In chapter two, contents are concentrated on the ethical reasoning in Practice. There are four main approaches mentioned in this chapter.
The first is Kantian Approach. Kant’s moral philosophy has rich implications for business practice. Kant introduces three formulations of the categorical imperative, which are considered together as a coherent whole. Author assessed that Kant may be mistaken bout requiring purity of motive. Yet even if Kant is wrong about the necessity of pure motivation for an act’s being moral, he still has a lot to offer the business ethicist.
The second is Aristotelean approach. In text, author lists six considerations making up the framework of virtue ethics in business – community, excellence, role identity, holism, integrity, judgment. Then author points out that there is no “business world” apart from the people who work in business and the integrity of those people determines the integrity of the organization as well as vice versa. The Aristotelean approach to business ethics is just another way of saying that people come before profits.
The third is utilitarianism to business. Author suggests some business decision-making questions root in utilitarianism. He said that the goal is utilitarian business-ethic which evaluates business in term of its contributions towards higher-pleasure capacities in society. He introduces two utilitarianisms – Bentham and Mill. Author accessed that through Bentham-style utilitarianism could be seen as a precursor to upsurge in “happiness economics”, it still had some problems. For Mills utilitarianism, author has pretty good evaluation – “Mills vision of utilitarianism is an interesting and exciting model for business ethics, when properly understood.”
The fourth is deliberative approach. Author thinks Ethics is not about proving what is good or right. Ethics is a way of living that enables enlightened conduce. Most soul of Dewey’s approach to ethics is first, ethics is a process. Second, ethics grows out of our concrete everyday experience. Third, ethics should liberate intelligence, analysis and imagination. Fourth, ethics should first and foremost, be a process of self-realization. Dewey’s approach to ethical decision-making through intelligent deliberation sheds light on both the process of deliberation and the role of values and ethics in the practice of managerial decision-making.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Poverty Loans - Miracle or Menace?
Loans to poverty stricken people can be view from different points of view. They are either a Nobel prize winning idea that helps poor people lift themselves out of poverty, or they are a scourge that traps people in an endless cycle of debt from which they can never recover. Which is it?
In 2006 Muhammad Yunus of Bangladesh was awarded the Nobel peace prize for a subject that would normally be grouped with economics. He and the bank he founded, Grameen Bank, were recgonized for their work with microcredit. Simply stated, this concept extends loans to poor people who would otherwise not be credit worthy. The loans are small, a few tens or hundreds of dollars, and enable the borrowers to make small business investments. A person could use the loan to purchase a cell phone. For a small fee he or she could allow other villagers to use the phone and start a small business around this concept. Grameen has stated that repayment rates for these small loans is greater than 90% and the idea of microcedit has spreadaround the world to many other places.
However, the idea is not without criticism. A political opponent of Yunus, Sheikh Hasina, has pointd out that the loans charge as much as 30%. Several goverments have made mention of the high interest rates for microcredit loans and their concern for the borrowers. Lenders of microcredit counter that they must charge higher rates to contend with losses from loan defaults and the need to build their capital base in order to provide even more microcedit loans. However, the excessive rates from these loans can trap people into endless interest payments, especially if their business venture doesn't succeed.
While not called microcedit, this ethical dilemma is also present in the US. Payday loans, no downpayment necessary loans, layway loans, all other these provide small amounts of credit to people who might otherwise not be qualified for it. Take the example of Roxanne Tsosie of Albuquerque who entered into a car payment loan of 24.9%. She needed the car to start a business as a home health aid, her version of a village cell phone. Ulimately she didn't understand the loan terms, lost the car, and lost over $900 which was not refundable.
Loan businesses have found a lucrative target in poor people. Uneducated and desparate, they will frequently signup for high interest loans. While a give individuals may default, in total the poor people generate a lot of income for loan companies. Even Gateway computer,an otherwise responsible corpoate citizen was caught up in a relationship with a unsavory computer distributor. Ultimately Gateway dissolved the relationship, but when asked why they didn't do it sooner,a spokesman stated, "we're publicly traded and trying to make a profit, so that's a consideration."
