In April 2009 Philips has made decide to recall Senseo coffee makers produced between July 2006 and November 2008. This recall was based upon a small number of reported incidents with Senseo coffee makers. Based upon analysis performed by Philips they concluded that in a very rare case, when all 3 safety mechanisms fail, the device could fail unsafely. The probability that this could occur was based upon the reported incidents less than three on a million. In April 2009 Philips was covered with a morally hard case. On one hand the costs of a recall will be enormous (analysis has shown that Philips took a provision of > 50 million euro) and on the other hand the change that people will be harmed by a explode coffee machine is so small, that it almost is negligible. In view of the fact that they want to come across as a brand which takes his responsibility and they put a risk on the strong brand reputation if they would not take any action, they decide to go for a preventive voluntary recall. Philips decide to recall the Senseo coffee machines and to repair them, so to eliminate the risk to the maximum of injuring people. Philips has clearly demonstrated that it cares a lot about their consumers next to the fact that it is also a moral commandment not harm other people. I think Philips has made the right choice to repair the coffee machines to prevent serious injuries. Thereby morality is more important than business. By making the right moral decision Philips economical seems rewarded. After all costumers have more trust in Philips, hence the market value of the brand name is increased.
Background article
26 April, 2010
Drugs gang released from prison
In September 2006 an investigation was initiated by the Public Prosecutor against a Dutch family that was suspected for dealing narcotics from their place of residence. However the investigation was stopped in October 2009 due to irregularities and mistakes in the approach. One of the reasons was the fact that wiretapped conversations between the suspected and their lawyers ware not destroyed in time. By this failing, sixteen suspected people were released.
The moral dilemma is the following: on one side there is criminal law trying to stop drugs dealing to the maximum by applying strict rules and regulations, on the other hand there is the right of privacy from every individual in our society. This dilemma is counterproductive against the use of drugs.
My personal opinion is that strong evidence, obtained in a reasonable manner, against a human being or organization which has seriously acted against the law, cannot be declared invalid. By these regulations continuing prosecution of such persons or organizations is hampered unnecessarily. Hence solving criminal activities will be obstructed.
An exception on a moral standard will be made when the moral standard is exceeded by a more important, more heavily weighing standard. In this situation to my opinion is drugs dealing a heavier violation of the law than destroying to late eavesdropped conversations. Sometimes the morally wrong thing have to be done to do the best for the society. These evidence must be explained still valid so sixteen criminals get their deserved sentence.
Background article
The moral dilemma is the following: on one side there is criminal law trying to stop drugs dealing to the maximum by applying strict rules and regulations, on the other hand there is the right of privacy from every individual in our society. This dilemma is counterproductive against the use of drugs.
My personal opinion is that strong evidence, obtained in a reasonable manner, against a human being or organization which has seriously acted against the law, cannot be declared invalid. By these regulations continuing prosecution of such persons or organizations is hampered unnecessarily. Hence solving criminal activities will be obstructed.
An exception on a moral standard will be made when the moral standard is exceeded by a more important, more heavily weighing standard. In this situation to my opinion is drugs dealing a heavier violation of the law than destroying to late eavesdropped conversations. Sometimes the morally wrong thing have to be done to do the best for the society. These evidence must be explained still valid so sixteen criminals get their deserved sentence.
Background article
Arctic Madness
It is predicted that the ice on the North Pole will be melted during Arctic summers in 2040. If this holds true, this scenario would occur decades earlier than expected.
Because the North Pole has always been completely covered with ice, man kind never seriously attempted to gather the natural resources underneath it. It is estimated that a large percentage of global natural resources are hidden here.
Even though these claims are merely based on estimations (actual amounts of natural resources stored here remain unknown), governments adjacent to the Arctic area attempt to prove that it belongs to them. In 2007, Russia even symbolically planted a flag on the bottom of the Arctic Sea to claim exclusive future digging rights. Furthermore, new transportation routes are explored which will arise once ice barriers have been removed. These routes will shorten transportation distances considerably.
Even if man kind would quit polluting the planet from this moment on, we would not be able to stop the North Pole from melting. Therefore, one might argue that we cannot do anything about it, and should therefore exploit this area to the fullest extent. Besides, the world is facing a shortage of natural resources, and this would be an opportunity to temporarily delay this issue. Furthermore, shorter transportation routes might decrease pollution of transportation traffic.
On the other hand, the consequences of such a situation would be quite radical for all ecosystems and living creatures in the area.
In my opinion it is quite worrisome that, once scientists find out that the North Pole will be melted much earlier than expected, the first thing our governmental top does is exploring the possibilities of economic enhancement, rather than investigating opportunities to slow down the damage. Has man kind, after all these years, still learned nothing after all?
Background article 1
Background article 2
Background article 3
Because the North Pole has always been completely covered with ice, man kind never seriously attempted to gather the natural resources underneath it. It is estimated that a large percentage of global natural resources are hidden here.
Even though these claims are merely based on estimations (actual amounts of natural resources stored here remain unknown), governments adjacent to the Arctic area attempt to prove that it belongs to them. In 2007, Russia even symbolically planted a flag on the bottom of the Arctic Sea to claim exclusive future digging rights. Furthermore, new transportation routes are explored which will arise once ice barriers have been removed. These routes will shorten transportation distances considerably.
Even if man kind would quit polluting the planet from this moment on, we would not be able to stop the North Pole from melting. Therefore, one might argue that we cannot do anything about it, and should therefore exploit this area to the fullest extent. Besides, the world is facing a shortage of natural resources, and this would be an opportunity to temporarily delay this issue. Furthermore, shorter transportation routes might decrease pollution of transportation traffic.
On the other hand, the consequences of such a situation would be quite radical for all ecosystems and living creatures in the area.
In my opinion it is quite worrisome that, once scientists find out that the North Pole will be melted much earlier than expected, the first thing our governmental top does is exploring the possibilities of economic enhancement, rather than investigating opportunities to slow down the damage. Has man kind, after all these years, still learned nothing after all?
Background article 1
Background article 2
Background article 3
80 percent of U.S. businesses are overcharged on their phone bills while telecom companies reap profits from "accidental" billing errors
80 % of the companies in the U.S. are overcharged on their phone bills. Those companies are overcharged 18-28% percent of their phone bills annually. There are phone companies that overcharge through legitimate services which are not necessary. One such a service is, an insurance premium for in-house wiring for 4 or 5 dollars a month. This is a service what you may use once in 10, 20, or 50 years.
Most companies ignores to check their phone bills, because they believe that it must be right and can’t afford to spend time on checking the phone bill. The phone companies could solve the problems easily, but it is in their advantage to not solve, because most customers don’t check the bills and don’t ask for a refund.
The phone companies are acting in accordance with the business discourse. When customers remark that the phone bills are not right, their trust in the phone company is lost. The moral prescription honesty is infringed and the moral and business discourse don’t overlap anymore and morality becomes visible. The customer feels deceived, and will lose trust in the phone company.
The phone-companies forget that some non-economic goods such as trust can have economic value. Especially when they would lose loyal customers, because they feel deceived. If this would come into media, it can be very negative for the phone-companies. My opinion is that the phone-companies act morally-wrong. Their way of doing business don’t overlap the moral and business discourses. The phone-companies should take care for the overlap of those two discourses, because on the long-term it is in their advantage. If they keep ignoring the moral discourse, they can come into trouble.
Background article
Most companies ignores to check their phone bills, because they believe that it must be right and can’t afford to spend time on checking the phone bill. The phone companies could solve the problems easily, but it is in their advantage to not solve, because most customers don’t check the bills and don’t ask for a refund.
The phone companies are acting in accordance with the business discourse. When customers remark that the phone bills are not right, their trust in the phone company is lost. The moral prescription honesty is infringed and the moral and business discourse don’t overlap anymore and morality becomes visible. The customer feels deceived, and will lose trust in the phone company.
The phone-companies forget that some non-economic goods such as trust can have economic value. Especially when they would lose loyal customers, because they feel deceived. If this would come into media, it can be very negative for the phone-companies. My opinion is that the phone-companies act morally-wrong. Their way of doing business don’t overlap the moral and business discourses. The phone-companies should take care for the overlap of those two discourses, because on the long-term it is in their advantage. If they keep ignoring the moral discourse, they can come into trouble.
