Business Ethics IB

Bull fighting

2010-04-28T23:48:00.001+01:00

Bull fighting has been a long tradition of diversion in Spain since the middle ages. Today, many consider it an art, while others consider it an unrightfully massacre of animals. There is no public law in Spain which specifies that the act is illegal. But does this really mean that it is not morally wrong?

Many discuss that it is a positive duty of humans to give animals the freedom to life. Others consider this argument foolish since today, most of the world’s population (including animals themselves) feed of other animals and this is the cycle of life and these bulls live a great prairie life, in better conditions than most cattle around the world do. The problem here is that be bulls are not only killed, but put through high levels of stress at the moment of the show, and physical pain while the bull fighter sticks the swords in one by one. Not only this, but for the bull to reach the temperament with which he enters the ring, his testicles are pinched with needles. Is it morally right to put an animal through this suffering. This interferes with the rights to life
There are more spectators and workers in the bull industry than bulls being killed. So according to the Utilitarian principle it is good. So is it morally permissible for people in this industry to pursue their self interest (maximization of profits) at the cost of torturing bulls before their death. Also, many people have an emotional attachment to this long brought tradition, and consider they have a right to cultural preservation. So, as long as the government allows it, is it morally permissible?

s690159

Euthanasia

2010-04-28T23:43:00.002+01:00

The Spanish movie “Mar adentro” (The Sea inside) brought me to think of the long discussed subject of Euthanasia. It is about a man (Ramón) who suffered an accident which left him living the rest of his life on his bed, at the care of his family members. He wants the person who truly loves him to help him terminate his life with dignity.
I think this is a morally hard case viewed from two perspectives. That from Ramon’s side, who is incapable of doing anything and wants to commit suicide, but even harder to look at from his friend’s side who shall help him do it. Then, you can also look at it from the perspective of the people who he leaves behind. What about their suffering? And whose is greater?
The first reason to describe this as morally wrong is because it would be breaking the law. Helping someone kill himself is considered murder in most places. This would mean she is breaking a public law, and obstructing negative rights. Viewed from his perspective, in some countries, like India for example, suicide is a punishable crime which you go to jail for. But what about this man’s desire to stop suffering and being a financial burden on his family. All he can do is lie in bed relying on people to take care of him, hence, only decreasing their welfare, but staying alive for the sake of morality. What about his basic rights to freedom of choice? Who should really be making this moral judgment? The government? Or the person who has been lying in a bed for over 30 years not being able to do anything.
The fact that the government makes it illegal would mean he would have to do something morally wrong (kill himself) to fulfill his need/and wants. This would be morally wrong. But if it were not illegal, would this be morally wrong? And is it morally wrong to just let this person suffer in bed?

s690159

Ryanair boss Michael O'Leary defiant over compensation rules of stranded passenger due to Volcano eruption Iceland

2010-04-28T23:39:00.000+01:00

background information

The majority of the news headlines these days are about stranded passengers, flying restrictions and the enormous revenue losses of the airline companies. This is all caused by the ash cloud which was caused by the volcanic eruption on Iceland. The boss of Ryanair said that he is willing to reimburse travelers the original price of their air fare and no more. He questions "why exactly are the airlines expected to be reimbursing people's hotels, meals and everything else when the government are the ones who made a balls of this?"

For the boss of Ryanair this case is a dilemma. If Ryanair does not compensate their passengers extra expenses they will not act in accordance with the law, but more importantly their image will be damaged and the chance exists that they will loose quite some passengers in the future. On the other hand, if Ryanair completely compensates all his passengers, the company can get into financial trouble.

Morality is about helping others, so from this viewpoint Ryanair has to pay the customers for their extra expenses. According to the guidelines of the EU consumer rules they have to pay these costs. From a business point of view the argument for not fully compensating the passengers is understandable. Profit maximization is the main goal in this perspective and this is especially important for a budget airline like Ryanair.

