4. Requirements for principal comments
- The topic of a principal comment cannot be identical to a principal comment that has been posted earlier.
A principal comment should not exceed a maximum of 300 words. (only comments between 250 and 350 words will be graded)
- It must be submitted in Word.
- The file must also include the link to the digital background article. English source!
- In the submittal a separate Word-document should be added, with the text of the background article (the link can become outdated and we take precautions just in case.)
- Principal comments should be moral in nature.
- Principal comments should hold arguments (not just opinions).
- The background information should not make up for more than one third of the principle comment. Moral arguments are more important!
- A principal comment must be sent to Mandy Bosma (M.E.Bosma@uvt.nl) who will forward it to the editorial board.
The closing date for submissions of principal comments is Friday, April 16 2010.
5. Requirements for secondary comments
- Any student can instantly submit a comment.
- Comments should not exceed a maximum of 150 words.
- Comments must clearly be related to the principal comment.
- Comments should be moral in nature.
- Comments should hold arguments (not just opinions).
- No foul language is allowed.
Students can post secondary comments as soon as the first principal comment has been posted on the weblog. The last opportunity to post secondary comments is Thursday, April 29. Comments received after this date will not be awarded any bonus points.
6. Bonus points
- The author of a principal comment in general will be rewarded 0.25 bonus point (up to a maximum of 0,75) per contribution.
- The author of a secondary comment in general will be rewarded 0.1 bonus point (up to a maximum of 0,25) per contribution.
- The maximum amount of bonus points authors of principal comments and secondary comments can gather is 1.
- All bonus points are attributed and made public at one central point in time at the end of the course.
- The editorial board will advice the lecturers as to the attribution of the bonus points, but it is the prerogative of the lecturers to decide in this matter.
- Students of Business studies can only earn bonus points at the BS weblog.
- Students of International Business can only earn bonus points at the IB weblog
DON'T FORGET YOUR ANR
Put your email-adress in the word document as well.
21 March, 2010
The Box
background information
I have recently watched the movie: The box. First of all I will give a short summary to the people who do not know this movie: Norma and Arthur Lewis, a suburban couple with a young child, receive a simple wooden box as a gift, which bears fatal and irrevocable consequences. A mysterious stranger, delivers the message that the box promises to bestow upon its owner $1 million with the press of a button. But, pressing this button will simultaneously cause the death of another human being somewhere in the world; someone they don't know. With just 24 hours to have the box in their possession, Norma and Arthur find themselves in the cross-hairs of a startling moral dilemma and must face the true nature of their humanity. I think it’s an excellent example of a moral dilemma. The main characters in the movie have the ability to decide on the destiny of a human being. It’s either let the human being alive or push the button and let him die. Nowadays this is impossible. But in the ancient Rome, Julius Caesar decided on living and dying too with his thumb going up or down and this act even was a legal thing to do! Nowadays we can say that this is definitely illegal but what about the moral part? Negative duties like do not kill play a big role in this movie. Also the positive duty to respect others is important. According to this moral duties we can immediately say, that you should not push the button. If you do, you are self-interested and then you do not act in the public interest. Therefore this act is definitely immoral. Imagine that all people in the world have the possibility to earn an easy 1 million dollars. If everybody acts according to his or hers self-interest, this will result in the extinction of the human race. People need to align their self interest with the public interest, and by pressing this magical button they do not comply with this standards.
s861379
I have recently watched the movie: The box. First of all I will give a short summary to the people who do not know this movie: Norma and Arthur Lewis, a suburban couple with a young child, receive a simple wooden box as a gift, which bears fatal and irrevocable consequences. A mysterious stranger, delivers the message that the box promises to bestow upon its owner $1 million with the press of a button. But, pressing this button will simultaneously cause the death of another human being somewhere in the world; someone they don't know. With just 24 hours to have the box in their possession, Norma and Arthur find themselves in the cross-hairs of a startling moral dilemma and must face the true nature of their humanity. I think it’s an excellent example of a moral dilemma. The main characters in the movie have the ability to decide on the destiny of a human being. It’s either let the human being alive or push the button and let him die. Nowadays this is impossible. But in the ancient Rome, Julius Caesar decided on living and dying too with his thumb going up or down and this act even was a legal thing to do! Nowadays we can say that this is definitely illegal but what about the moral part? Negative duties like do not kill play a big role in this movie. Also the positive duty to respect others is important. According to this moral duties we can immediately say, that you should not push the button. If you do, you are self-interested and then you do not act in the public interest. Therefore this act is definitely immoral. Imagine that all people in the world have the possibility to earn an easy 1 million dollars. If everybody acts according to his or hers self-interest, this will result in the extinction of the human race. People need to align their self interest with the public interest, and by pressing this magical button they do not comply with this standards.
