One Social Responsibility Of Business example essay topic

Business is a game, which requires and demands both special strategy and an understanding special ethics. It gives main part to the profit but in the same way the ethics also plays a very important role in business because without ladder we cannot reach the high building like that without ethical thinking business cannot be done. Private morality is a respect for truth and that the closer a businessman comes to the truth he deserves more respect. According to Henry Taylor's Statement he says that Ethics of a business are game ethics, different from the ethics of religion so he means that ethics related to business are like games and they are different from religion. Ethics means dealing with moral and in that truth plays the important role so he quoted and pointed that "Falsehood ceases to be falsehood when it is understood on all sides that the truth is not expected to be spoken". In a business many businessman feel forced every day to say yes to their bosses when they furtively believe no and that this is generally accepted as permissible strategy when the alternative might be of losing the job.

Entering into a business may be like forced into a game situation because business is a game in which there are many problems and many solutions. It is fair to say that if the individual refuses to bluff from time to time and if he feels forced to tell the truth the whole truth is nothing but it is one type of heavy weakness to the business opportunities in his business dealings. It is very difficult for each and every businessman to reconcile to the trick in which he plays a part. Before any individual can make a profitable use to strategy he should understand that in this bluffing he will not lose his self-respect and will not be emotionally disturbed. If he wants to reconcile his personal identity and high standards of honesty in business he must be ethically justified by his feeling of bluff.

Business is a game that is played at all levels of corporate life, from the highest to the lowest. No one should think worse of business because its standards of right and wrong differ from the current traditions of morality in our society. Now a days there are many competitors that if we do business with morality i.e. like always telling the truth and do which is good for business because sometimes which is good for business is not right for us but then also we have to do for business so like that no business can be done with ethics. It is a game and we are the players of it so we just have to play and have to keep on trying to win. Business don't make the laws we can see distinguish between the ethical standards of business and those of churches. Critics of business regard such behavior as unethical, but the companies concerned know that they are merely playing the business game.

Most Respected example of business institution is Insurance Companies. Second Example: In 1967 a key manufacturer was accused of providing master keys for automobiles to mail order customers, although it was obvious that some of the purchasers might be automobile thieves. His defense was plain and straightforward. If there was nothing in the law to prevent him from selling his keys to anyone who ordered them, it was not up to him to inquire as to his customer's motives. Why was it any worse, he insisted, for him to sell car keys by email, than for mail order houses to sell guns that might be used for murder?

Until the law was changed, the key manufacturer could regard him as being just as ethical as any other businessman by the rules of the business game. According to this example we can say that he did not broke the law. We are highly in competitive industry and for business; profit is the main fixation then why we have to talk about ethics? Sometimes going according to ethics we cannot do business doing everything truthfully can not give us success in our business because to gain profit we have to tell customers many things like if we are telling that we are using the quality which is of very high standard but in business only the businessman knows which quality he is using. If a businessman in business has become prosperous, he has sometimes departed form the strict truth in order to overcome obstacles or has practiced the more subtle deception of the half-truth or the misleading omission.

Whatever he might have done but was a part of his game business if he would have not done this he might be not having the power and money he has now. Business is a game and we should always do with ethical thinking but sometimes for profit we can avoid ethics so ethics of business are game ethics, different from the ethics of religion. Q 2 What is corporate social responsibility? Discuss Friedman's idea that it is a "fundamentally subversive doctrine" (Friedman, reader, p 64? Corporate social responsibility is called a fundamentally subversive doctrine in a free society and thus Friedman argues that any role for business managers beyond the narrow line of profit maximization threatens the basis of free society and on that ground is ethically wrong. The simple meaning of social responsibility we can say is the responsibility of family and much other personal responsibility, which are of the individual.

The business man believe that business is not concerned "mere with profit but also with promoting desirable "social" ends and has responsibilities of business and social responsibilities. A corporation is an artificial person and in this sense may have artificial responsibility but business, as a whole cannot be said to have responsibility. The first step towards the clarity to examining the doctrine of the social responsibility of business is to ask exactly what it implies for whom. The person responsible for business is individual proprietors or corporate executives who are the employee or owner of business.

The responsibility is to conduct the business in accordance with their desire, which is generally to make more and more money while conforming the basic rules of the society. In a business sometimes the employers may have the different objective. Like if we say for the following examples like hospitals and schools their main aim is not to earn profit but to provide good services. As a person, he may have many responsibilities that he recognizes that for his family, his feelings of charity, his clubs, his city, his country.

He may feel encouraged by these responsibilities to devote part of his income to causes regards as worthy, to refuse to work for particular corporations, even to leave his job for Example joining his country's armed forces. If we wish we may refer to some of the responsibility like this as a "social Responsibility". But according to these aspects he is acting as a principal, not an agent in this he is spending his own money not his employers. If these are social responsibility they are the social responsibility of individuals, not of business. In some of these cases the corporate executive would be spending someone else's money for a social interest.