Ultimately, who is to blame or commend for this situation? The responsible lenders who win Nobel prizes for lending to people would would otherwise not be able to obtain loans (but charge 30% interest in doing so)? The dishonest lenders who specifically target poor and uneducated borrowers and charge interest rates of 30, 50, 120%? What responsibilities do the borrowers have? One stated that "my life is full of bad decsions." Another stated "I don't read things, I sign them."
This is a difficult ethical dilemma to sort through.
In 2006 Muhammad Yunus of Bangladesh was awarded the Nobel peace prize for a subject that would normally be grouped with economics. He and the bank he founded, Grameen Bank, were recgonized for their work with microcredit. Simply stated, this concept extends loans to poor people who would otherwise not be credit worthy. The loans are small, a few tens or hundreds of dollars, and enable the borrowers to make small business investments. A person could use the loan to purchase a cell phone. For a small fee he or she could allow other villagers to use the phone and start a small business around this concept. Grameen has stated that repayment rates for these small loans is greater than 90% and the idea of microcedit has spreadaround the world to many other places.
However, the idea is not without criticism. A political opponent of Yunus, Sheikh Hasina, has pointd out that the loans charge as much as 30%. Several goverments have made mention of the high interest rates for microcredit loans and their concern for the borrowers. Lenders of microcredit counter that they must charge higher rates to contend with losses from loan defaults and the need to build their capital base in order to provide even more microcedit loans. However, the excessive rates from these loans can trap people into endless interest payments, especially if their business venture doesn't succeed.
While not called microcedit, this ethical dilemma is also present in the US. Payday loans, no downpayment necessary loans, layway loans, all other these provide small amounts of credit to people who might otherwise not be qualified for it. Take the example of Roxanne Tsosie of Albuquerque who entered into a car payment loan of 24.9%. She needed the car to start a business as a home health aid, her version of a village cell phone. Ulimately she didn't understand the loan terms, lost the car, and lost over $900 which was not refundable.
Loan businesses have found a lucrative target in poor people. Uneducated and desparate, they will frequently signup for high interest loans. While a give individuals may default, in total the poor people generate a lot of income for loan companies. Even Gateway computer,an otherwise responsible corpoate citizen was caught up in a relationship with a unsavory computer distributor. Ultimately Gateway dissolved the relationship, but when asked why they didn't do it sooner,a spokesman stated, "we're publicly traded and trying to make a profit, so that's a consideration."
Ultimately, who is to blame or commend for this situation? The responsible lenders who win Nobel prizes for lending to people would would otherwise not be able to obtain loans (but charge 30% interest in doing so)? The dishonest lenders who specifically target poor and uneducated borrowers and charge interest rates of 30, 50, 120%? What responsibilities do the borrowers have? One stated that "my life is full of bad decsions." Another stated "I don't read things, I sign them."
This is a difficult ethical dilemma to sort through.
Consequences of reading Chapter 2
Reading through the 2nd chapter has filled me with an acute nostalgia for my days in college. My Professor of Literature, while taking the regular class, suddenly interrupted his own lecture and started talking about reality and its human perceptions. He said, " The people are living in an environment that was created by themselves". It basically means that rules or ethics being followed by the humans, was actually created by themselves. He proceeded explaining his point of view saying that rights and wrongs were defined and classified by humans, particularly a single scholar, and it was in the sole discretion of this person to segregate them according to his perceptions. This was the guy who said pain is bad and joy is good, killing is a crime, and also defined a new term called 'shame'. Later on, my Professor ignited our imagination asking us to picture a world without these beliefs and perceptions. I started to think how chaotic things would be, but then how free the world would be with no obligations.
I think that the Kantian approach is very much similar to this. They speak about universal laws, which were actually postulated by humans themselves. A Kantian approach to the recent shootings in the United States universities leads us to an anecdote. Apparently, the weapons that were used in the Northern Illinois University and the Virginia Tech University shootings were actually bought from the same store. So, do we infer that all shootings arise from the weapons sold in this particular store?? Heath Ledger was autopsied and his death was concluded to have occurred from the fateful mix of his six medications, and not suicide. But, isn't almost every shocking death in Hollywood or the music industry occurs due to mixing or overdose of some fateful product or the other? And, can this be categorized as almost a suicide?? Some food for thought.
