Diamonds are one of the top exports of many African countries. Yet people there are among the poorest. Not only are children forced into child labor, many are killed in accidents or in fighting over diamonds. Despite these cruel scenes present through out the African nations, the diamonds business is booming with major countries, including U.S. among the top buyers of these diamonds.
In many of the African countries, the earth is pockmarked with holes up to 100ft in the areas where diamonds are readily found. The smaller the person, the better they can maneuver once they've been lowered down the rope. Many children are lowered into these deep dark holes for long stretch of hours in a day, where the daylight above is just a pin prick..
The children occasionally find diamonds worth thousands of dollars but are not allowed to keep them. They have no protection except from the people exploiting them. Their lives are at risk. Most are here because they were abandoned by their families. Through out Africa, there are small villages where adults and children gather at what looks like a little market, but here the trade is in diamonds. In each stall a dealer sits with a set of scales and a pile of US dollars. The clients are mostly barefoot children. One of them stands before a dealer with his mouth open wide showing little diamonds on his tongue. If he's lucky he'll get a few dollars, but it's more likely the boy is cheated or ends up dead at the bottom of an abandoned diamond pit.
From this market the dealers take the diamonds into town and sell them to bigger dealers who say they never buy diamonds from children under the age of 15. These dealers take their diamonds to Europe, Asia and Middle East and sell them to bigger merchants, who know even less about how their stones were brought out of the ground. There is a worldwide system to verify diamonds. But this is designed to stop rebel armies from buying guns with diamonds - not to verify anybody's age. Until the problem is addressed, children in Africa will continue their dangerous work and many will continue to die.
In the meantime, what should the ethical consumer do, amidst the barrage of misinformation claiming there is really nothing wrong with the existing jewellery industry? Firstly, they should not be embarrassed to ask difficult question: Where does this diamond come from? But what is “good” and “bad” in the context of Africa? Can we apply Western standards to Africa? Consider something simple like child labor. If the life expectancy of a Sierra Leone male is 38, how old is a 15-year-old in Sierra Leone years? If there is no school and no food, what is a 15-year-old to do? Starve and let his family starve or work?
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Gentrification – Justice: not so much
Laws and institutions are not unbiased entities. They are designed and administered by people. People have agendas…personal and social agendas…which typically goes back to personal. They are not designed in a vacuum in which all desire for advantage is removed from the writers and designers. Institutions are social constructs. It is typically the rights and advantages of the designers that the institutions are designed to protect (these privileged few).
The institutions are the tools of these privileged to maintain their concentration of wealth. The language of the institutions legitimizes their wealth (which is why this discussion can even exist) and their pursuit for it. It is the unequal access to wealth that allows this privileged group to mobilize their disproportionate resources to change (amend) the language of the institutions by giving them an advantaged voice. (Mill’s idea of the “Tyranny of the Majority” may inform this.)
There can only be a just distribution (redistribution) of wealth if individuals, within this empowered group, decide that they will move toward an outcome in that direction (for that particular and specific purpose).
The gentrification of urban centers seems to me an example of unjust distribution in which resources desired by middle-upper class Americans are systematically redistributed from the lower income residents to those with greater wealth. I only say systematically because there seems to be a pattern. I don’t suggest that there is, or isn’t, a conspiracy (aka “The Plan”). The distributive mechanism is wealth, and the motive is also wealth (by developers and city governments).
Whether the government is big or small - or with no government at all – there is no real solution in the institutions. There are only solutions in people - people who are willing to step outside the letter of the law and make truly ethical choices. With this, ethics seems very personal. I am just as justified to accept the portion that my company or government allocates for me as anybody…but it is up to the individual to make a different choice...not just on big issues (like tax evasion), but on little day to day issues that ad up to the sum of our lives.
The institutions are the tools of these privileged to maintain their concentration of wealth. The language of the institutions legitimizes their wealth (which is why this discussion can even exist) and their pursuit for it. It is the unequal access to wealth that allows this privileged group to mobilize their disproportionate resources to change (amend) the language of the institutions by giving them an advantaged voice. (Mill’s idea of the “Tyranny of the Majority” may inform this.)
