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
23 April, 2009
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"
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"
07 April, 2009
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
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
26 March, 2009
Swiss Bank secrecy policy
Article: Swiss to Review Banking Secrecy Laws
published on 07.03.2009
by s928163
The Swiss banks are known for its tight secrecy policy. For nearly 300 years, the Swiss government has been resisting in loosening this policy. Even with the mounting pressure in the recent years, the Swiss government insists that such policy is important for their most important industry, the Financials. Abolishing the secrecy policy will cause customer loss, and endanger the county’s financial system. However, is it morally right to protect the depositors who have violated tax laws in their own country? Does Switzerland have the moral obligation to assist other countries in taxation fraud investigation? In the following article, it will be analyzed with respect of the four perspectives.
In consideration of the perspective of law, the tax evasion is not considered a crime under Swiss law. Only when the terrorism and other criminal matters are involved would the banks waive private information. In the meanwhile, with the efforts to protect their customers’ Right to their bank secrecy, the Swiss government might be able to stay in the boundary of the perspective of Right. However, when considering the human right of the other countries, it is clearly wrong to withhold crucial information of those who have violated law in their own country.
Now judging from the morality of “what we owe others”, when the Switzerland decided not to assist other countries in investigation of the taxation fraud, they have actively complicated the guilty actors. Citizens who benefit from their society have a moral obligation to contribute to that society, and to obey the laws. In ensuring their own benefit, the Swiss banks have deprived other’s entitlement of justice.
Link to the lecture:
The four perspectives and the morality of "what we owe others" in view of swiss action.
published on 07.03.2009
by s928163
The Swiss banks are known for its tight secrecy policy. For nearly 300 years, the Swiss government has been resisting in loosening this policy. Even with the mounting pressure in the recent years, the Swiss government insists that such policy is important for their most important industry, the Financials. Abolishing the secrecy policy will cause customer loss, and endanger the county’s financial system. However, is it morally right to protect the depositors who have violated tax laws in their own country? Does Switzerland have the moral obligation to assist other countries in taxation fraud investigation? In the following article, it will be analyzed with respect of the four perspectives.
In consideration of the perspective of law, the tax evasion is not considered a crime under Swiss law. Only when the terrorism and other criminal matters are involved would the banks waive private information. In the meanwhile, with the efforts to protect their customers’ Right to their bank secrecy, the Swiss government might be able to stay in the boundary of the perspective of Right. However, when considering the human right of the other countries, it is clearly wrong to withhold crucial information of those who have violated law in their own country.
Now judging from the morality of “what we owe others”, when the Switzerland decided not to assist other countries in investigation of the taxation fraud, they have actively complicated the guilty actors. Citizens who benefit from their society have a moral obligation to contribute to that society, and to obey the laws. In ensuring their own benefit, the Swiss banks have deprived other’s entitlement of justice.
Link to the lecture:
The four perspectives and the morality of "what we owe others" in view of swiss action.
18 March, 2009
New rules for accident-management?
Article: Dutch officials say faulty altimeter played role in Turkish plane crash
published on 04.03.2009
by s425331
Wednesday, February 25, 2009; 1030h: A Boeing 737-800 of Turkish Airlines crashes near Schiphol Airport. The results were 9 deceased and many dozens of wounded people . One week after, on Wednesday, the 4th of March, the first conclusions about the Turkish Airlines crash at Schiphol Airport were published by Schiphol Airport and a few other Dutch institutions. They mentioned that a faulty altimeter, following by a pilot failure was the cause of the crash.
Directly after these conclusions were drawn, the Turkish media claimed that the Dutch authorities pushed their conclusions in such a way that all responsibility for the crash is put in the shoes of the pilots and cabin crew of Turkish Airlines, most probably in order to avoid damage claims. The reaction of the Turkish transportation minister was that “it would be wrong to make assumptions and blame anybody”, since a plane crash has many aspects and all angles needs to be enlightened before conclusions can be drawn.
In my view, the Turkish transportation minister has a point here, unfortunately due to the freedom to speak: for all parties who are concerned with this airplane crash, it is legally not forbidden to publish their opinions about the reasons for the crash. According to the Functional Tradition, freedom (and thus freedom to speak) leads to rationality, which again leads to maximization of self-interest, which could be opposed to social interest/morality.
In other words, while an internationally working, independent research agency is still investigating the crash, Schiphol Airport and Turkish Airlines are figuratively fighting with heavy weighting claims and statements about each other. By doing so, they are trying to save their own reputation and to avoid damage claims; not knowing that this self-interest seeking may hurt the dozens of (relatives of the) victims of the crash who want to hear the real story behind the crash.
Therefore, I am in favor of internationally set social rules which will limit the freedom to speak for parties who are concerned with accidents which have enormous consequences for a lot of people. At least these parties should be limited in their freedom to draw conclusions about these accidents, while independent organizations are still investigating their cases.
Link to the lecture:
Funtional Tradition and self interest seeking character trait of human beings and organizations, and it’s application within the Turkish Airlines crash
published on 04.03.2009
by s425331
Wednesday, February 25, 2009; 1030h: A Boeing 737-800 of Turkish Airlines crashes near Schiphol Airport. The results were 9 deceased and many dozens of wounded people . One week after, on Wednesday, the 4th of March, the first conclusions about the Turkish Airlines crash at Schiphol Airport were published by Schiphol Airport and a few other Dutch institutions. They mentioned that a faulty altimeter, following by a pilot failure was the cause of the crash.
Directly after these conclusions were drawn, the Turkish media claimed that the Dutch authorities pushed their conclusions in such a way that all responsibility for the crash is put in the shoes of the pilots and cabin crew of Turkish Airlines, most probably in order to avoid damage claims. The reaction of the Turkish transportation minister was that “it would be wrong to make assumptions and blame anybody”, since a plane crash has many aspects and all angles needs to be enlightened before conclusions can be drawn.
In my view, the Turkish transportation minister has a point here, unfortunately due to the freedom to speak: for all parties who are concerned with this airplane crash, it is legally not forbidden to publish their opinions about the reasons for the crash. According to the Functional Tradition, freedom (and thus freedom to speak) leads to rationality, which again leads to maximization of self-interest, which could be opposed to social interest/morality.
In other words, while an internationally working, independent research agency is still investigating the crash, Schiphol Airport and Turkish Airlines are figuratively fighting with heavy weighting claims and statements about each other. By doing so, they are trying to save their own reputation and to avoid damage claims; not knowing that this self-interest seeking may hurt the dozens of (relatives of the) victims of the crash who want to hear the real story behind the crash.
Therefore, I am in favor of internationally set social rules which will limit the freedom to speak for parties who are concerned with accidents which have enormous consequences for a lot of people. At least these parties should be limited in their freedom to draw conclusions about these accidents, while independent organizations are still investigating their cases.
Link to the lecture:
Funtional Tradition and self interest seeking character trait of human beings and organizations, and it’s application within the Turkish Airlines crash
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)