Ethics concepts and applications

Business Ethics

In Chapter 8, of Machan & Chesher's book: A Primer on Business Ethics, they claim that acting fairly is not a "primary moral duty"(p. 135). They go on to argue that insider trading is only unethical if one has "a prior obligation to share information with others"(p. 135). Assess Machan & Chesher's argument for why and when insider trading is morally permissible. Do you share their view? Why or why not?

The primary moral duty of the corporation, according to Machan & Chesher is to enrich the shareholders of that corporation. The CEO has a contractual obligation to enrich the corporation's shareholders, and has no such obligation to society at large. When the choice comes between society and the immediate interest of the shareholders, the shareholders must win. Society at large includes the 'others' the authors refer to in the above quotation. Thus, according to Machan & Chesher's logic, insider trading is morally permissible so long as one enriches the party one is sworn to aid, under the legal by-laws of the corporation. Thus, it would be unethical to conduct insider trading for the personal satisfaction of enriching one's friends or relatives, but to share information to advance the corporation and corporate shareholder's interests, and to withhold information from the general public would not be unethical or impermissible

Question

In Chapter 9,of Machan & Chesher's book: A Primer on Business Ethics, the authors claim "the most theoretically satisfying environmental ethics and politics would be one where privatization of all environmentally significant realms would be advisable"(p. 146). Briefly explain Machan & Chesher's argument for market-driven environmental policies (pp. 146-147). Do you share their optimism that "there would be fewer human-created ecological problems" if we privatized more public land? What is the best way, in your view, to protect the environment from the threat of big business?

Theoretically satisfying for these authors means theoretically satisfying in the sense that it satisfies the libertarian economics of Machan & Chesher's core philosophy. The authors believe that human beings treat their own property with more respect than public property. If corporations owned, for example, every conceivable river or a tract of land, the corporations theoretically would not pollute the land with harmful chemicals because it would not be in their interests to do so.

On a micro level, the authors' analysis seems correct, in the sense that individuals are more likely to treat a public park as a litter bin then their own yards. However, human beings also show similarly little respect for their own office space, (what office microwave is as clean as a home microwave) even though the office is a privately owned area that gives them the employees their means livelihood. Employees still do not 'own' in the same fashion as their homes. A private business will not necessarily treat his or her corporately owned land with the same respect an executive treats his or her spouse, either -- anymore than a CEO feels the same personal, private obligation to the health of the workers whose labor he or she owns during the workday, even though his or her livelihood depends upon it. What if polluting the land in the short-term can gain a profit, even if it will harm the generation of 100 years to come? To protect the environment from business requires regulation with a long-term perspective beyond that of the corporate focus, not necessary either increased privatization or publicly held land in common. Regulations level the playing field, forcing environmental obligations of all businesses to come second to profits.

Question

In Chapter 4,of Machan & Chesher's book: A Primer on Business Ethics, they write:

if anyone should attend to matters of health and safety, it is the employee him/herself, since it is his/her own welfare and interests that are at stake." They go on to say: "it would be imprudent of an employee to assume that the employer will see to these matters"(p. 93).

Given this controversial view, why do Machan & Chesher continue to maintain that employers should see to health and safety in the workplace (93-95)? In your own words, what kinds of responsibilities do you think a corporation has to the health and safety needs of its employees? Briefly defend your position.

In the long run, Machan & Chesher's argument makes sense -- care for the health and safety of company employees and see the company grow more profitable! Care for one's own health and one will be a better employee! However, management does not always take the long-term vision that, 'if I allow my employee to take a day off for the flu, he or she will be more productive upon his or her return, and not infect other employees.' Employees may be told to come in to the office when they are sick or else they will be fired. Thus, they risk their own health or the health of others, to make a quick return on the corporation's investment in an employee. Also, an adolescent or even a twenty-year-old on his or her first job may have a sense of invincibility, and do imprudent things, like speed to deliver pizzas, take drugs to stay up for 24-hour shifts, and do other things that put not only their own health and safety at risk but the health and safety of innocent consumers. A corporation has a responsibility to take care of employee health while employees are on the job, so employees do not have to make a choice between staying alive and making a living. Also, corporations have a responsibility to consumers that they know that they are not at risk because of corporate policies.

Question

Explain Machan & Chesher's argument in favor of the globalization of free trade policies (Chapter 11 of their book: A Primer on Business Ethics). Give at least one example of how they defend their view from criticism. Do you share their optimism that "the first hints of globalization in developing countries are a stepping-stone to better things for the struggling people there"(p. 167)? Why or why not?

Machan & Chesher argue in favor of globalization by stating that it is necessary for countries to become part of the global marketplace, even if this results in immediate exploitation, to attain long-term prosperity. However, if the efforts of globalization merely are used to enrich the first world by providing it with inexpensive goods, none of the effects described as potentially positive by the authors will come to fruition -- if the goods produced are sold in other countries, if the wealth is taken back and not invested in the home nation, and if no training for advancement to management is provided for the local population, the immediate international exploitation of low-cost will merely divert labor from local enterprises and potentially damage the environment of the developing nation in ways that do not even profit the country monetarily.