s861379
Holland Casino, Walking the Moral Tightrope
background information
The state owned company Holland Casino has the sole right for exploiting casino games in the Netherlands. In exchange for this monopoly Holland Casino has the social obligation to prevent gambling addiction. Having a monopoly being both illegal by European law and inefficient due to the lack of competition, the Dutch government tries to legitimize their decision by stating they control illegal gambling and addictive behavior this way.
Since the duty of Holland Casino is not only to prevent illegal gambling but making profit as well, the company actively tries to lure in as many guests as possible by large and aggressive advertizing campaigns. The most ideal state for Holland Casino would be guests visiting no more than once a week. Less would lead to a loss in profit, more would lead to addiction. This leads to a moral hard case for Holland Casino: Attracting guests is morally wrong because there is a chance they would get addicted to gambling. Not attracting guests is also morally wrong, because then guests would look for alternative (illegal) ways to gamble, leading to uncontrolled addiction.
I think this is an interesting case, because this dilemma leads to questions like: How should Holland Casino solve this moral hard case? Is it immoral for Holland Casino to advertize gambling when they have a monopoly? Is gambling on itself morally wrong? Should a state-owned gambling company pursue profit maximization?
Holland Casino added 267 million euro to the state treasury in 2007. In this case the question ”should a company have profit as a moral value?” is even more arguable. However, if the casinos lose money the control on gambling cannot be sustained. Maybe society needs Holland Casino, being the (im)morally draped company it is. Because that is morality at its summit: Acting immoral to be morally and socially responsible.
u1237582
The state owned company Holland Casino has the sole right for exploiting casino games in the Netherlands. In exchange for this monopoly Holland Casino has the social obligation to prevent gambling addiction. Having a monopoly being both illegal by European law and inefficient due to the lack of competition, the Dutch government tries to legitimize their decision by stating they control illegal gambling and addictive behavior this way.
Since the duty of Holland Casino is not only to prevent illegal gambling but making profit as well, the company actively tries to lure in as many guests as possible by large and aggressive advertizing campaigns. The most ideal state for Holland Casino would be guests visiting no more than once a week. Less would lead to a loss in profit, more would lead to addiction. This leads to a moral hard case for Holland Casino: Attracting guests is morally wrong because there is a chance they would get addicted to gambling. Not attracting guests is also morally wrong, because then guests would look for alternative (illegal) ways to gamble, leading to uncontrolled addiction.
I think this is an interesting case, because this dilemma leads to questions like: How should Holland Casino solve this moral hard case? Is it immoral for Holland Casino to advertize gambling when they have a monopoly? Is gambling on itself morally wrong? Should a state-owned gambling company pursue profit maximization?
Holland Casino added 267 million euro to the state treasury in 2007. In this case the question ”should a company have profit as a moral value?” is even more arguable. However, if the casinos lose money the control on gambling cannot be sustained. Maybe society needs Holland Casino, being the (im)morally draped company it is. Because that is morality at its summit: Acting immoral to be morally and socially responsible.
u1237582
11 March, 2010
Piracy in Somalia
background information
Piracy is a war-like act committed by private parties that engage in acts of robbery and criminal violence at sea. Piracy off the Somali coast has been a threat to international shipping since the beginning of the Somali Civil War in the early 21st century. Since 2005, many international organizations have expressed their concerns over the rise in acts of piracy. Piracy has contributed to an increase in shipping costs and impeded the delivery of food aid shipments.
