Unit 8 DB: The Morality of Environmentalism

Some environmentalists claim that the ways we raise and collect animals and fish for food are fundamentally unethical. They point to the suffering of animals within the factory farming industry, the pollution caused by untreated animal waste, the use of hormones and antibiotics, the decimation of fish populations, and the fact that current farming practices are ultimately unsustainable in terms of their environmental impact. Making the changes that these environmentalists claim are necessary, however, would likely be devastating to the agricultural and fishing industries, to the chemical and biochemical companies that support them, and to the way of life of millions of people. These changes might also result in increased food prices and less food being available to the ever-increasing human population.

· How do you think we should balance the moral claims on this issue?

· Should the concerns of environmentalists and animal rights activists impinge on your desire to eat however you so choose?

· Does the protection of jobs and communities trump environmental concerns? Why or why not?

Read and respond to two classmates’ posts.

Final Discussion: Course Reflection
After having the opportunity to complete the course, what would you change and why? What topic particularly caught your interest and what do you want to know more about? Last, but not least, if you could share with the next class one piece of advice about this class, what would it be? Please note that this pertains to the class, the materials, flow/organization, etc.

Your comments may be shared with incoming students with no identifying information. Thank you and good luck on your educational journey! (No participation replies required but encouraged!)

15.1: Business Ethics Is Not an Oxymoron
1. 15.1 Review the validity of the opinion that there is no such thing as ethics in the business world

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:
Some people argue that, like “military intelligence,” the phrase “business ethics” is an oxymoron, and many businesspeople would agree that “all’s fair in love and business” or that there is no such thing as ethics in the business world—there is only profit and loss, and the highest goal is to make a profit. They would go on to say that what they do in business has nothing to do with their religious or moral values outside of the workplace. A perfect example of this is the Enron—Andersen fiasco.

These statements are all false and very injurious to the character and reputation of both businesspeople and their businesses. Our everyday lives are fraught with moral decisions, and why should our jobs, where we spend eight hours or more of our days, be exempt from ethical values? The answer, of course, is that they are not. Business ethics, like bioethics, is a specialized area in which an awareness of ethical issues and a systematic approach to solving them are particularly important. As is true of other areas of ethics, business ethics has to do with the establishment and maintenance of vital and significant relationships among human beings—specifically, in this case, among employers, employees, shareholders, businesses, and consumers. As in other areas, ethical principles, such as the five principles of humanitarian ethics—the valuing of life, the striving for goodness and avoiding of badness, the just and fair distribution of good and bad, honesty and truth telling, and individual freedom—apply to business ethics.

The main difference between business ethics and bioethics is that the specific issues, problems, and situations that arise often require a different application of the principles, although the general applications are roughly the same. There is a difference, for example, between a patient signing an informed consent and a builder signing a contract to build a house for a client. In the first situation, the doctor needs the patient’s consent so that the patient can undergo some sort of procedure necessary to maintain his or her health and well-being. In the second situation, a businessperson with specialized knowledge and abilities agrees to provide a client with something he or she wants, and the client in turn agrees to pay the builder, for example, a certain amount for doing this. The two situations are similar in that the “contracts” in both cases are an expression of trust, honesty, and mutual agreement executed for the benefit of both parties; they differ, however, in the specific ways in which ethics is applied.

15.2: Rights and Obligations in Business
1. 15.2Distinguish between business rights and obligations

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:
First of all, by rights is meant those things to which human beings are entitled by law, morality, or tradition, such as “the right to life” or “the right to be free.” By obligations is meant some sort of responsibility or duty that people have toward one another—also accorded by law, morality, or tradition—to see that their rights are protected and provided. Rights have been discussed previously in dealing with other areas of morality, such as allowing someone to die, suicide, and abortion. All human beings, for example, have a right to life, rights over their own bodies and lives, and also rights to be free, but none of these rights is ever absolute; indeed, they often conflict with one another. Conflicts of rights are not ethically resolved, however, by declaring certain rights to be absolute; rather, these conflicts are resolved by trying to establish some sort of priority system, some prima facie rights, and adjusting those rights to each other with reasonable justification and with regard to the attendant circumstances.