Background article
How one non-profit is fighting to eliminate junk food from America's schools
The article criticize the advertising and sales of junk-food at schools. They want the government to enforce a law, that prohibits the sales of junk-food at school.
American children are suffering to a lot of marketing-related diseases, of which obesity and diabetes are two of them. There is enough evidence that junk-food is harming children’s health.
In my opinion the manufacturers are acting morally wrong. Because, they are really harming those kids for their self-interest. They are also harming the whole society. This because, if you look to the prosperity of a society on the long-term, diseases has a negative effect on it. Negative, because the costs of treatment for those diseases shall be high. Some diseases shall made it impossible for people to work and even to study.
Another point is, that children on schools can’t ignore advertisement. Advertisers call it, “ captive audience ” because, children cannot change the channel or walk away from an advertisement. My opinion about this is, that it isn’t advertisement anymore but propaganda. Especially if young children are the audience. This has an affect on those children, even if they become adults. Aren’t they indirectly manipulated to chose the products of the junk-food manufacturers? Doesn’t this mean, that their freedom of choosing is infringed by the manufacturers?
The problem is, that the manufacturers are not infringing any law. Because of that, it is the task of the government to enforce a law to prevent junk-food sales to young children.
By doing this, they can ensure the health and prosperity of their future and society. If the government doesn’t enter such a law, the government is acting morally wrong, because they don’t ensure the health and prosperity of the society. .
Background article
American children are suffering to a lot of marketing-related diseases, of which obesity and diabetes are two of them. There is enough evidence that junk-food is harming children’s health.
In my opinion the manufacturers are acting morally wrong. Because, they are really harming those kids for their self-interest. They are also harming the whole society. This because, if you look to the prosperity of a society on the long-term, diseases has a negative effect on it. Negative, because the costs of treatment for those diseases shall be high. Some diseases shall made it impossible for people to work and even to study.
Another point is, that children on schools can’t ignore advertisement. Advertisers call it, “ captive audience ” because, children cannot change the channel or walk away from an advertisement. My opinion about this is, that it isn’t advertisement anymore but propaganda. Especially if young children are the audience. This has an affect on those children, even if they become adults. Aren’t they indirectly manipulated to chose the products of the junk-food manufacturers? Doesn’t this mean, that their freedom of choosing is infringed by the manufacturers?
The problem is, that the manufacturers are not infringing any law. Because of that, it is the task of the government to enforce a law to prevent junk-food sales to young children.
By doing this, they can ensure the health and prosperity of their future and society. If the government doesn’t enter such a law, the government is acting morally wrong, because they don’t ensure the health and prosperity of the society. .
Background article
Whale hunts
With whale populations dropping dramatically over the last decades a definite problem has arisen. Nearly all whale species suffered dramatic setbacks in numbers and some lie at the brink of extinction. Although whaling has been part of human society for 5000 years only in the last couple of decades major problems have arisen. It is still not known if some species will ever recover, even after decades of protection. At this moment agreements are being made to counter this devastating process. Whether these talks succeed is not sure however. When taking an ethical look at this case coming to a solution that suits everyone seems to be impossible.
On the one hand there are the hundreds of people who economically live on the whale hunt, hence reaching an agreement is hard to achieve. They need the whales to survive and whole villages would fall apart without it.
On the other hand there is the growing concern that whales face extinction. It is not ethically right to play god over a whole species just for economic profits. It will upset the balance of nature afterwards the hunters face the same economic problems, they cannot hunt whales.
Hence, a moral hard case presents itself. The question what is more important needs to be answered, economic profits or the respect for living being. I believe humans cannot play god and need to respect all other life. The hunters will face the same difficult situation if there are no whales left so there is no good reason to continue hunting whales.
Background article
On the one hand there are the hundreds of people who economically live on the whale hunt, hence reaching an agreement is hard to achieve. They need the whales to survive and whole villages would fall apart without it.
On the other hand there is the growing concern that whales face extinction. It is not ethically right to play god over a whole species just for economic profits. It will upset the balance of nature afterwards the hunters face the same economic problems, they cannot hunt whales.
Hence, a moral hard case presents itself. The question what is more important needs to be answered, economic profits or the respect for living being. I believe humans cannot play god and need to respect all other life. The hunters will face the same difficult situation if there are no whales left so there is no good reason to continue hunting whales.
Background article
The Unpaid Intern, Legal or Not
With job openings scarce, certainly starters, the number of unpaid internships has climbed in recent years, leading federal and state regulators to worry that more employers are illegally using such internships for free labor. Although no specific numbers are available concerning how many paid and unpaid internships are present, these is definitive evidence that the number of unpaid internships is rising dramatically.
Although not all unpaid internships are illegal, 6 legal requirements have to be followed in order to qualify the unpaid internship as legal. Requirements include areas concerning that the internship should by highly educational and the employee does not receive an immediate benefit from the interns work.
The problem is however that these rules are often neglected or not properly followed. Students have to do menial tasks such as cleaning or casual administrative work and do not get paid for this. This can hardly be seen as highly educational. One could even argue that the employers just try to exploit the interns. Due to the economic crisis and lower profit margins these practices are becoming more common throughout America every day. This results in various problems for students. Students feel unimportant and are less motivated to work hard to reach their goals.
On the other hand these internships do lead an increased number of job opportunities. The students get a chance to experience work in their field and socialize with contacts that might later prove to be important for further career development. Hence, the students do get something back from their internships.
Hence, a moral hard case presents itself. Both sides present valid arguments and a choice needs to made. I believe that there is problem and it needs to be dealt with. Exploiting the students is wrong even though they also benefit.
Background article
Although not all unpaid internships are illegal, 6 legal requirements have to be followed in order to qualify the unpaid internship as legal. Requirements include areas concerning that the internship should by highly educational and the employee does not receive an immediate benefit from the interns work.
The problem is however that these rules are often neglected or not properly followed. Students have to do menial tasks such as cleaning or casual administrative work and do not get paid for this. This can hardly be seen as highly educational. One could even argue that the employers just try to exploit the interns. Due to the economic crisis and lower profit margins these practices are becoming more common throughout America every day. This results in various problems for students. Students feel unimportant and are less motivated to work hard to reach their goals.
On the other hand these internships do lead an increased number of job opportunities. The students get a chance to experience work in their field and socialize with contacts that might later prove to be important for further career development. Hence, the students do get something back from their internships.
Hence, a moral hard case presents itself. Both sides present valid arguments and a choice needs to made. I believe that there is problem and it needs to be dealt with. Exploiting the students is wrong even though they also benefit.
Background article
Daimler agrees to pay $ 185 Million to settle bribery charges
Daimler AG, maker of Mercedes cars, has agreed to pay $ 185 million in fines. Daimler is accused of bribing foreign officials in at least 22 countries between 1998 and 2008. Daimler makes million of improper payment to officials in return to assistance in securing contracts with government customers for the purchase of Daimler vehicles.
Daimler is the world’s second-largest luxury automaker and has about 256,000 employees. I think that such a big company as Daimler has to play a role model for the society, but they did it far from it. The company was developing a culture where it was tolerated and even encouraged to take on bribery. The department did not charge any people with wrongdoing.
Daimler didn’t respect the law of bribery. The idea of legality means that you must comply with all laws, at least in a well-ordered society. Most people have a strong interest in a stable society and relations. An important moral principle in this case is honesty. Honesty is the cement of the free market, a market without honesty cannot function and will collapse. With the bribery constructions, Daimler was deceiving their stakeholders. When it is known for the stakeholders that Daimler use this kind of instructions, it could lead that they will lose their confidence in the company. In extremely situations it can even lead to a default of the company.
Deceiving your stakeholders is morally wrong. Rational people can’t live in a society where bribery is uphold. So the principal honesty has to be uphold in a well-ordered society. In the hierarchy morality stands higher than the legality and business discourses. So in this case, using bribery is morally wrong even if the company can get benefits of it.
Background article
Daimler is the world’s second-largest luxury automaker and has about 256,000 employees. I think that such a big company as Daimler has to play a role model for the society, but they did it far from it. The company was developing a culture where it was tolerated and even encouraged to take on bribery. The department did not charge any people with wrongdoing.
Daimler didn’t respect the law of bribery. The idea of legality means that you must comply with all laws, at least in a well-ordered society. Most people have a strong interest in a stable society and relations. An important moral principle in this case is honesty. Honesty is the cement of the free market, a market without honesty cannot function and will collapse. With the bribery constructions, Daimler was deceiving their stakeholders. When it is known for the stakeholders that Daimler use this kind of instructions, it could lead that they will lose their confidence in the company. In extremely situations it can even lead to a default of the company.