A couple of weeks ago the company also made the headlines, because they dropped a whole family on the wrong Island due to bad weather. With this incident fresh in mind and this refusal to abide the EU consumer rules will probably cause the company some customers and damage of their brand/image. Ryanair just have to do their moral duty and fully compensate their passengers in this case.

s536273

Abortion

2010-04-28T23:37:00.001+01:00

background information

Abortion is a very delicate issue and in Europe it is still not allowed freely in some countries (and forbidden in Malta under all circumstances), which require one of certain conditions: permitted to save woman’s life, to preserve her mental or physical health or in the cases of rape or incest or foetal impairment (Poland, Spain and Portugal). In addition to that could be economic reasons (such allows the UK and Finland). In the rest of European Union the availability of abortion is upon request and most of the time is permitted until the twelfth week of pregnancy. This is how laws about that matter differ in EU.

Although laws across European countries differ, they have one thing in common: there is nothing about father’s right to decide or at least help to decide on this matter. Some of potential fathers want to be a part of this decision and demand rights. On the other hand as it is seen from the article sometimes a man puts a pressure on his partner to terminate pregnancy. Additional facet to consider is that often it is seen as it is women’s body and therefore her decision. But is it morally right to instantly exclude man from this? In the end a woman herself could not get pregnant.

Many women decide to terminate pregnancy because they say it would break their careers. Another moral issue that could be seen here is if abortion is moral itself. Even if it is stated that embryo becomes a foetus between ninth and twelfth week if not terminated it will become a person anyway. Isn’t this already a humans life form? Could the termination be called “killing” as for example Christian religion name it? Is it morally permissable to deprive embryo or foetus to live because of a potential parents’ mistake, lack of responsibility or an accident?

s938339

2010-04-21T10:47:00.001+01:00

IMPORTANT!!

Please remember to put your ANR in the secondary comments. Otherwise it is not possible for the board to grant you any bonus points.

Schizophrenia

2010-04-21T10:45:00.001+01:00

background information

Maybe you heard the morally hard case I experienced at work. One of my colleagues Andy was diagnosed with schizophrenia. After a while, Andy was not able to concentrate and started making many mistakes in customer orders. Besides, there were days he did not show up, leaving his colleagues behind with extra work, or he just walked around watching others doing his work. Therefore, the manager fired him. On the one hand, the moral argument of equality among employees justifies this because the others were not allowed to arrive too late, or make that many mistakes, so this could also not be accepted in Andy’s case. On the other hand we were convinced that if Andy would lose his job, his situation would deteriorate, after quitting his studies and facing problems with his family. In my opinion it was not morally right to fire him, based on the moral argument of responsibility. Andy was in an exceptional situation and therefore the argument of equality is too weak. Society should have a responsibility concerning mentally ill people; their malfunctioning is in some ways beyond their control, and they need help, the same as physically ill employees.

However, yesterday I talked with Jack, one of Andy’s friends. He told me that Andy had been using drugs (Marihuana, Speed). Jack had tried to help him but Andy had denied that he was addicted. When Andy told Jack that he heard voices in his head, Jack also warned Andy that this was likely to be a consequence of drug abuse. Besides, our manager had given Andy the possibility to go to a mental hospital, and return afterwards. Andy had refused this option. I was not aware of this; it changes my opinion about the case. I now think it was not morally wrong to fire Andy, because his mental problems were (largely) caused by his own behavior and he had refused therapy. The manager took his moral responsibility but Andy chose to not accept this. For him acting out of self-determination, the manager cannot be blamed.

(Names are changed due to privacy reasons)

S377779

Christian church

2010-04-21T10:40:00.001+01:00

background information

I would like to inform the reader of this article that what is written next is no attack on religion, the Church or whatsoever. For this I will work with the assumption that the Church is a company providing support, safety and all other services as their business.

