads to an outcome that is detrimental to the parties involved to the degree that it would be a detriment, then it would be percieved as being wrong. However, if we were to view it through the lens of a Cultural realist, which is a person who lives according to their own moral code and not that of any particular societal norms, then its all, literally, "relative" and nothing is ever wrong, under any circumstances. My position is reflective to that of Imanual Kant, which states that for an act to be acceptable, it must be acceptable to all, at all times, without conditions, the "catagorical imperative".

So if it's ok for somebody to bribe another, then it's ok for everyone to do it all the time, and based on this, if an individual were unable to afford the bribe then, they would be unable to pursue the same options as one who can afford those means. Bribery addresses intergity, character, fairness and equality on social and economic fronts, this is not a simple matter that applys only to those viewing it as an ethical matter.But before anything can be resolved, we have to answer the question and agree on how to interpret it; which is what is wrong with bribery?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/30/nyregion/two-convicted-in-yonkers-corruption-case.html?_r=1&ref=bribery

Universal, or Individual consequences?What would Kant say?

An Israeli court has granted permission for family members to extract and freeze the eggs of its 17-year-old daughter, who died earlier this month in a car accident, according to the Israeli English-language website Haaretz.
Chen Aida Ayash died on Aug. 3, 10 days after she'd been struck by a car, at Kfar Sava's Meir Hospital. Her parents donated her organs and obtained a court order to remove and freeze Chen's eggs.

 If we're to follow Kant on this point, the individual consequences are irrelevent, just as doing what's best for the "greater good" is irrelevent. Only the practice of universal ethics matters for Kant, therefore, whether or not the eggs are used isn't the concern, but rather, by whom is using them is what really matters here.
When doctors and families do decide to follow through with such decisions, several other weighty problems arise.
"Here, since the patient cannot give consent, doctors would need to be assured that a suitable substitute decision-maker is in place and can provide consent," said Judith F. Daar, professor of law at Whittier Law School in Costa Mesa, Calif. "Families must try to set aside their understandable desire to keep a part of their child and focus on what their child would have actually wanted.

This suggest that the primary issue is that the catagorical imperative isn't being followed. The parties involved are approaching this on an emothional level and out of personal motivations.
As applicable to universal consequence, would the donation of these eggs be constructive if those eggs led to a child being born that would cure a major disease? Would that be equally as justified if that child became a serial killer? Again though, the conseqences for Kant don't matter, it's the intent that is paramount, and nothing more. So here, the intent is to help people on the doctors behalf by using the fertile eggs for study. The parents want them to perserve their lost daughters legacy for selfish reasons. Who's right here? Is anybody right here?



http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/Ethics/28009

According to Kant, who's responsible?

On a sunny afternoon in early April of 2012, when the streets of this mountain mining city were filled with schoolchildren and parents hurrying home from work, gunmen entered a tiny apartment and started firing methodically.

The assassins killed everyone: the family matriarch and her adult son; her daughter and son-in-law, and finally, her 22-month-old granddaughter. The child was not killed by mistake. Preliminary forensics indicates that the gunmen, unchallenged, pointed a pistol at the child and fired.

My reasoning for discussing this story is not for any shock value, or to cite inflamed emotions, but rather to ask a core question; Is one life more valuable than another?, Through classroom debates in discussing the great Immanuel Kant, we’ve begun the argument of circumstantial ethics, consequence based ethics, and universality. An American citizen would argue in many cases that a Mexicans life doesn’t carry the same value as an Americans. So to would the case be made that a child’s life is more precious than an adult. For Kant, the consequences of killing another are irrelevant, regardless of the nationality, gender, or personal affiliation associated with that life being taken. The American system routinely reacts strongly to any child killing in this country, as well as anyone who’s charged with a crime against child, typically they are obstatrized and vilified in our media and court of public opinion. My question is this, why is that? Does it mean that we see the children an innocent and adults as deserving of those crimes? Do we associate children with moral purity and therefore blissful ignorance?

Kant argued that experience is purely subjective without first being processed by pure reason. He also said that using reason without applying it to experience will only lead to theoretical illusions. The free and proper exercise of reason by the individual was both a theme of the Enlightenment, and of Kant's approaches to the various problems of philosophy. For Kant, age is truly irrelevant, as it’s not an accurate reflection of what one knows due to experience in general being subjective. Just as due to the categorical imperative, if a society condemns killing, they must condemn it for all, and not limit the consequential acts to follow to those we simply don’t approve of.