Just as the basic rights—the rights to life, justice, honesty and truth telling, privacy, and freedom—apply to life in general, so do they apply in business and the media. However, there are also specific rights or specific applications of the general rights listed previously:

· These rights are the right to have one’s own life protected whether one is an employer, an employee, or a consumer

· The right to have the opportunity to pursue and qualify oneself for employment without hindrance

· The right to establish a business, own property, employ whom one wants, and make a profit

· The right to expect agreements and contracts to be executed fairly, whether between employers and employees, businesses and other businesses, business and government, or business and consumers

· The right to fairness, trust, honesty, and truth telling at all levels of business dealings

· The right to employment security

· The right of businesses to try to get consumers to use their products and services

· The right of consumers to choose which products and services they wish to buy.

As far as obligations are concerned, participants in business and media activities are obligated to be honest and tell the truth; to be fair and just in their dealings with others; to be honest and trustworthy in executing and carrying out agreements and contracts; to pay off debts, including interest on money loaned, in a manner agreeable to all parties; to create a safe atmosphere for employees to work in; to make the effort and perform the work for which wages are being paid; to respect one another’s privacy; and, finally, to be loyal to employers, employees, shareholders, and customers within reasonable and ethical limits.

15.2.1: Two Ways of Approaching Rights and Obligations in Business
LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:
There are two highly divergent ways of approaching the issues of rights and obligations in business; one of these emphasizes competition and the other emphasizes government control.

The two approaches we will cover here are:

1. The competitive approach

2. The government control approach

The Competitive Approach
LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:
The aggressively competitive approach is referred to by a number of names: free enterprise, laissez-faire, survival of the fittest, and, by some, the “dog-eat-dog” approach. Supporters of this approach believe that the main obligation in business and in life in general is to “make a buck,” that is, to establish and maintain a business without hindrance from the government at any level. The point—whether we are talking about management, labor, or consumers—is to get as large a share as possible of the profits to be made in business, using any method one can. According to this position, the best approach for a local or national economy to take is that of laissez-faire (meaning “let people do what they want”), free enterprise, and competition. The theory behind this approach is that existing economic problems will be solved if all participants in business are completely free to compete as aggressively as they can. If there is a demand for certain goods, then businesses that can convince consumers that they can supply those goods at the best quality and the lowest prices should be free to compete with other businesses. In this way, everyone who can survive will profit—successful businesses, government, and consumers.

If small businesses or new businesses can’t survive the competition, then they will be eliminated from it, just as the weaker animals in the jungle are killed by those that are stronger. On the other hand, if businesses can make themselves larger and more secure by subsuming or destroying smaller businesses, this is an acceptable part of the competition process. The goal of any state or nation, as seen from this viewpoint, is to allow individuals to compete aggressively with each other for wealth and power because only consumers can benefit from this process, receiving the best products and services at the lowest cost.

Proponents of this position see this as being the most meaningful and, in some cases, the only possible position for a free, democratic society to hold. They feel that whenever state and local government controls are imposed, power becomes centered in government, which tends to feed itself at the expense of individuals, both in business and in society in general.

The Government Control Approach
LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:
The government control approach argues for state or government ownership and control of all business enterprises in the name of and for the good of the people. Although laissez-faire may sound good, opponents of this position state that it often puts power and excessive affluence in the hands of a few aggressive people at the expense of the many. Furthermore, wealth is kept in the same hands as families that own big businesses continue to pass them on to their children and grandchildren.

The competitive approach also brings out the most animalistic aspects of human beings, dehumanizing them both because it glorifies the “might makes right—survival of the fittest” jungle ethic—and also because it consigns the have-nots to poverty and hopelessness. It’s all well and good to speak of seeing everyone profit from free enterprise, but in fact only a few do so. These people use their control of the supply of goods to control the demand for the goods or to satisfy demand at higher profit to themselves—often offering less quality in the bargain. Furthermore, if small, independent businesses can’t and don’t survive, then everyone who isn’t in control of power becomes a slave to those who are. In other words, what all of this adds up to, according to this view, is that good and bad are distributed unjustly in a laissez-faire society, with the haves getting all of the good, while the have-nots getting all of the bad.

The only ethical and fair way for business to be conducted, according to this view, is to put it in the hands of the government, which then will operate it for the good of all concerned. In this way no one individual or group of individuals will be able to exert control and achieve affluence to the detriment of others. Everyone in such a system will work for the good of all, and a just distribution of good and bad will be made by a central governing body representing all of the people.