We all know the stories of child abuse within the Christian Church of the U.S.A., but lately more and more of these cases pop up in Europe as well. There has not been any week in 2010 that did not report such a case in the news or papers. However, this recent development in Europe may seem odd to some. If we put it in contrast: The States were already past this stage of these affairs in the nineties! Most of these cases were more aimed on punitive damages than on recognizing or fixing a problem (this has everything to do with American law, which differs a lot from European legislation). And it is this recognition that I would like to discuss.

Europe has been divided into bishops denying the allegations and bishops that confirm the existence of abusive reverends, with currently Germany as its main battlefield. This (partial) confirmation is a major development in these sexual affairs. Many people (then children) that sought support (or any other service) in between 1960 & 1990 were molested. Some of these people tried to seek contact within the higher ranks of the Church but all heard that they were the first to happen this with, or that that the person itself was lying. Not to forget; it were those times that none could object towards the Church. Apart from the act itself, many people were hurt because they were deceived. It was obvious that the Church rather protected its ‘employees’ by regulating everything intern far from media-attention. Most of the suspects are still employed and still work with children.

It is clear that if any of this would have been brought to media in between ’60 & ’90, that the Church would have taken much more damage than it does now. Therefore I am doubt; Is it wise to lie to your customers about some affairs, to save the greater good? Those allegations would have crushed the fundament of Christianity in the sixties. This would have harmed all of its followers which are in need of the Church, only because some crooked employees messed things up. So I would say that most companies would settle this intern, but keeping such suspects within any organization would only harm its image. Or am I mistaken?

S325558

Dangerous toys made in China

2010-04-21T10:31:00.001+01:00

background information

This case is about Chinese manufactures producing dangerous products. The biggest problems are because of dangerous chemicals, injuries, choking, electric shocks and strangulation, with children's toys at the top of the danger list. Chinese products are again accounting for most of the potentially dangerous items and the EU nations are issuing safety alerts on consumer products more than ever. An example is the toy giant Mattel. In 2007, it had to recall millions of potentially dangerous toys made in China over fears about unsafe levels of lead in paint and loose magnets. This did not restore customer confidence in Chinese goods after a series of scandals involving manufacturers’ safety standard.
This leads to a morally hard case:
Is it morally permissible for the EU to forbid companies to import products from Chinese toys manufacturers, given that the toys are dangerous to children, but taking into account that this will harm the welfare of the Chinese families?
Since the toys are dangerous to children and in accordance with the right-based theories you might say that the EU should forbid companies to import products made in China. Children have the right to personal security and a right to an adequate standard of living. Selling the dangerous toys, means a violation of those basic rights.
On the other hand, when the EU forbids the import of toys, this will harm the welfare of the Chinese families. They have less money to spend and they might not be able to pay their mortgage anymore. From an utilitarian point of view this is the morally right action, since it brings about the highest possible overall utility. The Chinese manufacturers and families are better off in contrast to the smaller amount of children receiving the toys.
In my opinion, the EU should forbid the toys import, since many children’s lives are being at risk. It is a matter of life and death, which is not the case with the employees and their families. Yes, they need to find another job, maybe move to a smaller house, but at least those consequences are morally acceptable.

S985590

Polish pilots denied repeated warnings from Russian air traffic controllers about heavy fog

2010-04-21T10:25:00.002+01:00

background information

There is still much unknown about the crash of the Polish jet which crashed due to heavy fog at Smolensk. Some say that the pilots were pushed by the VIP passengers into taking risks and this resulted in ignoring the warnings of the Russian air traffic controllers. Although, still no evidence for this scenario is found, it seems a good possible scenario.

The question that came up in my head when reading this article was: “If there were no VIP passengers on board of that plane, would the pilot also have ignored the warnings about the heavy fog?” I understand that ignoring the president can have a major impact on the career of the pilot. The president has the power to fire the pilot and this thought could have passed through the mind of the pilot. This interference is not proved (yet), so nothing can be said about this scenario. But from a moral perspective some critique is justified.

