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

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.

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