Some of the good will be distributed equally; some according to merit; and some by need and ability. According to this view, everyone will share—with at least some degree of equality—both the bad and the good emanating from the society’s business dealings. For example, if the main business of a country is agriculture and agriculture has a good year, then everyone shares equally in the food distribution and the profits. On the other hand, if it has a bad year, then everyone shares equally in the lack of food and the losses. This is the only fair way. Furthermore, by not stressing aggressiveness and competition, and by providing everyone with a fair and equitable living that is free from poverty and hardship, more time can be spent on civilizing and humanizing the people.

15.2.2: The Moderate Position
LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:
It is always difficult to characterize accurately a “moderate position” because unlike extreme positions, moderate ones are spread all along the spectrum between the two extremes. Nevertheless, it is possible to present some generalities that are characteristic of a moderate view. Both extreme positions have strong points to make and, of course, imply or put forth criticisms of each other. It is important to remember, however, that the system that will work best for a society depends upon a great number of factors; it is not just a theoretical matter.

Both extreme positions, and variations or combinations thereof, have had failures and successes in many different societies throughout history. If, for example, a government and its leaders are benevolent and ethical, government control of business and media activities may work well. There is always a problem, of course, of corruption in government, and there is also a problem when governments change and the new one is not benevolent or ethical enough to make a government control system work.

On the other hand, if those running businesses and the media are fair, honest, and otherwise ethical in their dealings with one another and with their employees and consumers, then free enterprise can also work. The danger here, as supporters of government control are quick to point out, is that power, influence, and affluence can end up almost entirely in the hands of the few, and those few can be uncaring and corrupt in their treatment of others. If profit becomes the main or only goal for business, then it becomes easy to leave humaneness behind.

Generally, however, the moderate position seeks to encourage free enterprise and honest competition, with some controls being exerted by employee groups (e.g., unions), by consumer groups, and by government where necessary. For example, there may be laws that regulate the absorbing of small businesses by larger ones, or the merging of larger ones, in both cases the goal being to prevent the accumulation of too much power and wealth in the hands of a few to the detriment of society in general.

On the other hand, government should not impose controls upon private businesses except to protect society from dangers that businesses themselves refuse to prevent. In short, freedom should be allowed, but not unlimited freedom. This position would also encourage the development of employee groups to protect workers’ rights in employer–employee relationships and the establishment of consumer groups to protect customers from false advertising, risky or dangerous products, and unfair business practices.

What the moderate position advocates is a system of checks and balances to ensure that people have as much freedom in their business dealings as possible while remaining protected from corrupt, unethical, and destructive practices. It goes without saying that the more that businesses, employee groups, and consumer groups monitor and control their own activities from an ethical standpoint, the less government control will be needed.

The moderate position also maintains that both extremes are based upon false assumptions. It is not true, for example, that a democratic society can exist only if completely free enterprise is allowed; there are many societies that are largely democratic but that nevertheless maintain some government and private control of business activities. Neither is it true, however, that the only way to achieve equality and protection for everyone is to allow the government to control business or the media “for the good of everyone.” The moderate position tends to try to combine the advantages of both of these extremes while eliminating their disadvantages.

15.2.3: Justice in Business
LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:
It is important to examine exactly how the principle of justice applies to business activities. Three types of justice are of concern in business.

Exchange Justice
Exchange justice1 involves reimbursement for services rendered or products made or sold. For example, if an object costs $10 and I agree to purchase it for that price, then I owe the businessperson from whom I bought it $10. In another example, if I agree to erect a satisfactory carport for $1,800 and I keep my end of the bargain, then I’m entitled to $1,800. Similarly, if I agree to pay employees $10 an hour each for doing a particular job and they do it for eight hours, then I owe them $80 each. All of these examples demonstrate an exact and just “exchange” of goods or services for some kind of payment.

Distributive Justice
When this type of justice is applied specifically to business it has to do with the distribution of profit among owners, managers, employees, customers, and shareholders. Distributive justice raises questions concerning what portion of the gross profit made in any business endeavor should be distributed among all concerned (by means, e.g., of higher wages, bonuses, and fringe benefits for employees and managers; greater dividends to shareholders; greater profits to owners; and lower prices and better quality for customers).

