What is the relationship between ethics and law?
Ethics is part of moral philosophy that addresses issues to do with morality. As human beings, we often do we ask ourselves what is good and what is considered evil in today’s society. Fundamentally, ethics is not universal, but situational and dependent on certain types of culture that is considered wrong in Japan may be a well-accepted norm in American society.
For example, in certain parts of the world marrying a girl who hasn’t yet attained the majority age may be a norm, while in other parts, it may be considered a taboo. Both ethics and law may sometimes overlap, and what may be considered or perceived as ethical in some instances may be against the law, therefore, ethics and law are not the same things (Green, 10).
The law may be set by the government or society for some particular reasons but it does not imply that law is always right in distinguishing what is either good or evil. Ethics is simply both implicit and explicit therefore it gives an individual the right to think about what benefits, and detriment may arise as a result of his actions and how they impact not only him/her but also how it will impact the society at large.
On the other hand, the law is quite specific and rigid, unlike ethical and moral obligations. It is, therefore, good to comply with both the law and moral obligations, which are also called categorical imperatives and serve as the heart of ethics. There are some behaviors that human beings exhibit that is not against the law but on the other hand, they may be very repulsive, unfair, and unethical. Therefore, such a situation leads to a conflict between ethics and the law.
It, therefore, becomes the duty of an individual to wisely look at all existing alternatives and make a wise decision. But generally, moral principles often are the backbone and heart of ethics. When such a conflict arises, it becomes the duty of an individual to think objectively, respect the customs and culture of other people without compromising his/her own, think of his consequences not only as a part of himself but as part of the society.
Furthermore, an individual should take look at all possible outcomes and ask himself the question, what kind of person is most likely to do such a thing and how would society embrace his action and therefore make his decision within well-known categorical imperatives (Green, 21).
What is meant by ethical relativism?
Ethics is not only subjective but also relative. Ethical decisions do not only affect a person at an individual level but also affect the society and the immediate environment. Therefore, businesses should not be subjective because subjectivism is selfish and looks at benefits that can only benefit the direct owner of the business, businesses should therefore try and use ethical relativity because if a business carries out a business decision it is likely to affect the public that exists in the society (that is, the investors, customers, prospective customer and employees, media, government, society, competitors and so on).
Businesses are often compared to games because like games, the business has its own set of rules, rituals, and practices that govern its operations, furthermore, games also have regulations that must be adhered to, and so are a business. In other words, committing a vice in a game may be very costly, while committing a virtue may be of benefit to a business. By thinking that ethical rules and moral obligations of businesses are different from other rules that govern society business may often result in abusing the subject of morality by not attending to it seriously.
“Made in the USA, Dumped…” Case Analysis
The issue of dumping sub-standard products in the developing world has become a major ethical issue for discussion. In today’s business environment, businesses operate with the sole aim of maximizing profits and reducing costs, without care for morality or humanity. When production errors occur, and products are found to be hazardous or defective for the market, rather than been disposed of they are sold off to unaware individuals mostly in lesser developed countries at a throwaway price, which is quite unfair.
Morality is quite different from the law, morality is a sense of what is right or wrong; morality is a matter of one’s conscience. Although businesses may be driven by selfish ambitions, businessmen must operate with a clean conscience; it doesn’t make business sense for a product that has been found dangerous to human life and banned in the U.S.A, Europe, or Australia to continue selling in any part of the world.
Does such a move mean that the life of an American child or woman using contraceptives is more important than the life of an African or an Iraqi? It would therefore be right for the pajamas that were banned in a developed country by the consumer product safety commission since they contained the carcinogenic and kidney failure causing agents to be destroyed by the manufacturers in the first place.
Even if the law has a blind spot and allows that the products can be sold in foreign countries, it is not ethical but an evil act to sell the products to other exporters who have the intentions of selling the products to other people, therefore, the innocent lives of the Iraqi’s who died and all those who were injured by the contaminated pajamas are on the heads of all those irresponsible and immoral manufacturers and distributors who were involved in the distribution of contaminated pajamas.
The same applies to A.H Robins Co of Dalkon that manufactures shield Intra-uterine, device which was proved dangerous but was later sold to a United States nongovernmental aid organization to be distributed to 42 countries. It is also wrong for a humanitarian company to go ahead and validate unethical and immoral practices by supplying defective and dangerous birth control devices that were known to cause uterine perforations, blood poisoning, and other complications.
What does Solomon mean by the ‘myth of amoral business”?
Many people have accused businesses of being selfish and greedy and putting profitability as their sole objective in business. Solomon believes that morality and ethics are a mirage for businesses, and therefore leading to the myth of moral business. Many times businesses hide behind the law and continue to carry out unethical and immoral acts. Solomon suggests that business people are somewhat selfish individuals, and therefore may ruin each other in the process of competition.