Deceiving your stakeholders is morally wrong. Rational people can’t live in a society where bribery is uphold. So the principal honesty has to be uphold in a well-ordered society. In the hierarchy morality stands higher than the legality and business discourses. So in this case, using bribery is morally wrong even if the company can get benefits of it.
Background article
Palm oil: good for the environment?
Palm oil is a very important component of things we use in daily life. About 2/3 of goods bought in the supermarket contains palm oil. What’s more, palm oil is also used as biofuel. Using palm oil as biofuel is environment friendly and it creates employment in less developed countries.
To satisfy the demand for palm oil, there is a great need for palm plantations. Those plantations are not only created from existing farmland , but also by replacing the rainforest! The old trees are sold to paper manufactures. Hence, the first profit is made before any palm tree is planted. By cutting the rainforest the natural habitat of several species is destroyed. Furthermore, cutting trees is badly for the reduction of CO2 emission. To destroy the environment is morally wrong.
On March 17 Greenpeace started a spam action against Nestlé. The same day Nestlé broke a contract with one of his palm oil suppliers, Sinar Mas. Sinar Mas is a company that buys the oil from plantations that have replaced the rainforest. Greenpeace was not completely content, because Nestlé still gets palm oil from Sinar Mas via other suppliers. Competitors of Nestlé, Kraft and Unilever, have already banished Sinar Mas out of their supply chain. Although, in developing countries it’s difficult to trace down the origin of the oil.
The creation of employment in developing countries is morally right. Nevertheless, an argument against this case is the lack of respect for nature. Because the pros and cons have both moral arguments, I see this as a morally hard case.
My conclusion therefore is, with the right way of cultivation, there is enough existing farmland. Consequently, employees can remain their jobs in the palm oil business with respect for nature.
Background article 1
Background article 2
To satisfy the demand for palm oil, there is a great need for palm plantations. Those plantations are not only created from existing farmland , but also by replacing the rainforest! The old trees are sold to paper manufactures. Hence, the first profit is made before any palm tree is planted. By cutting the rainforest the natural habitat of several species is destroyed. Furthermore, cutting trees is badly for the reduction of CO2 emission. To destroy the environment is morally wrong.
On March 17 Greenpeace started a spam action against Nestlé. The same day Nestlé broke a contract with one of his palm oil suppliers, Sinar Mas. Sinar Mas is a company that buys the oil from plantations that have replaced the rainforest. Greenpeace was not completely content, because Nestlé still gets palm oil from Sinar Mas via other suppliers. Competitors of Nestlé, Kraft and Unilever, have already banished Sinar Mas out of their supply chain. Although, in developing countries it’s difficult to trace down the origin of the oil.
The creation of employment in developing countries is morally right. Nevertheless, an argument against this case is the lack of respect for nature. Because the pros and cons have both moral arguments, I see this as a morally hard case.
My conclusion therefore is, with the right way of cultivation, there is enough existing farmland. Consequently, employees can remain their jobs in the palm oil business with respect for nature.
Background article 1
Background article 2
Google book scanning: Cultural theft or freedom of information?
Google Print Library Project which started in 2004 set as their goal to scan the world books and make them accessible online. The access of this service will be with or without a fee, dependent on the status of publisher- and author rights of the book. Regarding these rights Google has settled a legal agreement – for 125m dollars - with few institutions which represent these rights. Nevertheless, next to the traceable financial value, the books could also be seen as a public asset or a treasury of a certain society. Therefore one could raise the question: is it wise and appropriate to hand over the public asset to a private company in return of a worldwide accessibility?
On the long term this project could be seen as a hard moral case, because two beneficial opportunities need to be balanced. From the bright side, this project could improve the society as useful information from different corners of the world would be easy accessible to almost everybody. From the other side, a private company cannot be fully trusted to have a will to act in the benefit of public as the aim of a private company is to make a profit.
In my opinion the books should be scanned and Google may use them as a profit generator, however, the state should monitor this process and protect the rights of the citizens related to this public asset. Therefore, I think that the French government is doing the right thing by getting actively involved in the process of digitizing the books.
Background Article
On the long term this project could be seen as a hard moral case, because two beneficial opportunities need to be balanced. From the bright side, this project could improve the society as useful information from different corners of the world would be easy accessible to almost everybody. From the other side, a private company cannot be fully trusted to have a will to act in the benefit of public as the aim of a private company is to make a profit.
In my opinion the books should be scanned and Google may use them as a profit generator, however, the state should monitor this process and protect the rights of the citizens related to this public asset. Therefore, I think that the French government is doing the right thing by getting actively involved in the process of digitizing the books.
Background Article
Airplane crashed at Schiphol
25th of February 2009, an airplane of Turkish Airlines crashed near Schiphol. This resulted in 9 fatalities and 86 people were injured. After investigation, the cause of the crash was the defect of the left-hand radio altimeter of Boeing 737-800, flight 1951. The flight recorder showed that the same altimeter had the same problems twice during the last eight landings. Why did Turkish Airlines not further investigate the problem of the defect altimeter? This leads to question whether Turkish Airlines acted morally wrong.
When looking at the business discourse about individual profit maximising, they did not act wrong if they looked to the short term profit. It is not advantageous for an airline company to have unplanned maintenance on an airplane, since the whole flight programme needs to be changed. Not only the maintenance will increase costs, also another plane is required to take over flights of the plane that needs to be repaired. Although, Turkish Airlines should have taken a look to the long run: when defect mechanisms may lead to crashes, substantially higher costs will be involved. There will also be a decrease in customers due to the reduction of trust in Turkish Airlines, which will definitely not lead to profit maximising.
When looking at the moral discourse, Turkish Airlines acted morally wrong. They were aware of the fact that the airplane faced the problem with the altimeter already twice. Therefore, they should have done better investigation on the altimeter. In the airplane-business, it is not morally right to underestimate these problems, since they played with the lives of many innocent people.
It can be said that Turkish Airlines acted morally wrong, since the moral discourse should have outweighed the business discourse and more investigation was needed in order to have a safe flight.
Background article 1
Background article 2
When looking at the business discourse about individual profit maximising, they did not act wrong if they looked to the short term profit. It is not advantageous for an airline company to have unplanned maintenance on an airplane, since the whole flight programme needs to be changed. Not only the maintenance will increase costs, also another plane is required to take over flights of the plane that needs to be repaired. Although, Turkish Airlines should have taken a look to the long run: when defect mechanisms may lead to crashes, substantially higher costs will be involved. There will also be a decrease in customers due to the reduction of trust in Turkish Airlines, which will definitely not lead to profit maximising.
When looking at the moral discourse, Turkish Airlines acted morally wrong. They were aware of the fact that the airplane faced the problem with the altimeter already twice. Therefore, they should have done better investigation on the altimeter. In the airplane-business, it is not morally right to underestimate these problems, since they played with the lives of many innocent people.
It can be said that Turkish Airlines acted morally wrong, since the moral discourse should have outweighed the business discourse and more investigation was needed in order to have a safe flight.
Background article 1
Background article 2
Trouble continues for the Vatican.
Recently the bomb regarding the alleged child abuse by priests has exploded. From numerous countries reports are coming in of victims of child abuse by catholic priests. The Vatican tried to calm the reactions of the people down and to temper the allegations. However a comment by Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone set up new trouble for the Vatican. He claimed that paedophilia was linked to homosexuality and there was no relationship between celibacy and paedophilia. Of course the Vatican distanced itself from his comments but they could not prevent their image taking another blow. The reason I wrote this comment is because I want to reflect on the way the catholic church is responding to all of this. First of all: the Vatican should have never tried to refer the allegations as minor problems. During the past years the church tried to cover up the cases of abuse by catholic priests and actually succeeded in it. However it is, in my opinion, morally wrong to keep this secret and not punish the offenders. According to the news articles many people have been abused in their childhood by priests and they could not let anyone know about it in the past. The covering up by the catholic church and the fact that they still try to ‘explain’ why it happened by blaming the child abuse on homosexuals is shocking. Child abuse is not something to take easily and cannot be justified, morally and legally. The statement of Cardinal Bertone explained once more that some catholic members do not understand the seriousness of this case. The duty to bring ‘the light of God’ by priests will never be the same: they are to blame themselves.