There can only be a just distribution (redistribution) of wealth if individuals, within this empowered group, decide that they will move toward an outcome in that direction (for that particular and specific purpose).
The gentrification of urban centers seems to me an example of unjust distribution in which resources desired by middle-upper class Americans are systematically redistributed from the lower income residents to those with greater wealth. I only say systematically because there seems to be a pattern. I don’t suggest that there is, or isn’t, a conspiracy (aka “The Plan”). The distributive mechanism is wealth, and the motive is also wealth (by developers and city governments).
Whether the government is big or small - or with no government at all – there is no real solution in the institutions. There are only solutions in people - people who are willing to step outside the letter of the law and make truly ethical choices. With this, ethics seems very personal. I am just as justified to accept the portion that my company or government allocates for me as anybody…but it is up to the individual to make a different choice...not just on big issues (like tax evasion), but on little day to day issues that ad up to the sum of our lives.
Who'll sponsor the "Genocide Olympics"?
In the latest issue of BusinessWeek (March 10, 2008), I read an interesting article titled “Wrestling the Olympics Activists”. For the past few years now, a lot of attention has been given to Chinas’ involvement (directly or indirectly) in the on-going conflict occurring in the Darfur region of Sudan. Recently, Steven Spielberg decided not to lend his artistic abilities to the games in protest of China’s policies towards Sudan. Obviously, this issue is complex and has many political and moral facets to it. However, the article focused specifically on the corporate sponsors of the 2008 Olympics in China.
Human rights groups are applying pressure on multinational corporations to step up and help stop the genocide. The activists want the corporate sponsors to contact and submit a signed statement of concern to the International Olympic Committee and the Chinese government regarding the conflict. If these corporations do not comply and take other initiatives to assist the Darfur victims, they will be targeted for protests and risk being labeled “Proud Sponsor of the Genocide Olympics”.
I found this issue particularly interesting in the context of our Business-Ethics course. What are these corporate sponsors suppose to do? If the voice their concerns to the Chinese government, they risk offending them and lose access to a vast market. If they do nothing or less then they could have, they risk a very negative public image and be linked to support genocide. Granted, some companies plan to contribute millions to the Darfur region (GE and Coke), but none have revised their marketing plans for the Olympics. This leaves them vulnerable to demonstrations and boycotts.
Is it their responsibility to help stop the genocide or protect the interests of their shareholders? Can corporations really accomplish anything by not sponsoring the Olympics? Can they “afford” not to take a stand or can they benefit if they do voice their concerns? Are they morally obligated to do something to help the victim’s since they are sponsoring a global event that aims to unite the world?
The 2008 Olympic theme is “One World One Dream”. ..
Social Contract & Entitlement Theory
In my opinion, a social contract existed in our case study, “The Oil Rig.” There were clearly inequalities between the Angolans and the expatriates on the oil rig in terms of food, medical treatment and attention, housing and transportation. I believe to gain social order on the rig, rights of the Angolans were waived for the good of the order. I am in no way condoning a double class society, but in thinking of the rig as its own nation, it was formed to drill oil. It is beneficial to all members of the rig to work together towards the common goal of oil and put individual issues aside to make the most profit. If a social contract had not existed, some of the Angolans may have challenged the structure by sleeping in the expatriates’ quarters or eating their food, which may have decreased productivity in drilling.
In addition, I found the reading by Robert Nozick on Entitlement Theory rather thought provoking. If government operated under his philosophy, we would exist without taxation and redistributing wealth. Social welfare programs would not exist as we know them, yet all members of society would have their needs met. In my mind, this is a very utopian society, but so different from our current society that is seem unrealistic and unattainable.
In addition, I found the reading by Robert Nozick on Entitlement Theory rather thought provoking. If government operated under his philosophy, we would exist without taxation and redistributing wealth. Social welfare programs would not exist as we know them, yet all members of society would have their needs met. In my mind, this is a very utopian society, but so different from our current society that is seem unrealistic and unattainable.