It should be noted that in this instance the killings are being carried out for a target purpose of intimidation within a population. For Kant, those tactics would not be applicable, and thus futile if that population were committed to rational thinking and non-responsive to irrational acts committed by others. For according to Kant, those killing are simply their own moral agents and nobody has any right to judge them for those actions. Now, having said that, the citizens can choose to apply their own moral law upon the minority, or they could choose to isolate themselves from those that are viewed as immoral agents. There is always choice with Kant, for we are in his system, all capable and responsible for our own moral acts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/mexican-drug-cartels-targeting-and-killing-children/2011/04/07/AFwkFb9C_story.html

What would Kant do?

In the spring of 2012 a man named George Zimmerman shot and killed a teenager named Travon Martin; this case has sparked fierce emotion and irrationality among those involved and throughout the country in general. I'm taking this time to discuss this within the framework of Kant because, among other reasons, it's the perfect opportunity to do so. The legislators in Florida, prior to this killing created a bill called the "Castle doctrine" which allows any citizen to apply deadly force to anyone who is an immediate, or perceived to be an immediate threat to their person. Kants' theory of Universal law states that for an action to be law it has to be followed all the time, by everyone, without exception. If we agree as a society that murder is wrong, then do the circumstances of the act really matter? Would the perceived racial element here actually matter, (Zimmerman is Latino, Martin was Black)? Kant also tells us that consequences are irrelevant, and that the "greater good" is also irrelevant, but rather the ends can and do justify the means provided the intent was good in and of itself. If Mr. Zimmerman had shot and killed Mr. Martin for the purpose of saving society from financial burden, or to prevent Mr. martin from committing future crimes, or an immediate one, under Kants' ethics, this would be an act of Duty.

So there it is, the synopsis of Kant, and how he defines a justifiable act, verses an indefensible one. Would we, as a society really condone anyone killing, at anytime, for any reason? Is there ever a "good" reason to kill? For Kant, if it's ok to do it once, regardless of the circumstances, then it's ok for everyone to do it anytime, for any reason. People continuously take the position that there are "always exceptions to the rules" always "what ifs" that can't be perceived, but if we could all adopt a life of rationality and reason vs. self-loathing and disassociation with responsibility, wouldn't the world at large be a better place?

http://www.opednews.com/articles/On-The-National-Outrage-Ov-by-Sherwood-Ross-120331-450.html

What would a Nhilist say about this?

Recently in the discourse of our classroom discussions, we've come to the topic of Nihlism, the theory of indifference. To articulate this theory more extensively, it is the philosophical  doctrine suggesting the negation of one or more putatively, meaningful aspects of life. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of an existintial nihlist which would  arguethat life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrincic value. Moral Nihlist assert that morality, in it's most common form and definition, does not inherently exist, and that any established moral values are abstractly contrived. Based on this precept, would would a Nihlist do in the case below? 

La Jonquera used to be a quiet border town where truckers rested and the French came looking for a deal on hand-painted pottery and leather goods. But these days, prostitution is big business here, as it is elsewhere in Spain, where it is essentially legal.

While the rest of Spain’s economy may be struggling, experts say that prostitution — almost all of it involving the ruthless trafficking of foreign women — is booming, exploding into public view in small towns and big cities. 

Until 2010, Spain did not even have a law that distinguished trafficking from illegal immigration. And advocates say arrests of traffickers and services for trafficked women remain few. The State Department’s report on trafficking said that according to preliminary information, the Spanish government prosecuted 202 trafficking suspects and convicted 80 in 2010.

More important, some advocates say, is the growing demand for sex services from younger tourists. Of course, there is a local market. One study cited by a 2009 United Nations report said that 39 percent of Spanish men admitted having visited a prostitute at least once. It is widely accepted here for business meetings to end in dinner and a visit to a brothel. 

Recently, a 19 year old Romanian girl was rescued by an international aid organization from this lifetyle, yet her reaction was not alleviation, but rather dispair and indifference. She stated, "my life is over now, what is the point of going on?" Is this the mentality of a nihlist, or someone simply overcome with depression? For those who subsist on the pain and suffering of others, are they socio-paths, or are they simply devoid of empathy toward their fellow man? The answers to these questions lies not in how we define these terms, or schools of though, but rather in hwo we define, "good" and "evil" in the world as we know it. Are we, as a people, inclined to aid others at no gain to self, or are is our only commitment, and or obligation to self? If our duty, as Kant would say is to others, then what is the extent of that sense of duty? Yet, if our only duty is to oneself, then are we inclined and even to be encouraged to pursue that to it's furthest ends, even if and when it's to the detriment of others? These are the fundamental questions that are posed here and as wel, as a group move forward. Do you have any duty to anyone beyond yourself?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46982519/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/