Morality’s prescriptions demand priority when you relate the three perspectives of morality, legality and business. They demand priority because their prescriptions are the only one to be categorized as categorical commandments. Morally relates to the relationship with others and makes sure that you have to look out for each other and not harm other people. Seen from this perspective the pilot acted wrong, because the question arises if the pilot considered the wellbeing of the passengers when he ignored the warnings of the Russian air traffic controllers. I answer this question with a ‘no’, because he tried to land anyway despite the heavy fog.

S536273

Icelandic Authorities ‘negligent’ over banking collapse causing investor to lose billions in the Icesave account.

2010-04-21T10:19:00.001+01:00

background information

In 2008 Iceland has been hit hard by the financial crises. The control of the three major banks of Iceland fell in the hands of the government in an effort to stabilize the financial system. The situation was already expected to happen since the Special Investigation Commission Report said at the end of 2006 that the banks would collapse. The government did not take enough measures to prevent or to limit the damage. Even placing investors of the Icesave account in a high risk situation and lose 5 billion dollars. They could have prevented the liability of the icesave investors by changing it into a subsidiary. Few remarks; the prime minister confessed certain mistakes were made and could have been done differently and the prime minister also remarked that the unregulated free market has failed.

Did the Icelandic government acted immoral by neglecting the possibilities to limit or to prevent the damage that is caused by the collapse of the bank Landsbanki, causing investors of icesave to lose 5 billion dollars?

The main argument is by viewing it in the business discourse. As stated by the prime minister “the ideology of an unregulated market utterly failed”. Looking at the business discourse this remark is actually incorrect. It is not the unregulated market that had failed; it is more likely that the politics had failed. The government knew since 2006 that the situation was inevitable. It was the government (seeing the government as a sole entity) interest to safeguard the national economy alongside the investors of icesave. Neglecting the opportunities that could have been taken has put the national economy of Iceland in danger at the cost of the tax payers. Iceland now in total owes 6 billion pounds to the icesave investors due to unnecessary risk that has been taken by the government.

S253697

Is a hospital a moral agent?

2010-04-21T10:13:00.002+01:00

background information

In some countries, it is illegal to stop curing when someone is in a mortal danger. While in some other countries especially where the welfare system is not well developed yet. There is sometimes a gray area. How to choose when the patients cannot afford anymore the enormous medical expenses? Should the hospital keep on treatment or stop curing? How should the hospital concern their moral responsibility? I think the hospital always facing a dilemma problem.

On the one hand, if we seen hospital as a purely administrative organization like other companies in the markets. It is morally acceptable to choose to act rationally and taking account into the economic aspect. While on the other hands, if we seen hospital not only as a purely organization but as a physical institution which must concerns the social responsibility. It’s morally impermissible for the hospital to give up a life. Since the primary duty for physicians and nurses are to benefit the patient. And one of the ultimate human rights is to live. In a country like NL, the hospital that gives up a life would break both the legal duty and moral duty.

In every specific counties and society, the hospital should consider whether it fits better as a purely administrative organization or as a medical staff committee. While it definitely will experience a conflict between the healths care organization concerns and medical staff responsibilities and values. In my own opinion, I think the right to live is over any other conceptual of normative aspects. And it’s a moral responsibility for hospital to save a life.

S947656

Why it is immoral to ask 68 euro for a reader: A rights based approach

2010-04-21T10:10:00.001+01:00

background information

Property rights are widely known as do not kill and do not steal are one of the most accepted moral principles all around the world. Inherent to property is having the control over an object. For example you control your body or even more simple, the paper and ink that are in your possesion. In this principal comment it is questioned if forcing intellectual property is moral from a right based perspective.

First one needs to know that property can be gained by trade, donating or homesteading. Homesteading is acquiring property in accordance with the “first come, first go” principle. Especially, the “first come” part is important, as when this is not respected, one actually steals the property from someone else. Consequentally, allowing this would make the concept of property rights useless.