Background Article
Background Article
Nuclear non-proliferation: Iran
Nuclear non-proliferation: Iran
Nuclear non-proliferation is a top priority goal for the Obama administration. Recent activities regarding this goal showed that some countries will not easily cooperate with Obama’s whishes. Iran is one of these countries that wants to develop nuclear energy but only, as they claim, for ‘nuclear energy capabilities’ such as nuclear power plants to power their country. However the United States and its allies believe that Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons while they want to disarm the world of nuclear weaponry. Obama suggest that the United Nations (UN) should issue stronger sanctions against Iran for continuing their nuclear program. While some nations are hesitating for issuing stronger sanctions, Obama believes that they will eventually agree. However if one country does not want to comply to the comments and regulations of some of the most powerful countries in the world, things will get dangerous. Iran secretly continues on their nuclear program while rejecting every comment made by other countries. You could say that Iran has a morally hard case (MHC). They know that developing nuclear weapons is wrong and will not help them gain favor from the rest of the world. On the other hand developing nuclear weapons gives them ‘protection’ against attacks, more ‘power’ in terms of they will become a nuclear nation as well and need more care and respect from other nations and it will indirectly benefit for their nuclear power plants. However Iran does not think of it as a MHC because they continue their nuclear program whatever the rest of the world thinks. They are not troubled by choosing the morally right thing because in their view, they are doing nothing wrong. However their intentions of secretly continuing their nuclear program are not morally right.
Background article
Nuclear non-proliferation is a top priority goal for the Obama administration. Recent activities regarding this goal showed that some countries will not easily cooperate with Obama’s whishes. Iran is one of these countries that wants to develop nuclear energy but only, as they claim, for ‘nuclear energy capabilities’ such as nuclear power plants to power their country. However the United States and its allies believe that Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons while they want to disarm the world of nuclear weaponry. Obama suggest that the United Nations (UN) should issue stronger sanctions against Iran for continuing their nuclear program. While some nations are hesitating for issuing stronger sanctions, Obama believes that they will eventually agree. However if one country does not want to comply to the comments and regulations of some of the most powerful countries in the world, things will get dangerous. Iran secretly continues on their nuclear program while rejecting every comment made by other countries. You could say that Iran has a morally hard case (MHC). They know that developing nuclear weapons is wrong and will not help them gain favor from the rest of the world. On the other hand developing nuclear weapons gives them ‘protection’ against attacks, more ‘power’ in terms of they will become a nuclear nation as well and need more care and respect from other nations and it will indirectly benefit for their nuclear power plants. However Iran does not think of it as a MHC because they continue their nuclear program whatever the rest of the world thinks. They are not troubled by choosing the morally right thing because in their view, they are doing nothing wrong. However their intentions of secretly continuing their nuclear program are not morally right.
Background article
To Adopt Or Not
The case of the 7-year-old Russian boy adopted by an American woman caught my intention. It all began in September last year when the Russian boy, named Artyom Savelyev, was adopted by Torry Ann Hansen and her mother Nancy Hansen. Everything went fine during this period (according to the sources) until in January ‘problems’ raised. The boy began to give problems according to Ms. Hansen. After which she put the 7-year-old boy alone on the plane back to Russia. Now the Russian officials and American officials are arguing whether the boy should stay in Russia or be sent back to America and whether to prosecute Ms. Hansen for child abuse. There are two moral discourses visible: the legal and the moral discourse. The legal discourse in this case is a difficult one: was Ms. Hansen legally allowed to sent the boy on a plane back to Russia without further notice? Does she have to take the boy back? Can she be prosecuted for neglecting the boy’s rights? These legal issues are complicated because it is not sure whether the boy has American or Russian citizenship. Morally speaking the boy should never be sent alone on a plane to a different country. However Ms. Hansen said that the boy gave problems which made her sent him away. She must have known that you cannot sent the boy alone on a plane so she must have had a problem or moral motivation (PMM). She did the morally wrong thing by sending the boy away instead of seeking help. She did not act out of duty but focused on her self-interest and removing the problem away.
Background article
Background article
Why the smoking advertisement ban in the UK is righteous
Smoking is a well-known subject of interest in public debate. The political struggle versus smoking has lead to several victories of the anti-smoking front; several countries in Europe are completely smoke-free and some have bans on smoking in workplaces and public places such as restaurants and bars. Now let us zoom into the United Kingdom, which has the latter form of a smoking ban. It soon will also prohibit the display of tobacco products at the point of sale in for instance supermarkets.
Why did the United Kingdom government install this new form of legislation? The answer may strike you as unlikely, but it encourages young people to smoke as it creates a perception that tobacco is easily obtainable. Also, ex-smokers and people who try to quit are vulnerable to such displays.
From a utilitarian perspective, I believe installing the smoking ban will maximize utility. Smoking has a detrimental effect on health. It is a cause for several lung and heart diseases, the most infamous of them lung cancer. This affects utility in two ways; economically and emotionally. Diseases such as lung cancer demand intensive and thus expensive treatment and are often devastating to those close to the ill. The expensive treatment, in turn, leads to higher health care costs which reflects in higher taxes or higher insurance fees. This leads to more disutility, as the spendable income of the population decreases.
I strongly believe this utility outweighs that of the tobacco industry and those who are paid to display adverts. I do not think that the companies will suffer so much as to be forced to file bankruptcy. In addition, I feel that lay-offs and wage reductions can never outweigh the suffering of those having to with smoke-related diseases.
Background Article
Why did the United Kingdom government install this new form of legislation? The answer may strike you as unlikely, but it encourages young people to smoke as it creates a perception that tobacco is easily obtainable. Also, ex-smokers and people who try to quit are vulnerable to such displays.
From a utilitarian perspective, I believe installing the smoking ban will maximize utility. Smoking has a detrimental effect on health. It is a cause for several lung and heart diseases, the most infamous of them lung cancer. This affects utility in two ways; economically and emotionally. Diseases such as lung cancer demand intensive and thus expensive treatment and are often devastating to those close to the ill. The expensive treatment, in turn, leads to higher health care costs which reflects in higher taxes or higher insurance fees. This leads to more disutility, as the spendable income of the population decreases.
I strongly believe this utility outweighs that of the tobacco industry and those who are paid to display adverts. I do not think that the companies will suffer so much as to be forced to file bankruptcy. In addition, I feel that lay-offs and wage reductions can never outweigh the suffering of those having to with smoke-related diseases.
Background Article
The Peanut Corporation of America
The Peanut Corporation of America (PCA) was a peanut-processing business and supplied peanuts, peanut butter, peanut paste etc to schools, nursing homes and food processors. PCA filled for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in February 2009 after it was found to be the source of a massive salmonella outbreak in the US during 2008 and 2009. The salmonella outbreak claimed 8 lives, sickened nearly 1,000 people and triggered massive product recalls involving at least 361 companies and 3,913 different products. Not only PCA’s profit was affected but also the sales of other peanut butter brands were driven down by nearly 25%.
The FDA (Food and Drug Administration) accused the plant of repeatedly shipping peanut butter and other products right after the discovery of salmonella. PCA, for example, shipped product after waiting for a second test to clear peanut butter that initially tested positive for salmonella. In this case we are dealing with ethics in production and PCA was clearly acting morally wrong. The company had a duty to ensure that its products and production processes did not cause harm and they violated this prescription. There is usually a degree of danger in any product or production process but PCA definitely overstepped the degree of permissibility. We are dealing with a Problem of Moral Motivation (PMM) here since PCA knew what they did was wrong, however, they could not stand the idea of destroying their product and decreasing their profit. In this situation the economic and moral discourse do not overlap, which makes morality visible.
In my opinion it is unacceptable and morally wrong for corporations to put consumers’ health at risk, no matter what amount of money is involved.
Background
Background 2
The FDA (Food and Drug Administration) accused the plant of repeatedly shipping peanut butter and other products right after the discovery of salmonella. PCA, for example, shipped product after waiting for a second test to clear peanut butter that initially tested positive for salmonella. In this case we are dealing with ethics in production and PCA was clearly acting morally wrong. The company had a duty to ensure that its products and production processes did not cause harm and they violated this prescription. There is usually a degree of danger in any product or production process but PCA definitely overstepped the degree of permissibility. We are dealing with a Problem of Moral Motivation (PMM) here since PCA knew what they did was wrong, however, they could not stand the idea of destroying their product and decreasing their profit. In this situation the economic and moral discourse do not overlap, which makes morality visible.
