Business or corporate leaders charged with unethical practices may often point out that everything they did was perfectly legal; they broke no laws. Does that mean that their actions are necessarily ethical? What is the difference between what is legal and what is the right thing to do?
In today’s world, everything is based off of competition, how much money you can make, and how fast you can make it. Many businesspeople adhere to the laws given but with no thought of how it may affect others or if it is morally right. Moral Mazes quotes "As a former vice-presentation of a large firm says: 'What is right in the corporation is not what is right in the man's home or in this church. What is right in the corporation is what the guy above you wants from you. That’s what morality is in the corporation." (Jackall 4). Many people often do have a moral compass in which they follow, but sometimes that gets turned off when their job, or money is at stake. These types of people will do anything in order to prevent that from happening. On top of that, many people use legality as a justification for doing something morally wrong.
There seems to be a fine line when it comes to choosing what is legal and moral. There are many examples that can clearly illustrate this dilemma. For example: lying is unethical but at the same time is not illegal. Laws for the most part forbid us from harming people, but at the same time do not always obligate us to help them. An ethical business not only adheres to the laws and regulations provided but also is honest and fair to all their customers, partnerships, and stakeholders. The law seems like the least persuasive reason to do something or not. Many people refrain from doing some actions of fear of being caught by the cops; for example, paying taxes. Taxes would be something that people would choose not to pay, if they could get away with it without fear of punishment. But the law is undoubtedly not the reason many people don’t rob banks, kill other people, or drive on the wrong side of the road. On the other hand, there are some things people do which may be illegal, but they feel mostly assured they won’t get caught.
We distinguish between what is moral and what is legal because morality is subjective. People have different opinions on what people have the right to do and not do to. Therefore, laws have a specific right and wrong, so people have something precise to follow.
3. Peter Singer discusses the notion of absolute poverty, and concludes that there is a moral obligation to eradicate it. Friedman, von Hayek, and Kristol, among others, believe that business should stick to what it does best—making profits. For them, business has no obligation to assist the growing number of those who are threatened by ‘absolute poverty’. Where do you stand on this question, and why?
In this day and age, the rate of people living in poverty is increasing every day. I believe as humans we have a duty to our fellow brothers and sisters, a duty much greater than the hunger and need for money. Singer talks about the fact that it is not because of insufficient goods and products that absolute poverty exists. It is due to the fact that in countries with everything we use these goods to further produce more goods instead of helping those around us who need those more than we do. He goes on to explain that distribution is the problem, not production (HW pg. 215).
This generation especially is obsessed with money and they will do anything they can to get it. As Friedman, von Hayek, and Kristol believe, businesses have one purpose and that is to make profit. They have no business helping those who do not have any money. Kristol states that capitalist justice does not equate to social justice. He goes on to say that whoever pursues happiness will find that some will be successful, and others will not be. Successful people are treated nicely by the free-market economy. People are paid based off their productive input to the economy. Capitalism assumes that since everyone gets more everyone ought to be content. If one receives less from the economy than they get a smaller reward (HW pg. 218).
Kristol’s argument is not something that I particularly agree with. Yes I agree not everyone can be successful on the pursuit of happiness, but that does not mean that they deserve the circumstance they have been placed in nor does it mean that they do not deserve help. In my opinion, it would benefit businesses to help with the absolute poverty in the world. Not only does that give them a good ethical standing, but it also could improve their revenue and business as well. One day the people that these businesses helped could be their future customers and bring it around full circle.
HW, ch. 6, deals with the issue of the “Social Responsibility” of business. Central to this is the consideration of those who suffer the consequences of a corporation’s or manager’s decisions. (In The Corporation, this is referred to as ‘externalities’.) As we have seen, the same issue was at stake in the experiment conceived and conducted by Stanley Milgram. A majority of the participants followed the orders of the scientist/‘authority figure,’ and to do this, they had to ignore their own sense of duty toward others. Do the results the Milgram experiment teach us anything about the social responsibility of corporations?
After watching the re-enactment of the Milgram experiment, I was shocked. Immediately I reacted thinking how could someone go through this? Why in their right minds would they do this to themselves? But after thinking it through, it really did make some sense. There is no doubt that people are vulnerable to the directions and guidelines of authority figures because we are supposed to be able to trust people in authority. There are people out there who put all of their trust into those who hold some sort of power. This is completely understandable. However, those people a lot of the times do not have everyone’s best interests at heart. These corporations may or may not understand the impact that they have on their customers, employees, shareholders, etc. Having power may lead people to use it even when it is not necessary, which then could lead them to believe that the people lower ranked than them will do what they would like them to do.
Corporations do have a deep social responsibility to those in the public as well as their own employees. Knowing how much power is too much is important in making sure that that power is used for the benefit of society and not the downfall and also so that no one is taken advantage of. For example, if a corporation is being racist or prejudiced some people may just go along with it because it is easier to do that than challenge the authority, such as in the case of the experiment. Chapter 5 of Moral Mazes states, “…one is expected to implement policy rather than fashion it or much less criticize it” (MM, pg. 80). This just backs up the fact that most people choose to keep quiet instead of questioning their authority, because we are taught that your authority knows best. Most of us are also very afraid to fail, and that fear overpowers our sense of judgment at times. Knowing this, corporates have a social responsibility to make sure that their power is used for good, no one is taken advantage of, and the good of society is at their top interest.