Facing Face
My comment is in reference to the case study in chapter 11, entitled “Facing Face”.
I found this situation very thought provoking. In my life, when I have had to deliver bad news I have always attempted to provide a sliver lining even if it is not completely true. A lie is a lie no matter how you look at it, but there is difference when the lie can potentially hurt someone else. My morals dictate that I should always try to consider the other person’s feelings but at the same time not to lie to intentionaly hurt. In this case study, I would agree with Ingrid’s suggestion to allow the employee to save face. The application of Cultural Relativism in this situation, however, creates a dilemma. Should Ingrid go against her own moral codes of truth in order to satisfy another’s moral codes?
Personally, based upon the fact that Ingrid and the other supervisors are guests in this country, they should modify their moral codes slightly to appease the morals of the employee’s country. And besides, it is not like Frank has never lied in his business life.
I personally believe there is no objective truth in morality. Although a complete following of Cultural Relativism allows for abuses of human life, I believe that the overall teaching of tolerance should be followed. Cultures develop their moral codes through many years of trials and tribulations that allow them to come to create a set of values. These values maybe not be understood but at the very least should be accepted.
Revolutions of change are necessary to alter a culture’s moral codes to break the mistakes of the past. For example, South Africa’s tradition of the apartheid was ended with the guidance of Nelson Mandela. This revolution was necessary to evoke change in this country to allow for more equality amongst their citizens.
Overall, I think that Culutral Relativism is a belief that should be considered carfeully when examining other cultures.
I found this situation very thought provoking. In my life, when I have had to deliver bad news I have always attempted to provide a sliver lining even if it is not completely true. A lie is a lie no matter how you look at it, but there is difference when the lie can potentially hurt someone else. My morals dictate that I should always try to consider the other person’s feelings but at the same time not to lie to intentionaly hurt. In this case study, I would agree with Ingrid’s suggestion to allow the employee to save face. The application of Cultural Relativism in this situation, however, creates a dilemma. Should Ingrid go against her own moral codes of truth in order to satisfy another’s moral codes?
Personally, based upon the fact that Ingrid and the other supervisors are guests in this country, they should modify their moral codes slightly to appease the morals of the employee’s country. And besides, it is not like Frank has never lied in his business life.
I personally believe there is no objective truth in morality. Although a complete following of Cultural Relativism allows for abuses of human life, I believe that the overall teaching of tolerance should be followed. Cultures develop their moral codes through many years of trials and tribulations that allow them to come to create a set of values. These values maybe not be understood but at the very least should be accepted.
Revolutions of change are necessary to alter a culture’s moral codes to break the mistakes of the past. For example, South Africa’s tradition of the apartheid was ended with the guidance of Nelson Mandela. This revolution was necessary to evoke change in this country to allow for more equality amongst their citizens.
Overall, I think that Culutral Relativism is a belief that should be considered carfeully when examining other cultures.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
My thoughts after the readings
Reading Chapter Two brought back memories of my undergrad years when I first became aware of Utilitarianism and Consequentialism. As I recall, the information was less intriquing to me at the time because it seemed so obvious that anyone with an ounce of integrity would know that to do what was 'good' and what was 'right' were the only options. These were the foundation of my upbringing - what my parents and grandparents professed throughout their lives.
Unfortunately, the moral (or not) and (un)ethical behaviors of people in general, our government and American corporations of today have proven me wrong. What used to be considered the foundations for fairness, equity and prosperity - ethical reasoning - as a practical basis for decision-making, seems entirely unheard of today - business or otherwise.
There were so many points in the chapter that I wanted to debate, not because they were right or wrong, but because there are so many variations to be discussed in each of the approaches to ethical reasoning. There were good and bad aspects of both the Kantian and Aristotlean
approaches to reasoning that needed to be addressed from different perspectives so I hope we discuss them in class.