Since a few years ago, Western vessels are heading to the coast of Somalia to catch massive amounts of fish. The piracy in the Gulf of Aden is a result of these Western companies, since they are stealing business from the natives, by fishing more efficient than the primitive boats of the Somali. But there is more, at that time Somalia was a headless state and had no authority to patrol its tuna-rich coastal waters. Subsequently, foreign commercial vessels swooped in to cast their nets.
Can Western businesses still fish in the Somali’ waters without paying attention to the impoverished population?
According to simple neoclassical reasoning, firms are exclusively aiming at maximizing their profits and therefore exploiting their resources in their own interest. But, the question arises if Western businesses have the right to steal business from a country in troubles that is not as strong as Western countries on social, political and economical levels due to a civil war. Somalia receives aid from several Western programs by food supplies. However, since Somalia is an unordered society, this means that the food supplies are not at the place where it is needed most; the impoverished population. As a response to earn a living, they are more or less forced to engage bad conduct by robbing Western vessels.
s100815
Piracy is a war-like act committed by private parties that engage in acts of robbery and criminal violence at sea. Piracy off the Somali coast has been a threat to international shipping since the beginning of the Somali Civil War in the early 21st century. Since 2005, many international organizations have expressed their concerns over the rise in acts of piracy. Piracy has contributed to an increase in shipping costs and impeded the delivery of food aid shipments.
Since a few years ago, Western vessels are heading to the coast of Somalia to catch massive amounts of fish. The piracy in the Gulf of Aden is a result of these Western companies, since they are stealing business from the natives, by fishing more efficient than the primitive boats of the Somali. But there is more, at that time Somalia was a headless state and had no authority to patrol its tuna-rich coastal waters. Subsequently, foreign commercial vessels swooped in to cast their nets.
Can Western businesses still fish in the Somali’ waters without paying attention to the impoverished population?
According to simple neoclassical reasoning, firms are exclusively aiming at maximizing their profits and therefore exploiting their resources in their own interest. But, the question arises if Western businesses have the right to steal business from a country in troubles that is not as strong as Western countries on social, political and economical levels due to a civil war. Somalia receives aid from several Western programs by food supplies. However, since Somalia is an unordered society, this means that the food supplies are not at the place where it is needed most; the impoverished population. As a response to earn a living, they are more or less forced to engage bad conduct by robbing Western vessels.
s100815
Peru
background information
In the end of January of this year, Peru was plagued by a large flooding. About 3000 people became homeless and a considerable amount of tourists were stuck in the region of the famous tourist attraction Machu Picchu. Due to this the region ran out of food and the ATM’s ran out of cash. Some of the hotel, shop and restaurant owners saw a profit opportunity and raised the prices, while others offered free food although they were also in uncertainty about when and how the disaster will expire and how their future economic perspective will be after the disaster. This made it impossible for a lot of backpacking tourists to rent a room, therefore they had to spent the first hours outside. The local government did what it could and it gave shelter to the tourists. Helicopters shuttled the large number of stranded tourist to a town from which they were able to take the bus to safer places.
In these situations, when you are separated from the outer world, it is important to help each other, locals and tourists. I consider the question: Is it immoral that some shop, restaurant and hotel owners raise their prices, while there is such a disaster going on? For them, tourism revenue is the only source of income and if they do not make money they cannot foresee in their necessities. Additionally the collapse of the tourism industry is a quite foreseeable factor to occur. But does this give the owners the permission to make money out of this disastrous situation, when some people are injured or just cannot afford it?
Off course not! Especially in such situations people have to help each other, therefore, in my opinion, the owners of the hotels could better lower their prices. It is immoral to higher the prices, since a considerable amount of the tourists are backpacking. In general these tourists do not have much money. You should help each other in difficult times!
Eline
In the end of January of this year, Peru was plagued by a large flooding. About 3000 people became homeless and a considerable amount of tourists were stuck in the region of the famous tourist attraction Machu Picchu. Due to this the region ran out of food and the ATM’s ran out of cash. Some of the hotel, shop and restaurant owners saw a profit opportunity and raised the prices, while others offered free food although they were also in uncertainty about when and how the disaster will expire and how their future economic perspective will be after the disaster. This made it impossible for a lot of backpacking tourists to rent a room, therefore they had to spent the first hours outside. The local government did what it could and it gave shelter to the tourists. Helicopters shuttled the large number of stranded tourist to a town from which they were able to take the bus to safer places.