In my opinion it is unacceptable and morally wrong for corporations to put consumers’ health at risk, no matter what amount of money is involved.
Background
Background 2
24 April, 2010
The importance of ethics for employees
There is a lot of difference in opinion when it comes to the topic of ethics in business.
A large majority of companies believe that implementing ethics in a firm’s business is a costly practice and these firms often fail to see the added value of ethics. Velasquez for example came up with three objections against bringing ethics into business (Velasquez, 2001). However, these three objections can easily be refuted since ethics does play an important role in business.
Chryssides and Kaler wrote an article about the advantages of ethics in business. They made a distinction between the ethically active, ethically passive and the unethical business. In their findings, it is the ethically active business that earns ‘moral credit’ and as a result it enjoys competitive advantage denied even to the ethically passive business (Chryssides & Kaler, 1993). This mainly is the result of the overlap between the business discourse and morality. In addition, Dubbink & van Liederkerke (2010) state the following: “not integrating morality and law in your business decisions is costly, even from a pure business point of view”.
That business ethics is important for ‘good business’ can also be indicated by the background articles. In this article, it is stated that of every five employees, one employee quits because of an ethical dilemma. As employees are of great importance to a firm, it is imperative that these issues are solved. In order to do this, it is important that companies develop a code of conduct that is based on ethics. Consequently, the probability of employees encountering these issues will decrease and employees will become more satisfied.
It may not always be the case in the short term, but in the long term the statement ‘ethics pays’ seems to be true.
Background article.
Background article 2.
A large majority of companies believe that implementing ethics in a firm’s business is a costly practice and these firms often fail to see the added value of ethics. Velasquez for example came up with three objections against bringing ethics into business (Velasquez, 2001). However, these three objections can easily be refuted since ethics does play an important role in business.
Chryssides and Kaler wrote an article about the advantages of ethics in business. They made a distinction between the ethically active, ethically passive and the unethical business. In their findings, it is the ethically active business that earns ‘moral credit’ and as a result it enjoys competitive advantage denied even to the ethically passive business (Chryssides & Kaler, 1993). This mainly is the result of the overlap between the business discourse and morality. In addition, Dubbink & van Liederkerke (2010) state the following: “not integrating morality and law in your business decisions is costly, even from a pure business point of view”.
That business ethics is important for ‘good business’ can also be indicated by the background articles. In this article, it is stated that of every five employees, one employee quits because of an ethical dilemma. As employees are of great importance to a firm, it is imperative that these issues are solved. In order to do this, it is important that companies develop a code of conduct that is based on ethics. Consequently, the probability of employees encountering these issues will decrease and employees will become more satisfied.
It may not always be the case in the short term, but in the long term the statement ‘ethics pays’ seems to be true.
Background article.
Background article 2.
19 April, 2010
Olympic Games China & Human rights
‘Heavenly drums, silver bell dancers, light wheels and flying men took center stage to greet guests at the National Stadium Sunday for the closing celebration of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games. "You made the Games," said IOC President Jacques Rogge (www.en.beijing2009.cn).’
The quote above gives a good description of the flourishing Olympic Games which were held in China in 2008. However, the Olympic Games of 2008 also had a less blooming side. During the preparations of the Beijng Games, human rights were undermined. An example which shows that human rights were violated is the imprisonment of two civil rights activists who criticized the Beijing Olympics.
Besides this, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) did not articulate concerns about the human rights situation in China. Therefore Sophie Richardson, advocacy director of Human Rights Watch,
questioned herself whether the Olympic movement respects human rights.
After all those accusations and avoidance of the committee to mention any concern, the president of the Olympic committee, Jacques Rogge, called on the authorities in Beijing to respect their “moral engagement” to improve human rights in the months leading up to the Games and to provide the news media with greater access to the country. However, he also still stated that the Games would still be a great success.
I think everyone agrees on the fact that China act morally wrong by not obeying human rights in order to have the games in Beijng. They did not act in line with their duty to treat people fair. However, I also think that the IOC acted morally wrong by articulating public concern on the human rights situation of the Beijng Games (this concern was spoken out after a lot of critics on the IOC were already given), but still stating that the games would be a success. I think that by continuing the Games, they are ignoring their duty that they have to treat people correctly and it seems that they want to have Olympic Games at the expense of everything.
Background Article
Background Article 2
The quote above gives a good description of the flourishing Olympic Games which were held in China in 2008. However, the Olympic Games of 2008 also had a less blooming side. During the preparations of the Beijng Games, human rights were undermined. An example which shows that human rights were violated is the imprisonment of two civil rights activists who criticized the Beijing Olympics.
Besides this, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) did not articulate concerns about the human rights situation in China. Therefore Sophie Richardson, advocacy director of Human Rights Watch,
questioned herself whether the Olympic movement respects human rights.
After all those accusations and avoidance of the committee to mention any concern, the president of the Olympic committee, Jacques Rogge, called on the authorities in Beijing to respect their “moral engagement” to improve human rights in the months leading up to the Games and to provide the news media with greater access to the country. However, he also still stated that the Games would still be a great success.
I think everyone agrees on the fact that China act morally wrong by not obeying human rights in order to have the games in Beijng. They did not act in line with their duty to treat people fair. However, I also think that the IOC acted morally wrong by articulating public concern on the human rights situation of the Beijng Games (this concern was spoken out after a lot of critics on the IOC were already given), but still stating that the games would be a success. I think that by continuing the Games, they are ignoring their duty that they have to treat people correctly and it seems that they want to have Olympic Games at the expense of everything.
Background Article
Background Article 2
Italy’s Google Verdict Starts Debate on Web Freedom
In 2006 a three-minute clip, which was posted to the Google Video platform, showed four youths in the Italian city of Torino teasing an autistic classmate and throwing tissues at him. At least 12,000 people clicked on the video before Google took it down following a formal complaint from the Italian Interior Ministry. Google angrily stated: ‘Only the person who films and uploads a video to a hosting platform could take the steps necessary to protect the privacy and obtain the consent of the people they are filming.’
I will assess whether Google acted morally wrong by keeping the clip online, despite the fact that individual viewers had sent written complaints about the video for weeks before it was taken down.
The European Union law gives hosting providers a safe harbor from liability so long as they remove illegal content once they are notified of its existence. Google has the moral duty to obey all legal prescriptions; as long as it doesn’t contradict with moral prescriptions.
If Google did violate the law of the European Union it can, normally speaking, be defined as morally wrong. Eventually an Italian judge convicted three Google executives for not blocking the video from the society. However is this legal rule morally justified? One of the characteristics of human nature, according to the hermeneutic perspective, is rationality. This means that humans have a sense of justice and willingness, if not the desire, to act towards others on terms that they can also publicly endorse. Given that no rational person can defend the public humiliation of an innocent person this law is in accordance with morality. Since the law is morally justified, Google has the moral duty to obey this legal rule. Therefore I conclude that Google acted morally wrong by breaking the law.
Background Article
I will assess whether Google acted morally wrong by keeping the clip online, despite the fact that individual viewers had sent written complaints about the video for weeks before it was taken down.
The European Union law gives hosting providers a safe harbor from liability so long as they remove illegal content once they are notified of its existence. Google has the moral duty to obey all legal prescriptions; as long as it doesn’t contradict with moral prescriptions.
If Google did violate the law of the European Union it can, normally speaking, be defined as morally wrong. Eventually an Italian judge convicted three Google executives for not blocking the video from the society. However is this legal rule morally justified? One of the characteristics of human nature, according to the hermeneutic perspective, is rationality. This means that humans have a sense of justice and willingness, if not the desire, to act towards others on terms that they can also publicly endorse. Given that no rational person can defend the public humiliation of an innocent person this law is in accordance with morality. Since the law is morally justified, Google has the moral duty to obey this legal rule. Therefore I conclude that Google acted morally wrong by breaking the law.
Background Article
Investors sue ABN Amro
Dutch investors, assisted by lawyer Adriaan de Gier are considering suing ABN Amro. This because of the money they lost when US merchant bank Lehman Brothers went bankrupt. During the period before Lehman Brothers went bankrupt ABN Amro worked as advisor for Lehman Brothers. Now, ABN Amro is accused for helping Lehman by using book-keeping tricks to make its financial situation look better.