Solomon further suggests that businessmen, especially those in the corporate world may often employ ruthless Darwinian principles such as survival for the fittest to justify their unethical and immoral behavior. Furthermore, many businessmen may often complain that ethics interfere with their business goals, therefore, implying that business and ethics do not go together.
Solomon’s myth of morals is accurate and true, and now evident in today’s business society as businesses also go ahead to lobby against tough, and stringent rules and laws that the government wants to enforce to ensure ethical business operations go ahead. It has now become a must for the government to intervene due to bad ethical strategy for businesses to know that there are consequences for their behavior; government intervention also makes sure that businesses comply with these rules and laws that make businesses operate with a more ethically oriented approach.
Solomon furthermore introduces the term ‘business scum’ to make it clear that the business world today operates in such a way that they seize an extra dollar from their consumers. Business is, therefore, scum because sometimes because the price of a good is not directly linked and related to the actual value of a good. Business managers are becoming more and more sales-oriented and, therefore, consequently, go the extra mile to maximize revenue streams at the expense of a consumer.
The principle of saving costs and maximizing revenues has become a backbone of the business society and consequently, businesses will exploit all avenues, for example, employing cheap, labor, and cheap inputs to save on costs. The existence of rules such as the bottom line is there to stop businesses from ethical misbehavior. Consumers need to be protected at unwanted costs furthermore, competition between industries needs to be regulated for a healthy business environment (Green, 79).
“The A7D Affair” Case
Aircraft manufacturing is a delicate and sensitive process because the lives of many people will always depend on the safety measures that air manufacturers have installed on the aircraft. It, therefore, becomes necessary that manufacturers remain serious throughout the testing process and make sure that this process is not compromised. Goodrich hired a competitive workforce that included bright engineers and supervisors whose main duty was to come up with brakes for the LTV.
But instead of securing the interests of their customer and their company and conducting their duties with full disclosure, honesty, and ethics they instead betrayed and destroyed the reputation of the company.
John Warren is the project engineer and highly experienced, had the duty to conduct his tests objectively, and ensure that they were a success before certifying the brakes. When Lawson found fundamental faults in the design and functioning of these brakes, he went ahead and reported his findings only to be ignored by both Sink and Warren. Warren’s only concern was that he already bragged of progress to LVT and wanted to finish in time and was, therefore, unwilling to pursue a five-disc braking system model. Sink, on the other hand, felt ashamed interfering with Warren because he was the one who had put him in charge and would therefore make him look bad.
On the other hand, Vandivier reported his concerns to his boss Gretzinger who was categorical that he would not be part of unethical behavior but later caved into Russell Lines’s demands after visiting his office fearing that he would be sacked. Vandivier and Lawson are the only individuals who showed an effort to bring to light any mischievous operations, while, on the other hand, Warren, Sink, Gretzinger, and Line were part of the falsification and, therefore, should face no leniency but the wrath of the law.
After deciding that only Vandivier and Lawson may be entitled to some leniency then, the supervisors would probably receive the harshest form of punishment possible because they being part of leadership and entrusted to make decisions objectively, they went against the interest of both LVT and the company, the project engineer Warren should also face disciplinary measures available because he operated against his profession by performing substandard work.
The experiments of Milgrim about the “psychology of destructive obedience”
Many individuals may have been horrified and still wonder about the holocaust that was carried out by the Nazis during Hitler’s reign and often would like to know whether it would occur again. Milgram believed that social and institutional forms of pressure to obey are normally reinforced by the fragmentation of knowledge and therefore it is most likely to occur in modern bureaucracy and large organizations.
He (Milgram) went ahead and conducted a series of experiments by administering doses of a shock to certain subjects to test his thesis of the psychology of destructive obedience. He found that individuals may be forced or obligated to carry out certain orders and tasks even if they do not know the reasons for doing so long as orders come from a hierarchy above them (Green 137).
His findings suggested that individuals were likely to take place in destructive behavior when there existed some lack of information especially peers were most likely to exert pressure on others into behaving in a certain way, it is because individuals often have the notion that those issuing orders be it a superior or peers normally have valid reasons behind their orders, and therefore the issues of ethics and morality may be ignored at such an instance.
Modern-day employees need to be fully informed and up-to-date. Knowledge is power, and empowerment is a key pillar of institutional performance and, therefore, employees often these days demand reasons behind decisions and may end up being psychologically demotivated if the information is withheld from them. If morality and ethics are to be sustained then companies and organizations should make efforts to supply all relevant information to their employees that are related to the decision making the process so that employees know what they are getting into and take a moral stand through their actions.
Works Cited
Green, Arnold. The nature of morality. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1994. Print.