Where is the line drawn?

At the end of the day, I found the articles from Friedman, Locke, and Carnegie to be the most interesting presentations. The simple social responsibility of business to increase its own profitability so long as it stays within the rules of the game, as Friedman espoused, seems similar to Locke’s proposition that man is endowed with the ultimate responsibility to maximize available resources to the greatest advantage. This may be a gross oversimplification, but is it wrong to apply this concept to modern business? It stands in stark contrast to the stakeholder concept and further seems to stand in contrast to the idea of corporate social responsibility that is so prevalent in modern business philosophy. Is the Darwinian concept of business survival that far-fetched? American businesses have sought cheap labor outside of our borders in order to reduce their costs and provide a cheaper, more affordable product to consumers. Is this an unethical way for businessmen to achieve their ends? Friedman would not think so, and I am not sure that I disagree. Unfortunate for the worker does not mean unethical for the business manager.

Where I see the line drawn between making a profit and unscrupulous business choices is at a point when the customer is adversely affected. At that point, as seen in the prescription drug market, a new approach to ethical business behavior must be entertained. This is where the stakeholder is being adversely affected and social progress can actually be stunted in the name of bigger earnings. The issue can certainly be examined from multiple perspectives, but a blog only needs one! See everyone in class.