As I read, it struck me as strange that much of what is viewed as leadership and governance today lacks the focus, forethought or even the guts to make the hard and right decisions needed to turn this trend towards self-destruction around. Today, instead of punishing ill-begotten wealth, greed, intolerance and bad behavior, we actually reward it. Instead of monitoring our actions so that we do the least amount of harm and the most amount of good, we are somehow reversing the outcome to produce the most amount of harm to the largest number of indiviuals while providing the least amount of good to ensure the pleasures and prosperity of the fewest amount of individuals.
What used to be considered acts of benevolent behavior towards humanity has now become a litany of intolerance and self-preservation. Our heroes and role-models are mindless, weightless talking heads on the television screens and drug-induced atheletes, music and movie stars. We are outraged that our government questions the actions of wealthy individuals but murmur not a word about the rape of our nation by corporate greed, the plight of the homeless, the poor, the middle-class or the deterioration of our economy.
Today, instead of providing reasonable and swift solutions to damages created by corporate and government overseers to our U. S. citizens, our government takes away Welfare from the poor and turns around and creates corpororate welfare by giving billions of dollars to corporations and other institutions that don't need the money. We watch our corporations reduce workforces in the U. S. for the sake of increasing stakeholder wealth and reducing cost (so they claim), while they build mega-facilities in foreign nations and create thousands of new jobs at lower wages.
Let me get off of my soap box. I must add that Chapter 11 was very good. I too am learning to be more accepting of cultures that are different from my own. I had an opportunity to visit China two years ago and have met many wonderful people from other countries including Africa, Russia, Pakistan and India and am very proud to embrace so many wonderful people as our world becomes increasingly more diverse and touches closer to home.
Unfortunately, the moral (or not) and (un)ethical behaviors of people in general, our government and American corporations of today have proven me wrong. What used to be considered the foundations for fairness, equity and prosperity - ethical reasoning - as a practical basis for decision-making, seems entirely unheard of today - business or otherwise.
There were so many points in the chapter that I wanted to debate, not because they were right or wrong, but because there are so many variations to be discussed in each of the approaches to ethical reasoning. There were good and bad aspects of both the Kantian and Aristotlean
approaches to reasoning that needed to be addressed from different perspectives so I hope we discuss them in class.
As I read, it struck me as strange that much of what is viewed as leadership and governance today lacks the focus, forethought or even the guts to make the hard and right decisions needed to turn this trend towards self-destruction around. Today, instead of punishing ill-begotten wealth, greed, intolerance and bad behavior, we actually reward it. Instead of monitoring our actions so that we do the least amount of harm and the most amount of good, we are somehow reversing the outcome to produce the most amount of harm to the largest number of indiviuals while providing the least amount of good to ensure the pleasures and prosperity of the fewest amount of individuals.
What used to be considered acts of benevolent behavior towards humanity has now become a litany of intolerance and self-preservation. Our heroes and role-models are mindless, weightless talking heads on the television screens and drug-induced atheletes, music and movie stars. We are outraged that our government questions the actions of wealthy individuals but murmur not a word about the rape of our nation by corporate greed, the plight of the homeless, the poor, the middle-class or the deterioration of our economy.
Today, instead of providing reasonable and swift solutions to damages created by corporate and government overseers to our U. S. citizens, our government takes away Welfare from the poor and turns around and creates corpororate welfare by giving billions of dollars to corporations and other institutions that don't need the money. We watch our corporations reduce workforces in the U. S. for the sake of increasing stakeholder wealth and reducing cost (so they claim), while they build mega-facilities in foreign nations and create thousands of new jobs at lower wages.
Let me get off of my soap box. I must add that Chapter 11 was very good. I too am learning to be more accepting of cultures that are different from my own. I had an opportunity to visit China two years ago and have met many wonderful people from other countries including Africa, Russia, Pakistan and India and am very proud to embrace so many wonderful people as our world becomes increasingly more diverse and touches closer to home.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Expropriation of private property
As some of you know, Venezuela has nationalized the assets of all the private oil companies operating in the country. BP, Chonoco/Philips, Exxon Mobile, etc. Exxon has been fighting back.
So what happens if we apply Kantianism to this situation. What happens if all countries decide at anytime to take over a private run business? Obviously the risk of starting a business goes up, the cost of doing business goes up, its harder to find investors. I would consider these to be negative outcomes of this strategy.
