Wal-Mart's Business Ethics Are Subject

Wal-Mart's business ethics are subject to considerable debate. Ultimately, the ethics of Wal-Mart depend largely on the viewpoint taken. From a deontological point-of-view, Wal-Mart succeeds largely on its ability to execute very well within the confines of our ethical prerogatives. From a consequentialist point-of-view, Wal-Mart's outcomes for the United States are terrible, leading one to conclude that the company lacks fundamental ethical goodness. However, in our society weight is generally put on the deontological perspective, meaning that Wal-Mart is essentially an ethical company.

The complaints typically directed at Wal-Mart with respect to its ethics are the product of a misguided interpretation of our society's ethical norms. This paper will show that from a deontological perspective, Wal-Mart behaves ethically. The deontological argument holds that Wal-Mart's actions dictate its ethics, not its outcomes. As such, it must be understood by what criteria those actions are to be judged, the most typical for our society being the laws of the land and the general ethics associated with capitalism.

On both counts, Wal-Mart stands as an ethical company. Wal-Mart does face legal challenges, but that is true of any company its size, so this in of itself does not prove a lack of ethics on Wal-Mart's part. A major criticism of Wal-Mart is that the company in effect sends American jobs and income overseas. While this has occurred, it is not an unethical action.

The United States has signed critical legislation that encouraged trade with China (Barker, no date) and supported China's accession to the World Trade Organization (FAS Online, 2000). Thus, any capital flows, job losses or other forms of wealth transfer from American companies and workers to China was specifically sanctioned by the U.S. Congress. Wal-Mart has simply taken advantage of the legislative environment that was provided by our elected officials.

That the rules do not favor America or its people has no reflection on Wal-Mart -- the company's only obligation is to play by the rules, not to judge the merits of those rules. Another major criticism of Wal-Mart is that its stores harm small businesses. The economic system by which we operate encourages firms to succeed by cultivating competitive advantages. Wal-Mart has a number of such advantages. These have been cultivated by the company over a period of decades.

Wal-Mart has advantages not only in economies of scale, but the company is a leader in merchandising and is known as one of the world's best firms with respect to managing its supply chain and distribution network (Bergdahl, no date). The company has been able to best its competitors big and small, simply by being better at the things that are important to consumers.

As such, they have violated no ethical principles and have indeed operated according to the doctrines of the capitalist economic system without any hint of illegal behavior. There is also a criticism of Wal-Mart that its ethical practices with respect to its own employees are poor. This criticism again is a falsehood based on a misinterpretation of the country's employment system.

In the United States, the system of employment is known as "at-will employment." The premise of this system is that an employee and an employer engage is an employment contract that can be terminated by either party at any time, regardless of the reason (Standler, 2000). While the doctrine itself rightfully has its critics, it remains a part of the employment law landscape in the United States.

Thus, employees who choose to work at Wal-Mart understand that they are doing so only on the basis that they understand the terms of employment and accept those terms. Employees who do not accept Wal-Mart's terms need not work for the company. As such, there can be no reasonable claims of unfairness in Wal-Mart's employment practices -- they are employing people on the same legal basis as every other company in the United States.

Overall, the issues that people have with respect to Wal-Mart's ethics lie largely in either the application of a consequentialist ethics systems or in a general issue with our current economic and legal system. The former is simply unreasonable for our culture, which is based on the rule of law -- that is a deontological ethical system where right and wrong is determined by the actions themselves, rather than their outcomes.

The latter is a logical fallacy -- it is not Wal-Mart with whom the complainant has the grievance but rather the system as a whole. Using Wal-Mart as a proxy for the entire economic and legal system is intellectually dishonest. Wal-Mart's actions may deliver results that some members of the community find undesirable. But these outcomes derive merely from Wal-Mart executing at a very high level within our system. The sources of.