The Entitlement Theory by Robert Nozick
My overall interpretation of Rawls' arguments, as elaborated in the theory of the principle of justice and the social contract, are that he rejects the first two principles of justice (for valid reasons) and adds a new, "contractarian alternative," that utilizes the best and fairer virtues of the other two. He also outlines how all three interpretations can be imposed by formulating two basic premises:
1. Each person engaged in an institution or affected by it has an equal right to the most
extensive liberty compatible with a like liberty for all;
2. Inequalities as defined by the institutional structure or fostered by it are arbitrary unless
it is reasonable to expect that they will work out to everyone's advantage and provided that
the positions and offices to which they attach or from which they may be gained are opened to
all.
A valid argument. Except the problems I found with his argument is that the constitution that was created (at least in the United States), if it follows his beliefs, did not reject the first two principles but included them (to a point). What it rejected was the lower classes of society, the poor, blacks and native Americans). How is that so? How can a just institution be created when half of the people affected by it are left out of the decision-making process?
Also, Rawls' argues that the competitive structures must be in place and also must be decided by this group. Again, we have already seen that human nature dictates that man, if given an opportunity, will create the greatest good for himself first, and receive the largest share of what he creates for himself-first. If we go back to Carnegie's view, only the wealthiest of this society were allowed to make the decisions about how wealth in general and their wealth in particular would be distributed.
I conclusively rejected Rawls' arguments outright based on the fact that distributive laws were never created in a just way, nor have they been carried out with an equality of distribution or in a just way. They are not designed to be fair and equal.
However, Nozick, on the other hand, argued that the less distributive justice interfered with the affairs of the people, the better off they would be. In my time, I have seen the advantages and disadvantages of both arguments. Yet, I feel Nozick's arguments were more realistic.
Robert Nozick, a philosophy professor from Harvard University wrote: "The minimal state is the most extensive state that can be justified and the term 'distributive justice' is not a neutral one ." After further researching these statements, I came to understand the interpretation as meaning that the least amount of charitable distribution in the lives of its people, the better for the people, overall (232). People hold biased views. Those bias creep into everything they do. Therefore, those biases will always affect the distributive justice (subjective as it may seem) of who gets what in this society. I also came to understand that he actually wrote this piece to provide a counter argument to the claims made by Rawl's.
Nozick goes on to state: "There is no central distribution, no person or group entitled to control all the resources, jointly deciding how they are to be doled out. What each person gets, he gets from others who give him in exchange for something, or as a gift. In a free society, diverse persons control different resources, and new holding arise out of the voluntary exchange and actions of persons. There is no more a distribution or distribution of shares than there is a distribution of mates in a society in which persons choose whom they shall marry (Nozick 232)
The Entitlement Theory
Nozick outlines how the argument by Rawls could be just by stating that if the institution is just (in its original making), then, everything that arises from it would therefore be just (or at least apear to be all-inclusive). His theory of justice is more realistic and is outlined as follows:
"If the world were wholly just, the following inductive definition would exhaustively cover the subject of justice in holdings.
1. A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in acquisition is
entitled to that holding
This, to me means, when the settlers came to America, had they negotiated with the native indieans who were already on this land, and acquired the land they became so rich from in a just and fair way, then the land would belong to them. If not, the land belongs to the native Americans, not to people like Carnegie.
2. A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in transfer, from someone else entitled to that holding, is entitled to the holding.
This means that if the person who gave them the land (in this case, the land was taken by force and not equally transferred), the land then was transferred according to the principle of justice. If an employer gives you a job, this is not entitlement, you work and earn your keep. If the employer pays you less than you are worth, does that mean the employer is entitled to his share?
3. No one is entitled to a holding except by (repeated) applications of 1 and 2.
Herein lies the justice. If the above arguments are true, then our entire existence is a fallacy. We have based everything we do on a diverse set of circumstances that were not created by the equal inclusiveness of everyone affected by the outcomes.
Therefore, I cannot accept Rawls argument of distributive justice on the basis that the distribution was never just. Unfortunately, the people who created the current capitalistic environment from which we operate today, never had a chance to take Professor Silver's class.
In full agreement with Nozick's summation, I too believe that:
"The complete principle of distributive justice would say simply that a distribution is just if everyone is entitled to the holdings they possess under the distribution (233)."