Intellectual property differs in a fundamental way from material property as there is scarcity in our material world. When you own a certain stack of paper, it is impossible for others to use or control that stack without your permission. An idea concerning business ethics can, however, be replicated without someone else being damaged in material property. The idea did not become more scarce and there was no conflict over property. Thus it can be concluded that forcing people to not be able to freely use their paper and ink, is in conflict with respecting property rights.

Another often made mistake is that the creation of something gives a right to the property of that creation. This is not true, as creation is just the transformation of materials that were already someones property. Even more, to assume one has a right to the value of a creation is also wrong, because every individual values products differently and even that value fluctuates.

To conclude it can be said that intellectual property is a new immoral way to control scarce property. When this is allowed, the path is free for other ways to control already taken property. This will only result in conflicts and the purpose of property will vanish completely.

S901648

China is about to Loosen Grip on Its Currency Valuation

2010-04-21T10:08:00.001+01:00

background information

The Chinese Government spends several hundred of billions of dollars each year to peg its currency at a near fixed rate to the Dollar. A fixed and devaluated value of the Chinese currency will make Chinese exports extremely competitive in foreign markets and taken away sales from manufacturers in the United States and other countries.

However, after some pressure from some developed countries especially the US, the Chinese Government is now preparing to announce that it will allow its currency ( the renminbi or yuan) to strengthen slightly and vary more from day to day. This move would help ease tension with the Obama administration on the United States’ huge trade deficit with China.

A Moral Hard Case can be sense here, considering China as The Agent. China is faced with a good moral reason to peg its currency and a good moral reason to allow its currency to fluctuate freely.

• Is it morally permissible for China to allow its currency (the renminbi or yuan) to strengthen slightly and vary more from day to day? Considering this move will reduce their export competitive advantage that will eventually have a negative effect on the well being of its people but improve the welfare and the declining export economy of other countries especially the US.

In my opinion China is not being economically fair to other countries by pegging its currency: thus violating the positive moral principle of fairness and justice. China should allow their currency to fluctuate freely and allow the forces of the market which is considered as the most effective economic tool (Market Efficiency Theory) take control. On the other hand, China has a moral obligation to provide for the well being of its citizens. China can insist on pegging its currency based on the fact that it gives them an export competitive advantage to compete with the more advanced countries (The US and The EU). This advantage is reflected on the well being of its people via employments and other amenities.

U442236

Milk scandal

2010-04-21T09:52:00.001+01:00

background information

Sanlu located in Shijiazhuang, Hebei Province used to be one of the most reliable milk suppliers in China. The scandal happened a few years ago. The main problem was the quality of the milk from this company. More than 300,000 children became sick and at least six died after drinking the milk from Sanlu. Finally, it turns out that chemical grade melamine was added in the milk to misguide the consumers. All young parents were shocked by this news.

The complaints of children becoming sick after drinking the milk appeared since 2007. The company was reluctant to react until 2008. The children became sick from kidney stones and complications caused by the poisonous milk. The conduct of the company is definitely immoral and illegal. This behavior violates the law and moral principles – “do not cheat” and “obey the law”. It is in another way to “killing others”. Is the conclusion overstated? I don’t think so since the severe consequence of their behavior.

Based on the investigation, 21 people have been convicted over this scandal including executives of the Sanlu, milk producers and traders. With the justice, the company went bankrupt and the executives & involved persons were arrested. It is an important alarm to other food companies in China – they should learn the lesson from Sanlu. More importantly, Chinese government should enhance the supervisory on food safety at all levels. Without strong and powerful governmental regulations, this kind of scandal might emerge again one day.

Every company and even every person has the duty to protect our society (what we owe others) and eliminate all kinds of immoral conducts like Sanlu. Without doubt, the government should play the most important role in fighting with the company like Sanlu.

S138561