Manager-remuneration

Article: A.I.G. Bonuses of $50 Million Will Be Repaid
published on 23.03.2009

by s564897

Mary Williams Walsh and David M. Herszenhorn wrote the article “A.I.G. Seeking Return of Half of Its Bonuses” about the American International Group. A.I.G, “the largest insurance company in the United States before it suddenly collapsed.”

In the article it is stated that a few employees have already volunteered to give back their bonuses, and “the money doesn’t belong to A.I.G.”, accordance to Steve Israel, Democrat of New York. “It belongs to the American taxpayer and we are going to get it back.”

In accordance to “what we owe others” I think A.I.G. is acting morally wrong. I think they have a moral duty to give back the money, what in principle doesn’t belong to them. The employees earned it by doing harm to their own company, they are responsible for the problems that even affected the society. So it is morally wrong to pay out the bonuses, also if we use a consequentialist theory.

Therefore what is the morally right thing to do? If we take a look at the publication of the list with the names of the people who received the bonuses, but not yet gave it back to the “society”. Moral standards deal with matters that we think, can seriously injure or seriously benefit human beings, but it also advances moral standards above self-interest. So should the list go public for everyone, even though the workers of A.I.G. received death threats?

I think the list should go public, because this is how people are forced to give back their bonuses they received. It is not like they have to give back a need, but moreover a want. They still keep their annual income, don’t get harmed in their lives, and by giving now back the money to the government. They step aside from their self-interest, and choose for the society. It helps the society in this financial crisis, and helps them self and everyone else in the short run but also in the long run.


Link to the lecture:
Morality of "what we owe others"

Lord of War

Article: With White House Push, U.S. Arms Sales Jump
published on 13.09.2008

by s674994

The United States are one of the biggest, if not the biggest, arms exporter in the world. They sell the most advanced and deadliest weapons to for example to Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea and Iran. The American weapon industry is an important domestic source of profit and employment.

In my opinion this is a moral hard case. A moral hard case is a situation in which a good moral reason speaks in favour of the case and a good moral reason speaks against the case. In the example mentioned above there are two of such opposing reasons. On the one hand you have the importance that the weapons industry has for the United States’ income, but more importantly the many people that are working in this sector. This is a huge economic moral reason to keep proceeding with this enormous weapon exporting industry. On the other hand it is immoral to supply human beings with objects which make it easier to kill or threaten other human beings. This is really not defending human right and freedom, as the United States claim to do.

In my opinion the United States should give up this export and replace this by a more humane industry to employ the people currently active in the weapons sector. Because this is obviously morally speaking the only important reason to support this industry.

People who support the U.S. sales say that “weapons make the world a safer place”, but this is not logical. We have the nature to follow “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth”. So violence, or a threat of violence, provokes an equal reaction.

Link to the lecture:
Moral hard case