The book-keeping tricks used by Lehman Brothers probably were in accordance with the discourse of law. It can be questioned if they also acted in accordance with the business discourse. The tricks they performed were aimed to make the financial numbers look better than they actually were and in this way attract more investors. These actions should have a positive impact on profits in the short term. On the other hand, the company should know that when these actions become public, this would erode the trust of their investors which could lead to withdrawals. In the end this probably would harm the firm more than it benefitted in the first place and thus the company probably did not act like the business discourse prescribes.
On the other hand, when presenting misleading financial numbers, (potential) investors are deceived. This is in conflict with the moral principle ‘not to deceive others’. If I look to morality from the hermeneutical perspective it can be argued that by acting purely self-interested in their pursue for profit-maximization, they violated the fundamental principle within this perspective to respect others.
Background Article
The book-keeping tricks used by Lehman Brothers probably were in accordance with the discourse of law. It can be questioned if they also acted in accordance with the business discourse. The tricks they performed were aimed to make the financial numbers look better than they actually were and in this way attract more investors. These actions should have a positive impact on profits in the short term. On the other hand, the company should know that when these actions become public, this would erode the trust of their investors which could lead to withdrawals. In the end this probably would harm the firm more than it benefitted in the first place and thus the company probably did not act like the business discourse prescribes.
On the other hand, when presenting misleading financial numbers, (potential) investors are deceived. This is in conflict with the moral principle ‘not to deceive others’. If I look to morality from the hermeneutical perspective it can be argued that by acting purely self-interested in their pursue for profit-maximization, they violated the fundamental principle within this perspective to respect others.
Background Article
Baby sold via internet
In July 2008, a Belgian couple sold their newborn baby to a Dutch couple on the Internet. It is thought the Dutch couple paid a decent five figure sum. The reason to do this is that they could not afford the baby and that’s why they decided to sell the baby boy to the highest bidder.
In this case we are concerned with a morally hard case; on one hand it’s possible to argue that the Belgian couple acted morally right by means of willing to give their baby the best future possible. They just didn’t have the money to raise the child and wanted to give him a secure future. On the other hand it’s not in accordance with the moral rules and principles of liberal society; it’s morally wrong to just sell your baby on the internet like he is a product. Besides, this is in conflict with the discourse of law, which says you should not trade human beings, and thus in conflict with the moral commandment to always obey the law.
Viewed from the perspective of the Dutch couple who bought the baby, the arguments mentioned above against the moral wrong actions of the Belgian couple are relevant to the actions of the Dutch couple too. They should not trade a human being according to the discourse of law and they should know this is not right from a moral viewpoint.
Background article
In this case we are concerned with a morally hard case; on one hand it’s possible to argue that the Belgian couple acted morally right by means of willing to give their baby the best future possible. They just didn’t have the money to raise the child and wanted to give him a secure future. On the other hand it’s not in accordance with the moral rules and principles of liberal society; it’s morally wrong to just sell your baby on the internet like he is a product. Besides, this is in conflict with the discourse of law, which says you should not trade human beings, and thus in conflict with the moral commandment to always obey the law.
Viewed from the perspective of the Dutch couple who bought the baby, the arguments mentioned above against the moral wrong actions of the Belgian couple are relevant to the actions of the Dutch couple too. They should not trade a human being according to the discourse of law and they should know this is not right from a moral viewpoint.
Background article
Learning from Lehman
The bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, was the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history. After the falling of Lehman, the entire financial sector was in trouble. After the publishing paper in March 2010 about the bankruptcy of Lehman it became clear that Lehman Brothers was aggressively massaging its books. The company was manipulating the balance sheet by overstating the assets with $ 50 billion. By doing so the company looked way healthier than it actually was. This means that they were misleading the share- and stakeholders. The board of Lehman Brothers wasn’t informed about issues such as the rising losses on mortgage-related bonds. The deception was due to fears that Lehman would get a lower credit rating.
If we look on the discourse of morality, then deceiving other people is morally wrong. If stakeholders and shareholders knew that the company was manipulating the figures, then they would lose confidence in the company. This will affect the confidence that investors have in the company; in extreme case the company will go bankrupt. In a well-ordered-society people can only live with each other if there is trust. If you can’t trust other people in the market, the free market is not able to work. So it can be that Lehman Brothers used instruments that were legally correct, like the Credit Default Swaps that they used, but it is not directly saying that it is morally right or permissible. Morality stands higher in the hierarchy than the business and law discourse. This means that Lehman Brothers can only use instruments that are legally and are morally right. From the Hermeneutic perspective humans beings are both moral and self-interested. The rational end is that all the moral principles will be upheld in a well-ordered society. In the case of Lehman brothers not all of the moral principles were uphold, because they were deceiving their stake- and shareholders. Because of this I conclude that Lehman Brothers acted morally wrong.
Background Article
If we look on the discourse of morality, then deceiving other people is morally wrong. If stakeholders and shareholders knew that the company was manipulating the figures, then they would lose confidence in the company. This will affect the confidence that investors have in the company; in extreme case the company will go bankrupt. In a well-ordered-society people can only live with each other if there is trust. If you can’t trust other people in the market, the free market is not able to work. So it can be that Lehman Brothers used instruments that were legally correct, like the Credit Default Swaps that they used, but it is not directly saying that it is morally right or permissible. Morality stands higher in the hierarchy than the business and law discourse. This means that Lehman Brothers can only use instruments that are legally and are morally right. From the Hermeneutic perspective humans beings are both moral and self-interested. The rational end is that all the moral principles will be upheld in a well-ordered society. In the case of Lehman brothers not all of the moral principles were uphold, because they were deceiving their stake- and shareholders. Because of this I conclude that Lehman Brothers acted morally wrong.
Background Article
Case Stokes Haiti’s Fear for Children, and Itself
Child trafficking has become one of the most controversial issues in business ethics. This is one of the most interesting cases of business ethics of our time. This is a clear example of how people will begin to think irrationally when they are in `non-organized` societies (chaos). After the earthquake in January 2010, Haiti became a chaotic country. People thought that there was no official legal control anymore. People began to act in ways they would never act in normal situations. The moral and legal overlap was distorted.
Ten American missionaries were caught trying to take 33 children out of Haiti. They stated that they wanted to save the children by taken them to an orphanage in the Dominican Republic.
The missionaries acted moral in their point of view. They thought that because of the chaos and lack of control in the country, they could `save` children without getting in trouble. This was a mistake in my opinion. As the Justice Minister of Haiti said, without laws the Haitian state would cease to exist. I also agree with the Prime Minister of Haiti that the missionaries knew that what they were doing was illegal. This is a very important fact. Although they knew that what they were doing was illegal, they still ignored the legal discourse to act `moral`. But there is a moral rule that states to always obey the law.
The fact that made me realize that this was something that could end up in a disaster is the fact that several of the children were not orphans. Some of their parents were still alive. To me this was the fact that made me wonder if the intentions were really moral.
A lot of critics said that these people looked more like child thieves than missionaries. This statement takes it a little too far in my opinion. This is a clear case of a morally hard case. Not a problem of moral motivation.
I can conclude that the missionaries decided that they would ignore the legal discourse, and act in an illegal way to attain a (in their eyes) morally correct goal. Their `heroic` act could have resulted in a disaster because they did not use the moral rule to always obey the law. It was fair for them to get arrested since this sends a clear signal to illegal child traffickers.
Background Article
Ten American missionaries were caught trying to take 33 children out of Haiti. They stated that they wanted to save the children by taken them to an orphanage in the Dominican Republic.
The missionaries acted moral in their point of view. They thought that because of the chaos and lack of control in the country, they could `save` children without getting in trouble. This was a mistake in my opinion. As the Justice Minister of Haiti said, without laws the Haitian state would cease to exist. I also agree with the Prime Minister of Haiti that the missionaries knew that what they were doing was illegal. This is a very important fact. Although they knew that what they were doing was illegal, they still ignored the legal discourse to act `moral`. But there is a moral rule that states to always obey the law.
The fact that made me realize that this was something that could end up in a disaster is the fact that several of the children were not orphans. Some of their parents were still alive. To me this was the fact that made me wonder if the intentions were really moral.
A lot of critics said that these people looked more like child thieves than missionaries. This statement takes it a little too far in my opinion. This is a clear case of a morally hard case. Not a problem of moral motivation.