Neither Carnegie or any other wealthy individual(s) of his time actually acquired their wealth in the ways outlined here. Therefore, whose to say that their method of distributing their wealth after death (charities, gifts, taxes, their families, etc.) is just? I would go on and surmise that the real basis for distributing wealth in the ways that they chose, outside of inheritance, was simply to ensure that their names would continue to be recognized throughtout history and not because they cared so much about making sure that the lowest amongst us would benefit from it.
If given a choice, I suppose the lowest amongst us would have rather had the money then, to use for food, clothing, housing and perhaps a nice thick steak on the table during Carnegie's lifetime, not after he died when they too, were probably dead.
1. Each person engaged in an institution or affected by it has an equal right to the most
extensive liberty compatible with a like liberty for all;
2. Inequalities as defined by the institutional structure or fostered by it are arbitrary unless
it is reasonable to expect that they will work out to everyone's advantage and provided that
the positions and offices to which they attach or from which they may be gained are opened to
all.
A valid argument. Except the problems I found with his argument is that the constitution that was created (at least in the United States), if it follows his beliefs, did not reject the first two principles but included them (to a point). What it rejected was the lower classes of society, the poor, blacks and native Americans). How is that so? How can a just institution be created when half of the people affected by it are left out of the decision-making process?
Also, Rawls' argues that the competitive structures must be in place and also must be decided by this group. Again, we have already seen that human nature dictates that man, if given an opportunity, will create the greatest good for himself first, and receive the largest share of what he creates for himself-first. If we go back to Carnegie's view, only the wealthiest of this society were allowed to make the decisions about how wealth in general and their wealth in particular would be distributed.
I conclusively rejected Rawls' arguments outright based on the fact that distributive laws were never created in a just way, nor have they been carried out with an equality of distribution or in a just way. They are not designed to be fair and equal.
However, Nozick, on the other hand, argued that the less distributive justice interfered with the affairs of the people, the better off they would be. In my time, I have seen the advantages and disadvantages of both arguments. Yet, I feel Nozick's arguments were more realistic.
Robert Nozick, a philosophy professor from Harvard University wrote: "The minimal state is the most extensive state that can be justified and the term 'distributive justice' is not a neutral one ." After further researching these statements, I came to understand the interpretation as meaning that the least amount of charitable distribution in the lives of its people, the better for the people, overall (232). People hold biased views. Those bias creep into everything they do. Therefore, those biases will always affect the distributive justice (subjective as it may seem) of who gets what in this society. I also came to understand that he actually wrote this piece to provide a counter argument to the claims made by Rawl's.
Nozick goes on to state: "There is no central distribution, no person or group entitled to control all the resources, jointly deciding how they are to be doled out. What each person gets, he gets from others who give him in exchange for something, or as a gift. In a free society, diverse persons control different resources, and new holding arise out of the voluntary exchange and actions of persons. There is no more a distribution or distribution of shares than there is a distribution of mates in a society in which persons choose whom they shall marry (Nozick 232)
The Entitlement Theory
Nozick outlines how the argument by Rawls could be just by stating that if the institution is just (in its original making), then, everything that arises from it would therefore be just (or at least apear to be all-inclusive). His theory of justice is more realistic and is outlined as follows:
"If the world were wholly just, the following inductive definition would exhaustively cover the subject of justice in holdings.
1. A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in acquisition is
entitled to that holding
This, to me means, when the settlers came to America, had they negotiated with the native indieans who were already on this land, and acquired the land they became so rich from in a just and fair way, then the land would belong to them. If not, the land belongs to the native Americans, not to people like Carnegie.
2. A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in transfer, from someone else entitled to that holding, is entitled to the holding.
This means that if the person who gave them the land (in this case, the land was taken by force and not equally transferred), the land then was transferred according to the principle of justice. If an employer gives you a job, this is not entitlement, you work and earn your keep. If the employer pays you less than you are worth, does that mean the employer is entitled to his share?
3. No one is entitled to a holding except by (repeated) applications of 1 and 2.
Herein lies the justice. If the above arguments are true, then our entire existence is a fallacy. We have based everything we do on a diverse set of circumstances that were not created by the equal inclusiveness of everyone affected by the outcomes.
