Our climate and a morally hard case

background information

For a lot of organizations being climate neutral does not depend on whether the glaciers in the Himalayas are melting, or that the sea levels are raising, but it depends on the benefits it can bring to the company . Being ‘green’ has become a hype. At first being ‘green’ presented a problem of moral motivation for organizations, because this morally right thing to do would come along with higher costs and more uncertain revenues. However now it has become a hype, it is more of an opportunity to increase revenues. By selling ‘green’ products the producer offers not only the product, but also a high morale and a clean conscience to the customers.

Still this hype has its limits. When you look at the automotive industry, cars for example are becoming more and more fuel efficient. There are already quit some electronic cars, and charging points are popping up at different places. But will electricity replace fuel? A morally hard case arises. If the electronic cars will take over the automobile industry, what about the people working at oil companies and gas stations? Is firing millions of people to save emissions of carbon monoxide and spare the limited amount of oil available the morally right thing to do, or is ignoring the problems of carbon monoxide and oil to keep millions of people employed - with the knowledge that the population is constantly growing - the morally right thing to do?

If you will ask me I would chose this first option. I think it is selfish to ignore the changes necessary to prevent our children from having even bigger problems in the future. A clean planet is far more important than people having a job. These people can search for new jobs, but we cannot search for a new planet.

S879057

Digital Morality

background information

So far we discussed several moral perspectives and theories. A problem with most theories based on societal interactions is the difficulty of testing these theories, since society cannot be altered in any way. However, the creation of a new moral sphere can provide valuable clues on the plausibility of these theories. The internet is a complete new moral playground with virtually no laws. It is evident that real world morality cannot be applied to the internet, making it a moral sphere, and with contemporary minimal morality. We would expect that without laws, a hermeneutical driven morality would emerge. However, basic moral values applicable to the internet sphere seem not to be upheld. Copyright violations are numerous because punishment is absent, deception in chat rooms is common practice, and the porn industry certainly does not uphold moral values. It seems that since internet laws are not emerged yet, and anonymity provides shelter from societal judgment, people tend to ignore moral values, an argument in favor of the functional perspective.

Another example: when the internet first emerged, plagiarism was a major problem, until an algorithm was created to detect plagiarism. Since plagiarism was now detectable and thus punishable, it declined. Apparently, the moral value on itself was not enough to prevent plagiarism. And there are many examples, think about hacking, creating viruses, or internet bullying. However, this does not mean we can throw away the hermeneutical theory. Maybe people simply do not know yet the proper moral values. Maybe the internet will reappear as a reflection of the real societies. Personally I think the internet will remain a sphere with minimal morality, because anonymity and lack of laws provide no incentive to act morally. I hope I have showed the internet is a valuable tool to asses different moral theories. Perhaps it would be useful to think about the interaction between the business discourse and the internet.

s312501

Important!

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

INTEL & ANTITRUST

background information

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

Airlines have a problem

background information

When you buy a plane ticket you do not expect to have to pay for checking in your baggage or for requesting a particular seat. However, this is what is happening at the moment. More and more airlines are charging passengers for “the extras”. They are doing this in response to passenger’s resistance to higher ticket prices and as a means to become more profitable. Cutting back on extras has been happening for more than two decades, the difference is that in the past it was done gradually and the reductions were minor things that the flyers would not notice.

So the question is whether it is fair for airlines to take advantage of their costumers for some extra profit.

Obviously airlines should focus more on taking care of their passengers. Costumers are in the difficult position of not having much choice when it comes to travelling. Air travel remains the fastest mean of transportation and most the time costumers just have to accept what airlines throw at them. If they do not they have to find another mode that may not be as convenient or decide to not travel at all. It is not right for airlines to take advantage of this situation by trying to charge different sorts of fees and knowing that in the majority of cases costumers just have to accept it. In my opinion companies have an obligation to take care of their costumers and their relationship with them. Airlines are not fulfilling this obligation.

s960385

Haiti - international responsibility?

background information

Currently Haiti encountered an immense earthquake that left many people on the island homeless, and over 100.000 thousands people dead. Neither does Haiti have an appropriate infrastructure nor the resources to handle such a destructive event. Therefore, being prepared for such a catastrophe is hardly possible. At the moment many charities are supporting this country with food, medicine and other first aid supplies.

But is it a moral obligation or an optional conduct, why people feel motivated to help others who are in need? To what extent is the international community obligated to donate first aid supplies to Haitians?

From a moral standpoint, if one of the foreign nations has the resources to help, they should do so, since the Haitians cannot prevent the disaster from happening. Moreover no one can prevent such a catastrophe. Nowadays such an event can occur in every country and someone should take responsibility to help out in such desperate times.