In these situations, when you are separated from the outer world, it is important to help each other, locals and tourists. I consider the question: Is it immoral that some shop, restaurant and hotel owners raise their prices, while there is such a disaster going on? For them, tourism revenue is the only source of income and if they do not make money they cannot foresee in their necessities. Additionally the collapse of the tourism industry is a quite foreseeable factor to occur. But does this give the owners the permission to make money out of this disastrous situation, when some people are injured or just cannot afford it?
Off course not! Especially in such situations people have to help each other, therefore, in my opinion, the owners of the hotels could better lower their prices. It is immoral to higher the prices, since a considerable amount of the tourists are backpacking. In general these tourists do not have much money. You should help each other in difficult times!
Eline
Toyota Case
background information
Toyota has called back more than four million vehicles around the world because of errors on the gas pedal and brake systems, errors that could cost human lives. Currently the U.S. government is putting pressure on Toyota for an explanation. The head of the U.S. agency (Medford) that regulates auto safety had been given the tasks by Bush administrations to take immediate personal contact with Toyota, emphasizing that Toyota needs to deal with this problem and find a solution.
Should Toyota have informed people immediately, and faced the cost of their mistake?
This error can be a fatal error that could cost human lives. My opinion is that people are able to judge and choose which car to buy. than it is very important for the car producer to keep the promise (a safe car) when influencing someone’s judgment. It brings us in the context of morality is ought to be invisible in a well ordered society. In the free market we ought to trust another, protecting property rights, and eventually protects from things that could do any harm (especially when it could costs someone’s live. When you create a product it should be safe and reliable. In a market the consumer expects, that they can trust that no harm will be done to them when buying a product. As a car-producer you are responsible to protect your customer from any harm that could be done to them. This is a rule that exists within the car industry. It is a choice that has been made by Toyota to be in this industry and this decision has led to the obligation to be bounded within the rules of the car industry. Knowing the rules of the car-industry than they should know that this error is not allowed to occur and if it occurs than they have to take immediate action and face the cost. It is not morally permissible to save money at the expenses of human lives.
s241443
Toyota has called back more than four million vehicles around the world because of errors on the gas pedal and brake systems, errors that could cost human lives. Currently the U.S. government is putting pressure on Toyota for an explanation. The head of the U.S. agency (Medford) that regulates auto safety had been given the tasks by Bush administrations to take immediate personal contact with Toyota, emphasizing that Toyota needs to deal with this problem and find a solution.
Should Toyota have informed people immediately, and faced the cost of their mistake?
This error can be a fatal error that could cost human lives. My opinion is that people are able to judge and choose which car to buy. than it is very important for the car producer to keep the promise (a safe car) when influencing someone’s judgment. It brings us in the context of morality is ought to be invisible in a well ordered society. In the free market we ought to trust another, protecting property rights, and eventually protects from things that could do any harm (especially when it could costs someone’s live. When you create a product it should be safe and reliable. In a market the consumer expects, that they can trust that no harm will be done to them when buying a product. As a car-producer you are responsible to protect your customer from any harm that could be done to them. This is a rule that exists within the car industry. It is a choice that has been made by Toyota to be in this industry and this decision has led to the obligation to be bounded within the rules of the car industry. Knowing the rules of the car-industry than they should know that this error is not allowed to occur and if it occurs than they have to take immediate action and face the cost. It is not morally permissible to save money at the expenses of human lives.
s241443
01 March, 2010
Internet Censorship
background information
To be able to enter the Chinese market, internet giant Google launched a censored version of their search engine, namely google.cn, in 2006. They did this to be able to sustain competition, even though they were met with heavy opposition, stating that a censored search engine would be in conflict with Google’s motto: “don’t be evil’. On the 12th of January 2010, Google has said it may end its operations in China, following a "sophisticated and targeted" cyber attack on Chinese human rights activists’ Gmail-accounts, attacks originating from the country. Google’s announcement has lead to a tremendous decrease in its stock price. It is clear that Google is facing a moral hard case.