The stock holders or the customers or employees could separately spend their own money on a particular item if they wish to do. The executive is exercising the social responsibility of the stockholders or the employees or the customers if he use the money in different way than they had spend before. But if he does this he is imposing taxes on one hand, and deciding how the tax proceeds on the other hand. A Good example which Friedman gave us is of taxes he says that we all are paying tax money to the government and the government use that money in the social interest of the public so it goes on choice because not everyone likes to do social charity and spend their money for other social interest in which they are not even interested while it is good for the people who likes the social functions so they will pay tax happily because they are getting what they want. The executive is the agent serving the interests of the principal. The justification disappears when the corporate imposes taxes and spends the proceeds for the "social" purposes.

The basic reason why the doctrine of social responsibility involves the acceptance of the socialist view that political mechanisms, not market mechanism, are the appropriate way to determine the allocation of scarce resources of alternatives uses. The trouble of exercising "social responsibility" illustrates that the great quality of private enterprise if forces people to be responsible for their own actions and makes it difficult for them to use people for either selfish or unselfish reason they thinks that they can do good but only at their own cost or basis. The current way of solving the problems by quicker and surer way are by government having responsibility to impose taxes and determine expenditure for such so social purpose. In a free society it is hard for the sin people to do evil especially since one good for one is bad for another sin. The doctrine of social responsibility taken seriously would extend the scope of political mechanism to every human activity. At the end Friedman concludes by saying that "there is one and only one social responsibility of business to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engaged in open and free competition without deception or fraud".

Q 3 Outline and critically compare and contrast distributive and libertarian concepts of justice, making reference to Rawls and Nozick? Thinking of a human culture as more or less a independent relationship is regulated by a common start of justice. A Start of justice is a set of principles for choosing between the social arrangement that determine this separation and for underwriting a agreement as to the proper distributive shares. The first view of the rational conceptions of justice would seem to be utilitarian.

We can oblige surrender on ourselves now for the sake of a greater advantage after. The most direct conception is justice is maximizing the good. A proper understanding of what is good, but we can think of the good as already given by the interest of balanced individuals. According to the principle of explanation of common sense percepts of justice and their seemingly strict character is that they are those rules which experience shows must be strictly respected and departed from only under exceptional circumstances.

The principle of utility is incapable of explaining the fact that in a just society of liberties of equal citizenship are taken into granted the right of justice are not subject to political bargaining nor to the social interests. They have to decide themselves once and for all what the their start for justice. One of the significant situation we can say is no one knows his position in society not even his natural abilities and talents. The theory of justice and ethics itself is part of the general theory of rational choice. The principle of utility, which is problem in justice, is thought an arising from the original agreement for this kind. The brief sketch of the start of distributive shares implicit in the principles of justice, which seems would be chose from original position.

The two principle of justice which the Rawls suggested here are 1 we shall not try to show that they would be chosen in the original position 2 It must suffice that it is plausible that they would be, at least in preference to the standard form of traditional theories. The meaning of these principles is that they allow for the strictness of of the claims of justice. The two principles of justice which we discuss can be formulated as follows: First, 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 second inequality is defined as defined by institutional structure is to except that they will work out to everyone's advantage and from which they may be gain are open to all. The first principle of justice is to the main institution of the social system and their arrangement how they are combined together. The basic problem of distributive justice is the difference in life prospects which come in the way and second principle works here like if the more expectations can gain in more working while playing the whole social system improve the expectation of the least will be gained. The variation of the principle says that these inequalities are just if and only if they are part of larger system in which they work out and gain the unluckiest representative man.

The injustices can be removed only if the two men are of equal talent and ability. For example, if the greater expectation of the representative raises that of the unskilled labourer, it also raises that of the semi skilled. The situation of justice is one pure technical justice, as there is no independent measure by which the outcome can be judged. According to the Nozick the distributive justice is not neutral it is something used as mechanism for some principles or to give out a supply of things. He talks about the past justice in which people were not knowing what justice tells us about holdings.

The subject of justice in holdings consist of three major concepts The first original acquisition of holdings, this includes the issues of how un held things may come to the held, the process of un held things bringing up to held. The second concepts was transfer of holdings from person to another, this includes gift and fraud, as well as reference to particular conventional details fixed in a society. And the third major concept, which is under holding, is the rectification of injustice of holdings. The distribution is just only if everyone is entitled to the holdings they posses under the distribution. The parallel between justice preserving transformations and truth preserving transformation illuminates where it fails as well as where it holds. Justice is depend on what has actually occurred.

The belief of justice is achievement and the other belief is transfer. It is a consequence of justice that principles of justice are structurally identical distributions are equally just. The very good example of the time slice principle is the welfare of economics. Example: if some persons are in prison for the murder or war crimes, we do not say that to assess the justice of the distribution in the society we must look only at what this person has, and that person has, and that person has... at the current time. Justice is historical and the historical principles of justice hold that past situation or actions of the people can create differential entitlements or different deserts to things. Another very good example is given by Nozick is of the basketball teams of chamberlain.

He tells us that people go on crazy and has given their twenty five cents to the Chamberlain instead of using that money for their own like watching movies and many more. This happens because they care about things other than needs. The general point is any favored pattern would be transformed into one un favored by the principle, by people choosing to act in various ways like people exchanging goods and services with other people. And to stop this one should stop people by transferring resources as they wish to.