Therefore, I cannot accept Rawls argument of distributive justice on the basis that the distribution was never just. Unfortunately, the people who created the current capitalistic environment from which we operate today, never had a chance to take Professor Silver's class.
In full agreement with Nozick's summation, I too believe that:
"The complete principle of distributive justice would say simply that a distribution is just if everyone is entitled to the holdings they possess under the distribution (233)."
Neither Carnegie or any other wealthy individual(s) of his time actually acquired their wealth in the ways outlined here. Therefore, whose to say that their method of distributing their wealth after death (charities, gifts, taxes, their families, etc.) is just? I would go on and surmise that the real basis for distributing wealth in the ways that they chose, outside of inheritance, was simply to ensure that their names would continue to be recognized throughtout history and not because they cared so much about making sure that the lowest amongst us would benefit from it.
If given a choice, I suppose the lowest amongst us would have rather had the money then, to use for food, clothing, housing and perhaps a nice thick steak on the table during Carnegie's lifetime, not after he died when they too, were probably dead.
Monday, March 3, 2008
U.S. and Europe Protest a Chinese News Regulation
How could customers make a right choice without enough information? It just like we discussed last week that if a company owns all media in a region, it can broadcast any information which it wants. Try to imagine that all foreign financial news services have to operate through China’s agency, which means the China’s government has the right to decide which news could be announced and which one could not. There would be an ethical issue that not every organization has the same right in China’s market. In other words, some organizations could lose the advantages in China’s market because they do not have the fair access into this market.
Another example that China interfere market is undervaluing its currency. The currency should be reflected it market freely, but China force to undervalue it. Under this situation, the exports to China would be cheaper and imports from China would be more expensive, which result in the trade deficit of the United States would go up more than it was supposed to be. In China’s point of view, I can realize those unfair actions in market were going to protect it own market. Although it makes sense to me, I could not agree with it. I believe that we should defeat our competitors in the right way. Everyone should be under impartial rules, not by our own rules.
Another example that China interfere market is undervaluing its currency. The currency should be reflected it market freely, but China force to undervalue it. Under this situation, the exports to China would be cheaper and imports from China would be more expensive, which result in the trade deficit of the United States would go up more than it was supposed to be. In China’s point of view, I can realize those unfair actions in market were going to protect it own market. Although it makes sense to me, I could not agree with it. I believe that we should defeat our competitors in the right way. Everyone should be under impartial rules, not by our own rules.
My perceptions of Lobbyism and Distributive Justice
The concept of lobbying is considered to be very controversial as there are presumed to be two sides of a story. As we had discussed in the previous class about McCain and the lobbyist, I started to realize that there are two sides of this story too. We emphasized on the lobbyist side of the controversy saying that sleeping with McCain to influence his actions is not very ethical. But, we also have to observe the perspective of the victim. I consider lobbying being very much similar to plagiarism, wherein which the person who is assisting his fellow peer to copy from him is equally convicted of performing plagiarism. Though the lobbyist took advantage of McCain, he was equally responsible for letting such a thing happen to himself. Lobbying can be accomplished successfully only when the victim is vulnerable enough to fall prey to the act. Hence, both the entities are proportionately liable for committing the act of lobbying.
The Oil Rig case talks about the partiality observed between the Angolans and the Expats. This difference in working conditions between them is not just merely because of the variations in their race, but it is due to the unique levels of knowledge and wisdom possessed by the employees including their skill set. Its just by cultural happenstance that this ambiguity occurs in a way similar to their geographical habitats and this has caused to the voluntary presumption that all Angolans would always wind up as workers and the Expats as their managers. If by chance, an Angolan gets literate and tends to possess managerial skills, then, providing him with the amenities currently experienced by Expats can be considered justifiable.
The Oil Rig case talks about the partiality observed between the Angolans and the Expats. This difference in working conditions between them is not just merely because of the variations in their race, but it is due to the unique levels of knowledge and wisdom possessed by the employees including their skill set. Its just by cultural happenstance that this ambiguity occurs in a way similar to their geographical habitats and this has caused to the voluntary presumption that all Angolans would always wind up as workers and the Expats as their managers. If by chance, an Angolan gets literate and tends to possess managerial skills, then, providing him with the amenities currently experienced by Expats can be considered justifiable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)