Social Justice
Social justice is concerned with how businesses, the media, and their members should treat consumers and members of society in general. For example, the extent to which business should be willing to protect the public against pollution and other dangers to their property, well-being, and lives is a question of social justice.

15.2.4: Truth Telling in Business
LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:
Truth telling applies to business in a number of ways:

· Telling the truth in agreeing to render and pay for services and products

· Not lying when engaged in employer–employee relations

· Not lying to shareholders about the status of the business

· Telling the truth in advertising.

Truth in advertising is a large area of concern in the business world because it involves consumers and, by extension, society as a whole. It is business’s obligation to consumers not to lie to them and also not to mislead them through the omission of important facts. For example, car manufacturers may advertise that you need to change your car’s oil only every 7,000 miles, but they neglect to tell you that you will have greater need of repairs than if you had changed it every 3,000 miles. Although this is not a direct lie, it does mislead consumers through the omission of important facts.

15.2.5: Honesty in Business
LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:
Honesty applies to business and the media in the following ways:

· Keeping agreements and contracts, whether oral or written

· Admitting errors that have been made in creating products or stories, especially when safety is involved, and correcting those errors wherever possible

· Giving an honest day’s work for pay received

· Giving appropriate wages for work performed

· Setting honest prices that allow for a reasonable, but not exorbitant, profit

· Giving the best quality for the price that one can afford, especially when people’s health and lives could be endangered

· Finally, constantly inspecting business and media practices at all levels to ensure that dishonesty and corruption are both discovered and eliminated.

Cases: Rights and Obligations in Business
LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:
The international scope of business and global media requires ethical thoughtfulness and moral scrutiny. These institutions are powerful and their influence is pervasive. They transact business and transmit information in real time. The rights and interests of individuals, corporations and other institutions must be considered closely in order to insure that business is conducted justly and media is truthful.

Cases for Study and Discussion
Case 1?An Engineer Pointing Out Unsafe Car Problems
Susan, a design engineer in a major auto company, receives two reports concerning engine fires and explosions that occurred in hot weather in the company’s popular economy car. At the time the engine of this model had been approved and released for production, she had advised the plant that she felt the carburetor and gas lines were constructed so that under excessive heat conditions there could be a gas leak. At that time, she had argued for a modification that would have added about $50 to the cost of producing each engine, but her proposal had been turned down. She had continued to argue for the modification and for special testing, but the standard tests performed on the car did not indicate any danger, and she was told to drop the issue.

Upon receiving the two reports, however, Susan again presses for special testing under excessive heat conditions and urges the company to warn the public and immediately recall all of the cars of this model. By this time, however, such a recall probably will cost the company between $500,000 and $1 million, and Susan again is told to mind her own business or she will be fired.

In the meantime, four more reports of engine fires come in from a desert area in the southwest. The engineer is now convinced that she is right. What should she do? To what extent does she owe loyalty to the company, where she has worked for 15 years and has been promoted several times, and to what extent is she obligated to let the public know the truth? Because the company is removing the responsibility from Susan’s shoulders, should she do something about what she knows, or should she just drop the problem? Considering that the company may lose up to $1 million, what are its ethical obligations? What do you think of the way it has handled the entire situation?

Case 2?Stealing Tools to Make Up the Difference in a Shorter Raise Than Requested
The cost of living in Alderdale, California, has gone up 10 percent during the year, and Steve’s union has been negotiating with the management of the plant where he works for a 15 percent raise to cover the present cost of living plus an additional expected increase. The plant, however, has not had a good year, and management and the union decide upon an 8 percent raise, which a majority of the members, not including Steve, agrees to. Steve decides that because he has been shorted 2–7 percent of his raise money, he will try to make up for it by taking some expensive tools, some small pieces of equipment, and some supplies home from the plant in order to remodel his workshop at home. He was planning to do this remodeling with some of the raise money anyway, and he feels he was cheated out of this money unfairly because he didn’t vote for the raise that was accepted by the union.

Is Steve justified in his actions? Why, or why not? Does management have any obligation to meet the cost of living? Because Steve voted against the smaller raise, is he under any obligation to accept it? Why, or why not? Is he justified in making up the difference between the raise he got and the cost of living by taking things from the plant? Why, or why not?