Since we are living in a free society, everyone has to decide for him or herself, e.g. which amount to spend in such a situation. However it remains a moral obligation for the governments of other nations to support the weaker ones. There should not be given an option to help or not, since a life is at stake and you should not be indifferent if people are dying. Furthermore, if you take a look at Haiti’s history, you will learn that it was a country which was colonized (first by the Spanish, then the French, then in 1915 till 1956 it was occupied by the US for safety reasons). A country that is overshadowed by a history of cruelty and slavery, a country still struggling to recover from foreign power, is a weak nation that deserves the help from the international community. For that reason, when it comes to saving lives, the moral obligation overrides the morally optional (or our free will). The action here which is undertaken from different countries is therefore obligatory, since if someone is in need of help, the person who is able to provide this aid, should take action.

s567411

Pieter Lakeman Vs. Dirk Scheringa Bank

background information

The Dirk Scheringa Bank (DSB) is a commercial bank in the Netherlands that received bad publicity, because of selling expensive and unnecessary life insurance policies as a compulsory part of mortgage loans. Many customers have found themselves in financial difficulties as a result. To help those victims, Pieter Lakeman established a foundation with the aim to collectively help those people.

On the first of October 2009 chairman Pieter Lakeman was invited in a Television show to tell his story about the damage that is caused by the DSB. According to Lakeman the best thing for all customers of the DSB to do, is to withdraw their money on their saving accounts. So, he incited account holders of the DSB to withdraw all their money in order to cause bankruptcy for the DSB. Shortly after this message, a run on the DSB was happening. After a few days, this finally caused a declaration of bankruptcy.

The question rises whether Pieter Lakeman (representing only a small group of people) is allowed to purposely cause a bankruptcy of a firm that represents thousands of people taken into account that DSB claims to be on the good way and trying to arrange financial support for people that faced financial difficulties caused by selling expensive financial products.

It seems to be morally permissible that Lakeman acted this way, since most people will benefit from it. Furthermore as a general principle, DSB should not sell products with such a significant financial risk for the customers. On the other side, DSB was acting within the boundaries of the law and received a banking permit by the Dutch Central Bank. Customers that became ‘victim’ of DSB didn’t read the conditions of the loan well. Therefore, it can be also be stated that those persons where the victims of their own unawareness and dragging DSB into a bankruptcy is therefore wrong.

s100815

The Dutch Dilemma

background information

On December 21st of 2009 the Dutch government began the killing of more than 40000 pregnant goats in the Netherlands. It is the latest measure taken to put a halt to the recent rise of the so-called ‘Q-fever’, a disease caused by the bacteria Coxiella burnetii. The primary carriers of the bacteria are cattle, sheep, and goats. Before 2007 about 15 humans were infected each year in the Netherlands. However, from mid-2007 onwards there was a strong increase in infections and by 2009 the yearly infections had risen to 2300, 6 of which were lethal. It was this rise of the Q-fever in the Netherlands that spurred the Dutch government to take the drastic decision of killing these goats.

In this case one can clearly recognize a moral hard case for the Dutch government. On the one hand the government needs to consider the public health: if no action is undertaken, even more people will surely get infected, and some of them will die. On the other hand, it also needs to consider both the economic (and perhaps also personal) loss of the farmers, as they will lose their primary source of income for the coming time, and the harm done to the goats. What should the Dutch government decide to do in this case?

In my opinion, the morally right thing to do is to protect the public health and kill the (potentially) infected goats. In the choice between human life and that of animals, I agree with the position of the Dutch government: we value human life above that of animals, how painful and sad that decision may be. Lastly, I do believe that the government should compensate the farmers economically in some way for their loss.

s799614

Business Ethics: balancing the diverse interests

Article: Where Business Ethics and Self-Interest Meet; Schools' Responsibility
published on 28.06.1987

by s743120

In the last 25 years, American industries, actually industries all over the world, has suffered a lot by moral wrong conduct and all kinds of other moral issues. The education of business ethics at business school certainly, however, it is not enough and effective without the attention from all other parties, such as family education, elementary school education, companies concern, etc.

In the business environment, ethics seems somehow a bit paradoxical. The purpose of business is to generate profit, which is in conflict with moral conducts. This kind of argument was acceptable decades ago, which is exactly why there are so much moral issues causing loss for society and the company itself. Thus, the topic of business ethics has been brought into light.

In the early stage of capitalism, companies only cared the benefit of shareholders. Then problems started to appear in modern western markets. More and more people found out: the company will suffer in the end if it ignores other stakeholders’ benefit. Just like the definition of morality of functional tradition, it refers a set of rules needed to deal with dual aspects of mankind. Since different stakeholders have their own interests. In most of the case, these interests are in conflict with each other, moral issue appears consequently. Morality has the function to ensure the order, stability and continuity of the business. The financial crisis is a proof to show business cannot develop continuously without regulation. As conclusion, the function of business ethics is to keep balance among diverse interests of different stakeholders, which need the effort from the whole society aside of business school education.

Link to the lecture:
The functional tradition

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