Was it an ethical thing for Google to enter the Chinese market? Is it morally ethical for Google or any company to continue operating in China with the censorship? Should they exit and lose a lot of revenues? Is internet censorship justifiable? What if it is used to protect people against harmful information?
Entering the Chinese market could be justified with the rationale of being able to help China engaging with the world and modernize. However, staying there and continuing violating freedom of information and giving in to government bullying is according to me unethical, or as Hillary Clinton states: “censorship should not be in any way accepted by any company from anywhere.” I believe that censorship denies the people their right to decide for themselves. Those who value freedom must act to protect this freedom of knowledge or it could be impaired or lost. Justifying censorship by saying that it is in the interest and for the protection of the people, is to me a narrow view, because banning or controlling information is not the only way to fight incorrect or harmful information. The best way to fight misinformation is with correct information. By using common sense and properly teaching our children how to use the Internet there should be no need for censorship.
s645374
To be able to enter the Chinese market, internet giant Google launched a censored version of their search engine, namely google.cn, in 2006. They did this to be able to sustain competition, even though they were met with heavy opposition, stating that a censored search engine would be in conflict with Google’s motto: “don’t be evil’. On the 12th of January 2010, Google has said it may end its operations in China, following a "sophisticated and targeted" cyber attack on Chinese human rights activists’ Gmail-accounts, attacks originating from the country. Google’s announcement has lead to a tremendous decrease in its stock price. It is clear that Google is facing a moral hard case.
Was it an ethical thing for Google to enter the Chinese market? Is it morally ethical for Google or any company to continue operating in China with the censorship? Should they exit and lose a lot of revenues? Is internet censorship justifiable? What if it is used to protect people against harmful information?
Entering the Chinese market could be justified with the rationale of being able to help China engaging with the world and modernize. However, staying there and continuing violating freedom of information and giving in to government bullying is according to me unethical, or as Hillary Clinton states: “censorship should not be in any way accepted by any company from anywhere.” I believe that censorship denies the people their right to decide for themselves. Those who value freedom must act to protect this freedom of knowledge or it could be impaired or lost. Justifying censorship by saying that it is in the interest and for the protection of the people, is to me a narrow view, because banning or controlling information is not the only way to fight incorrect or harmful information. The best way to fight misinformation is with correct information. By using common sense and properly teaching our children how to use the Internet there should be no need for censorship.
s645374
INTEL & ANTITRUST
Almost everyone is unconsciously aware of a computer with an Intel chip. The American chip manufacture has a market share of approximately 80 percent, the world largest chip maker. A lot has happened in order to attain this position, but did Intel achieve this position in a fair way?
According to the article from the New York Times, it is known that in the USA, the lawsuit has started an investigation against Intel regarding its unfair market position and possible corruption. According to New York’s attorney general lawsuit Mr. Andrew Cuomo: Intel, the world’s largest chip maker, has for years used large rebates and co-marketing arrangements to talk Dell and other manufacturers into sticking with its products rather than increasing their business with A.M.D., a much smaller chip maker.
As the supplier of about 80 percent of the central chips that power PCs and servers, Intel had monopoly power, which it abused, according to Mr. Cuomo. “Intel has used illegal threats, coercion, fines and bullying to preserve its stranglehold on the market.” Thus, Intel’s way of handling business is not only unfair for its potential rivals, but also damaging for the average consumer. The consumer’s better products and low prices are taken away through the imperfect competition caused by the monopoly power of Intel.
Intel’s way of handling business has broken some moral principles: First, it drives away competitors in the market because it handles with computer manufactures by offering them (illegal) discounts, which can also be seen as private corruption. Second, it is not fair for consumers because computer manufactures chose for Intel chips, it is possible that they do not receive the best balance in quality compared to price. Thus consumers have paid a high price for years. Third, Intel has caused damage in the whole society because competition and innovation of chips is driven away.
In my opinion, the above mentioned points caused by Intel have caused damage in the society and in the market. Intel had disturbed the efficiency of the market and has broken some moral principles, thus Intel is corrupt.
s308580
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)