Case 3?Switching of an Expensive Speaker with a Less Expensive One
Mike, who is very knowledgeable about stereo components, knows that there are two models made by the Ozato Company: the OC 4000, which sells for $2,000, and the OC 5000, which sells for $3,000. The difference between the two models is that the OC 5000 has a larger, more powerful amplifier-receiver and larger speakers. Because of this difference, Mike buys the more expensive model. A few weeks later, a loose connection causes him to examine the left speaker, and when he takes it apart, he discovers that whereas the right speaker is the one designated for the OC 5000, the left speaker is the one designated for the OC 4000. Several of his friends also have the more expensive model, and when he examines those speakers, he finds the same situation. To save money, the company evidently has put one more expensive and one less expensive speaker together in each of the expensive models, figuring that the difference in sound may not be very noticeable.

Given that the less expensive speaker was almost the same quality as the more expensive one, was the company right or wrong in making the substitution? Why? What should the company now do about customers who have already bought the OC 5000? Why? Suppose the difference between the two speakers was so minimal that no one ever discovered the switch—would the company then have been justified in having made the switch? Why or why not? Suppose the company offers to replace the less expensive speakers of Mike and his friends with OC 5000s and also offers Mike an additional thousand dollars’ worth of stereo equipment if he promises not to say anything more about the switch. What should Mike do in these circumstances? Why?

15.3: Ethical Issues in Business
1. 15.3Examine five business areas where moral issues in business ethics are applicable

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:
There are many moral issues in business ethics that might be discussed; however, this section will concentrate on five areas:

1. Advertising

2. Business and the environment

3. Affirmative action and reverse discrimination

4. Sexual harassment

5. Corporate greed.

15.3.1: Advertising
LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:
A large and important part of any business is advertising, for this is the means by which products, services, employees, and the business itself are presented to the public as favorably as possible. Advertising is an important area for the application of truth telling and honesty because advertising plays such a large part in our lives at all levels. Surely there is hardly any aspect of our society that does not use advertising to some degree. The government, charities, and even races and religions advertise in order to try to get the public “to buy the product.” There are two major approaches to advertising: One states that “anything goes” when it comes to methods of selling products and services and the other states that advertising should always be honestly presented and properly supported by facts and evidence.

The Anything-Goes Approach
LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:
The anything-goes view, which is held by many businesses, states that because advertising does not force anyone to do anything, it is the responsibility of consumers and competitors to be on their guard about the claims made for specific products and services. It is assumed by those who hold to this approach that most people will not check the claims made in advertising, such as that one serving of a breakfast cereal will provide you with all the vitamins you need for the day.

One argument used in support of this approach is that in most advertising, very little harm is done by making somewhat extravagant claims for a product. False advertising endangers no one; it’s just part of the “business game,” and the stimulation of the economy provided by advertising is good for business, the economy, and, in the long run, for society in general. In a highly competitive society, the important thing is to out-advertise one’s competitors so as to create a more successful business by inducing consumers to buy one’s product whether they need to or not. Consumers have minds of their own, the argument runs, and it is their responsibility to choose wisely among the products and services they are constantly being offered.

The Truthful Approach
LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:
The other view of advertising held by some businesspeople, as well as by consumers, consumer groups, and the government, is that any claims made by any business concerning its products or services ought to be supported or backed up by facts and evidence. According to this approach, businesses have a right to advertise freely but not to lie to the public about their products or services. The argument of the anything-goes proponents that there’s no harm done so long as life isn’t threatened is highly questionable because constant lying or dishonesty tends to erode significant communication, the trust and faith humans have in one another, and human relationships themselves. Because lying and misrepresentation in advertising contribute to this breakdown, they harm business specifically and society in general.

Two questions are raised by this approach: What actually constitutes lying and misrepresentation, and what …
Read more
Applied Sciences
Architecture and Design
Biology
Business & Finance
Chemistry
Computer Science
Geography
Geology
Education
Engineering
English
Environmental science
Spanish
Government
History
Human Resource Management
Information Systems
Law
Literature
Mathematics
Nursing
Physics
Political Science
Psychology
Reading
Science
Social Science
Home
Blog
Archive
Essay
Reviews
Contact
google+twitterfacebook
Copyright © 2019 HomeworkMarket.com