I can conclude that the missionaries decided that they would ignore the legal discourse, and act in an illegal way to attain a (in their eyes) morally correct goal. Their `heroic` act could have resulted in a disaster because they did not use the moral rule to always obey the law. It was fair for them to get arrested since this sends a clear signal to illegal child traffickers.
Background Article
France move toward partial burqa ban
France has about 3.5 million Muslims; they are representing about six percent of the population. French lawmakers believe that the burqa is a growing phenomenon. French lawmakers want to make a law of a partial ban on any veils that cover the face. The burqa is a full body covering that is worn by some Muslim women. The law will apply to anyone who attempts to receive public services, or work for public services. The ban is not only about Muslims. France made a law in 2004 that banned all exterior religious signs, from public schools. The French President Nicolas Sarkozy said that the full veil was not welcome in France and has nothing to do about religion. Sarkozy also said that it issues the freedom of a woman’s freedom and dignity. More than half of the French population is against the Burqa. Some Muslims say that they are only following their religious beliefs and France should respect that. But there is nothing in the Quran written down, that Muslims women have to cover their faces. A survey conduct in France found that 77 percent of girls wearing the Burqa said that they did it because of threats from Islamist groups. This means that the Muslims women are forced by others to wear a Burqa.
From the hermeneutic perspective people should be free. People should be free to live their own life. Since many women are forced to wear a burqa this goes against morality. So I conclude that the Islamist groups, which are forcing the woman, are acting morally wrong.
Background article
From the hermeneutic perspective people should be free. People should be free to live their own life. Since many women are forced to wear a burqa this goes against morality. So I conclude that the Islamist groups, which are forcing the woman, are acting morally wrong.
Background article
12 April, 2010
Cruising in Haiti.
Sixty miles from Haiti's devastated earthquake zone, luxury liners dock at private beaches where passengers enjoy jet ski rides, parasailing and rum cocktails delivered to their hammocks. Cruise lines have been under fire for continuing to bring tourists to Haiti so soon after the earthquake. Reactions from tourists who booked the cruise before knowing what would come their way are very diverse. Some say "Having a beach party while people are dead, dying and suffering minutes away hardly makes me want to cruise that particular line,". "The cruise ships aren't hurting anyone, in fact they're doing some good” another commented.
Is it morally correct for a company as Royal Caribbean to continue with these cruises?
It is important to note that Royal Caribbean is donating 1 million dollars to the relief effort. When its ship docked in Haiti for passengers to enjoy the beach, it also dropped off Forty pallets of rice, beans, milk, water, and canned foods. It could be stated that the cruise company is doing a lot of good, both by contributing to the Haitian economy (by bringing tourists who spend money) and by making contributions in immediate care (as in food). Of course someone could state that in itself that doesn't automatically make it right to continue bringing tourists to Haiti during the crisis. However, maybe the contrast between wealthy vacationers and desperate Haitians is just too revolting to be overcome by money alone. Then it's worth keeping in mind that Haiti itself is a terribly poor and deeply troubled place at the best of times. So, if it's unethical for cruise ships to dock Haiti's ports the week after. It is also morally wrong to do so the week after that, the next month and next year. They could relocate the cruise vacation on a island a couple of miles the away for example to Cuba, but that would have no positive influence at all for the disaster area. Why would those few miles cause less moral discourse? Haiti is still devastated. In my opinion it is not morally incorrect for a company as Royal Caribbean to continue, they contribute positively.
Background article
Is it morally correct for a company as Royal Caribbean to continue with these cruises?
It is important to note that Royal Caribbean is donating 1 million dollars to the relief effort. When its ship docked in Haiti for passengers to enjoy the beach, it also dropped off Forty pallets of rice, beans, milk, water, and canned foods. It could be stated that the cruise company is doing a lot of good, both by contributing to the Haitian economy (by bringing tourists who spend money) and by making contributions in immediate care (as in food). Of course someone could state that in itself that doesn't automatically make it right to continue bringing tourists to Haiti during the crisis. However, maybe the contrast between wealthy vacationers and desperate Haitians is just too revolting to be overcome by money alone. Then it's worth keeping in mind that Haiti itself is a terribly poor and deeply troubled place at the best of times. So, if it's unethical for cruise ships to dock Haiti's ports the week after. It is also morally wrong to do so the week after that, the next month and next year. They could relocate the cruise vacation on a island a couple of miles the away for example to Cuba, but that would have no positive influence at all for the disaster area. Why would those few miles cause less moral discourse? Haiti is still devastated. In my opinion it is not morally incorrect for a company as Royal Caribbean to continue, they contribute positively.
Background article
24 March, 2010
Toyota case: Publishing damaging information?
During the last 6 months Toyota has recalled more than 9 million of their cars for reparation. There appear to be problems with the seat belts and accelerator. These problems have caused 34 deaths in the USA and many more wounded. On the 2nd of February 2010 it was announced that Toyota UK knew of accelerator failure problems a year ago. In the winter of 2008-2009 26 incidents with Toyota accelerator problems were reported. However, Toyota never published this information, because the amount of 26 accidents can statistically be seen as ‘very rare’ according to a Toyota spokesperson. Furthermore, in the spring and summer no more accidents were reported.
This case shows a problem of moral motivation (PMM). To act in accordance with the moral discourse, the best thing to do for Toyota was publishing the information available, to at least warn its customers. Furthermore, they should have researched the problem more thoroughly. They instead chose to wait to see if more accidents would happen and since that was not the case, they assumed the information could be restrained from their customers, thereby increasing the chance of fatal accidents. This is in conflict with the moral commandment: ‘do not harm others’. However, they were acting in accordance with the business discourse. If they published the information or conducted research, this would have cost a lot of money. Furthermore, they would have lost potential customers, since Toyota would then be known for their unsafe cars. Since in this case the moral and business discourse do not overlap, morality has become visible and it has become a PMM. I think Toyota definitely should have published the information, because life is always more important than money, they should have not taken the risk that accidents were only rare.
Background article
This case shows a problem of moral motivation (PMM). To act in accordance with the moral discourse, the best thing to do for Toyota was publishing the information available, to at least warn its customers. Furthermore, they should have researched the problem more thoroughly. They instead chose to wait to see if more accidents would happen and since that was not the case, they assumed the information could be restrained from their customers, thereby increasing the chance of fatal accidents. This is in conflict with the moral commandment: ‘do not harm others’. However, they were acting in accordance with the business discourse. If they published the information or conducted research, this would have cost a lot of money. Furthermore, they would have lost potential customers, since Toyota would then be known for their unsafe cars. Since in this case the moral and business discourse do not overlap, morality has become visible and it has become a PMM. I think Toyota definitely should have published the information, because life is always more important than money, they should have not taken the risk that accidents were only rare.
Background article
22 March, 2010
Enron: Who’s Accountable?
In 2002 Enron went bankrupt which resulted in one of the biggest bankruptcies in the US history. Investigators focused themselves on Enron Executives. I will assess if the Enron executives acted morally wrong by examining their human actions.
To assess the case in terms of the discourse of morality I compare the facts of the situation at Enron with a relevant moral principle in the society surrounding Enron. I start by quoting one of the human actions done by executives of Enron. ‘At the heart of Enron’s demise was the creation of partnerships with shell companies. These Shell Companies, run by Enron executives who profited richly from them, allowed Enron to keep hundreds of millions of dollars in debt of fits books. But once stock analysts and financial journalists heard about these arrangements, investors began to lose confidence in the company´s finances. The results: a run on the stock, lowered credit ratings and insolvency’.
From a hermeneutic perspective the ultimate justificatory question to be asked is whether people living in a well-ordered-society could reasonably want to live in circumstances in which a particular principle was not accepted as a general principle. A relevant moral principle surrounding the society of Enron is honesty. Without honesty the free market cannot function and will collapse. Enron deceived investors by setting up these constructions. Which is proved by the fact that when investors heard about these constructions they began to lose confidence in the company; thus investors felt being deceived. Since rational people don’t want to live in a society where it is allowed to deceive people (assuming this is a normal case) honesty is a moral principle. This means that it is a justified moral principle that every-one must acknowledge. I conclude thereby that Enron executives acted morally wrong by deceiving investors.