However, perhaps there is a greater good here. Why did Chavez nationalize the oil industry assets.
Political control is one reason. Anything other reasons? Can their State run Oil company do better? History has shown that state run companies are run less efficiently than private owned forms. I'm open to anyone who has some ideas.
Here's the link to the story
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/exxon-mobil-take-hard-line/story.aspx?guid=%7B50AED756-680F-4B1C-BE4B-61AAABF4271B%7D&dist=hplatest
So what happens if we apply Kantianism to this situation. What happens if all countries decide at anytime to take over a private run business? Obviously the risk of starting a business goes up, the cost of doing business goes up, its harder to find investors. I would consider these to be negative outcomes of this strategy.
However, perhaps there is a greater good here. Why did Chavez nationalize the oil industry assets.
Political control is one reason. Anything other reasons? Can their State run Oil company do better? History has shown that state run companies are run less efficiently than private owned forms. I'm open to anyone who has some ideas.
Here's the link to the story
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/exxon-mobil-take-hard-line/story.aspx?guid=%7B50AED756-680F-4B1C-BE4B-61AAABF4271B%7D&dist=hplatest
My mother introduced me to Kantianism as a child
My mother and father introduced me to the idea of Kantianism early in my childhood. It goes something like this.
"Why did you leave the water running??????-What if everyone left the water running?????-Do you think the world has just an unlimted supply of water?-No!-It doesn't!!-Now go to your room!"
Or is was something else: lying, stealing, leaving the backdoor open and running the air conditioner at the same time.
I think most of your folks probably had a similar talk with you. I'm betting Kant did with 8 brothers and sisters and never living farther than 16 miles from the city he was born in. He was also raised by parents who lived by the Bible. Perhaps thats why his categorical imperative is reminiscent of the phrase, "Do unto other as you would have them do unto you".
This idea is nothing new. It just has the seasoning of an adult sitting down for 11 years to really think it through.
I know some of you might be openly dismissive of this guy. We've been living in the grip of Keyensian philosophy since the 1930's. Based on that philosophy we are the biggest debtor nation in the world and Social Security is the proverbial hairball that we can't seem to cough up.
Does Kantiansim work. Well every philosphy by its nature is extreme. However, from my own personnel experience, when I do things with a specific "what's in it for me attitude" versus just acting because its "the right things to do" I found less unforeseen good things come my way.
I haven't finished reading Chapter 2 yet but I have done some digging into Kant himself. Kant was the first to take Newtons work and theorize about nebula and galaxies. He did this when he was in his Twenties. He locked himself away for 11 years before publishing his master piece Critique of Pure Reason, now widely regarded as one of the greatest works in the history of philosophy.
For more info check out the wiki on Kant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant
"Why did you leave the water running??????-What if everyone left the water running?????-Do you think the world has just an unlimted supply of water?-No!-It doesn't!!-Now go to your room!"
Or is was something else: lying, stealing, leaving the backdoor open and running the air conditioner at the same time.
I think most of your folks probably had a similar talk with you. I'm betting Kant did with 8 brothers and sisters and never living farther than 16 miles from the city he was born in. He was also raised by parents who lived by the Bible. Perhaps thats why his categorical imperative is reminiscent of the phrase, "Do unto other as you would have them do unto you".
This idea is nothing new. It just has the seasoning of an adult sitting down for 11 years to really think it through.
I know some of you might be openly dismissive of this guy. We've been living in the grip of Keyensian philosophy since the 1930's. Based on that philosophy we are the biggest debtor nation in the world and Social Security is the proverbial hairball that we can't seem to cough up.
Does Kantiansim work. Well every philosphy by its nature is extreme. However, from my own personnel experience, when I do things with a specific "what's in it for me attitude" versus just acting because its "the right things to do" I found less unforeseen good things come my way.
I haven't finished reading Chapter 2 yet but I have done some digging into Kant himself. Kant was the first to take Newtons work and theorize about nebula and galaxies. He did this when he was in his Twenties. He locked himself away for 11 years before publishing his master piece Critique of Pure Reason, now widely regarded as one of the greatest works in the history of philosophy.
For more info check out the wiki on Kant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)