Background article
To assess the case in terms of the discourse of morality I compare the facts of the situation at Enron with a relevant moral principle in the society surrounding Enron. I start by quoting one of the human actions done by executives of Enron. ‘At the heart of Enron’s demise was the creation of partnerships with shell companies. These Shell Companies, run by Enron executives who profited richly from them, allowed Enron to keep hundreds of millions of dollars in debt of fits books. But once stock analysts and financial journalists heard about these arrangements, investors began to lose confidence in the company´s finances. The results: a run on the stock, lowered credit ratings and insolvency’.
From a hermeneutic perspective the ultimate justificatory question to be asked is whether people living in a well-ordered-society could reasonably want to live in circumstances in which a particular principle was not accepted as a general principle. A relevant moral principle surrounding the society of Enron is honesty. Without honesty the free market cannot function and will collapse. Enron deceived investors by setting up these constructions. Which is proved by the fact that when investors heard about these constructions they began to lose confidence in the company; thus investors felt being deceived. Since rational people don’t want to live in a society where it is allowed to deceive people (assuming this is a normal case) honesty is a moral principle. This means that it is a justified moral principle that every-one must acknowledge. I conclude thereby that Enron executives acted morally wrong by deceiving investors.
Background article
Million dollar babies?
Owner Bert van Dalen (Utrecht) has reopened the Gender Clinic in Utrecht last week, but since 1998 sex selection has been obliged by law in the Netherlands. Although it is still not allowed to determine the sex of a child with the use of medical science, he currently advices couples on gender selection and shares his knowledge about institutions of sex selection internationally. By opening the Gender Clinic again he hopes to raise the question within the Parliament whether it is still not permissible to use medical methods to “design” your baby.
With the current techniques on gender selection you can ensure the sex of a baby with 90 % accuracy for the price of 4000 pounds, according to West Mistlands clinic located in Great-Britain. Clients visit a gender clinic for various reasons. Some people want to avoid sex-linked diseases, like hemophilia and color blindness. Others want to balance their families and wish to have sons and daughters both in an equal amount. Another potential reason was noted in the sense of population control. People do not have the need to continue to have children until they have one of the desired genders.
One of the ethical issues raised in this topic is sexual discrimination. The idea that one sex is appreciated above another sex, those individuals in the non-preferred sex would be at a disadvantage and I think it is not accepted to create a society artificially. Theories exist that those people would be victims of discrimination, potential violence and even abuse. Another moral question you could ask is: What kind of society would you get if they don’t? Isn’t it a moral duty of entrepreneurs to accept the ‘natural’ birth of a child and should those initiators be punished by law for their actions? In my opinion it is very immoral to make money out of such a business, because it harms the society in the long-term and it will move the line what is morally acceptable and what is not.
Background article
With the current techniques on gender selection you can ensure the sex of a baby with 90 % accuracy for the price of 4000 pounds, according to West Mistlands clinic located in Great-Britain. Clients visit a gender clinic for various reasons. Some people want to avoid sex-linked diseases, like hemophilia and color blindness. Others want to balance their families and wish to have sons and daughters both in an equal amount. Another potential reason was noted in the sense of population control. People do not have the need to continue to have children until they have one of the desired genders.
One of the ethical issues raised in this topic is sexual discrimination. The idea that one sex is appreciated above another sex, those individuals in the non-preferred sex would be at a disadvantage and I think it is not accepted to create a society artificially. Theories exist that those people would be victims of discrimination, potential violence and even abuse. Another moral question you could ask is: What kind of society would you get if they don’t? Isn’t it a moral duty of entrepreneurs to accept the ‘natural’ birth of a child and should those initiators be punished by law for their actions? In my opinion it is very immoral to make money out of such a business, because it harms the society in the long-term and it will move the line what is morally acceptable and what is not.
Background article
WorldCom
In 2002 WorldCom went bankrupt after an accounting fraud was discovered. An executive announced: ‘WorldCom had overstated a key measure of earnings by more than $3.8 billion over five quarters, dating back to January 2001. The Company’s reported profits, it turned out, were really losses. I will assess this case by explaining morally wrong behavior from the functional perspective.
First of all let’s note the irregularity which occurred in given financial statements. WorldCom said that an internal review uncovered huge hidden expenses – mostly line charges that it pays to other telecom carries – that were characterized as capital investments, a gimmick that boosted its profits.
The functional perspective assesses the meaning of morality from its function within society conceived of as a system, geared at survival, stability, and growth. First I will describe the kind of sphere WorldCom is active in to get an idea which moral prescriptions could be possibly be important to determine morally wrong conduct.
WorldCom was active in a modern well-ordered-society and encountered every day the properties of the free market. The reasons behind the concept of a free market are economic, the basic reason for advancing the market is that it stimulates productivity, frugality, efficiency, and economic growth, both in relation to the humans directly involved and in relation to society at large.
Because the executives of WorldCom were fraudulent on a mass scale they should have known that this could have lead to bankruptcy. This action violates the functional perspective that the free market should stimulate economic growth, both in relation to the humans directly involved and in society at large. The plunge in WorldCom shares did cost investors a staggering $175 billion; causing economic shrinkage to society at large. So I conclude that from a functional perspective the executives of WorldCom acted morally wrong.
Background Article
First of all let’s note the irregularity which occurred in given financial statements. WorldCom said that an internal review uncovered huge hidden expenses – mostly line charges that it pays to other telecom carries – that were characterized as capital investments, a gimmick that boosted its profits.
The functional perspective assesses the meaning of morality from its function within society conceived of as a system, geared at survival, stability, and growth. First I will describe the kind of sphere WorldCom is active in to get an idea which moral prescriptions could be possibly be important to determine morally wrong conduct.
WorldCom was active in a modern well-ordered-society and encountered every day the properties of the free market. The reasons behind the concept of a free market are economic, the basic reason for advancing the market is that it stimulates productivity, frugality, efficiency, and economic growth, both in relation to the humans directly involved and in relation to society at large.
Because the executives of WorldCom were fraudulent on a mass scale they should have known that this could have lead to bankruptcy. This action violates the functional perspective that the free market should stimulate economic growth, both in relation to the humans directly involved and in society at large. The plunge in WorldCom shares did cost investors a staggering $175 billion; causing economic shrinkage to society at large. So I conclude that from a functional perspective the executives of WorldCom acted morally wrong.
Background Article
24 February, 2010
Privacy rights and morality
On a Tuesday in august, 2005, 17.000 people received, unasked, a text message from the police. The reason they received this text message was the nearness of their mobile phones to the football station ‘de Kuip’ in april, 2005, during some uproars. The day after 12 hooligans reported themselves to the police and the bulk of the Dutch people were enthusiastic about this new way of crime control. Not only the Dutch police is using this system, also in Belgium, and outside Europe, people with a mobile phone are texted if they were within a 10 km radius of the crime [Expactica, 2006].
After WO II International laws on human rights were developed which state that humans have the right of freedom, without being constantly watched by the government. 50 Years later, however, many people seem to have forgotten these laws and say things like ‘someone who has nothing to hide, has nothing to fear of’. But is this correct? If the police can trace your mobile phone and can locate every place were you have been and based on this information sends you text messages and can even treat you as a suspect, do you still have nothing to fear of? More important for this course is, however, the question if it is not immoral to desecrate your privacy, even if it can help crime control?
Personally, I think it is immoral for the police to save 4 years of internet and telephone data of innocent European Citizens, including data about the locations of your mobile phone, for crime control. It is against your privacy rights and in this case illegal is also immoral.
http://www.bof.nl/docs/opiniesmsactie.pdf
http://www.expatica.com/nl/news/local_news/police-seek-belgians-after-child-abduction-bids-31196.html
After WO II International laws on human rights were developed which state that humans have the right of freedom, without being constantly watched by the government. 50 Years later, however, many people seem to have forgotten these laws and say things like ‘someone who has nothing to hide, has nothing to fear of’. But is this correct? If the police can trace your mobile phone and can locate every place were you have been and based on this information sends you text messages and can even treat you as a suspect, do you still have nothing to fear of? More important for this course is, however, the question if it is not immoral to desecrate your privacy, even if it can help crime control?
Personally, I think it is immoral for the police to save 4 years of internet and telephone data of innocent European Citizens, including data about the locations of your mobile phone, for crime control. It is against your privacy rights and in this case illegal is also immoral.
http://www.bof.nl/docs/opiniesmsactie.pdf
http://www.expatica.com/nl/news/local_news/police-seek-belgians-after-child-abduction-bids-31196.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)