• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do businesses have any ethical responsibilities, beyond obeying the law?

Do businesses have any ethical responsibilities, beyond obeying the law?

  • Total voters
    30
Kandahar said:
Do you believe that it's possible for a business to behave unethically even while acting within the bounds of the law? Or do you believe that as long as they're following the letter of the law they've fulfilled all of their responsibilities to society?

The reason I ask this is because whenever someone on this forum points out a perceived ethical lapse of a corporation, there is a certain contingent of posters who invariably feel the need to chime in with "They're a private business, they can do what they want." This leads me to believe that some people think that legality and ethics are one and the same, and that businesses are morally justified in screwing over the public as much as possible as long as they obey the law.
Click to expand...

I think they only have to obey the law.

That having been said, I'm of the opinion that ethical responsibility is good business.
 
ptif219 said:
They treat gays with respect. They give domstic partners rights it is not just gays. How much money does coke give to gay pride marches. See how you take things out of context to decieve people
Click to expand...

The fact is society is changing, and doing those things gives the business enough good press to outweigh the cost of said benefits, and the very small outrage that it will cause by people who see homosexuals as less than human.

Also can you show where coke has spent money on gay pride marches? And how did you reach the conclusion that gay pride marches are super evil?
 
Your Star said:
The fact is society is changing, and doing those things gives the business enough good press to outweigh the cost of said benefits, and the very small outrage that it will cause by people who see homosexuals as less than human.

Also can you show where coke has spent money on gay pride marches? And how did you reach the conclusion that gay pride marches are super evil?
Click to expand...

To the point I can not post pictures of them because of the nudity in these marches. This is not child freindly and should not be allowed


PepsiCo sponsors four more gay pride parades
 
ptif219 said:
To the point I can not post pictures of them because of the nudity in these marches. This is not child freindly and should not be allowed


PepsiCo sponsors four more gay pride parades
Click to expand...

Do you have a non biased source? I tried to look up my own, but couldn't find anything from a reliable news source.

And yes, some gay pride parades do get out of hand, and some people do break nudity/obscene acts laws,ect, but not all of them do, and the people who do that are not a good representation of LGBT people, just like sports fans who riot, and cause massive amounts of damage aren't representative of all sports fans.
 
Your Star said:
Do you have a non biased source? I tried to look up my own, but couldn't find anything from a reliable news source.

And yes, some gay pride parades do get out of hand, and some people do break nudity/obscene acts laws,ect, but not all of them do, and the people who do that are not a good representation of LGBT people, just like sports fans who riot, and cause massive amounts of damage aren't representative of all sports fans.
Click to expand...

That is a nonbiased source that is stating facts.

By the way I have a family member that is gay. I do not hate people just their sinful immoral actions.

I do not believe choosing a lifestyle gives you a right to special rights.

Giving benefits for domestic partners is not for gays it also covers heterosexuals.
 
ptif219 said:
That is a nonbiased source that is stating facts.

By the way I have a family member that is gay. I do not hate people just their sinful immoral actions.

I do not believe choosing a lifestyle gives you a right to special rights.

Giving benefits for domestic partners is not for gays it also covers heterosexuals.
Click to expand...

Would a loving God create gays and then damn them for acting out their desires that they cannot help?

sounds Fkd up to me
 
ptif219 said:
That is a nonbiased source that is stating facts.

By the way I have a family member that is gay. I do not hate people just their sinful immoral actions.

I do not believe choosing a lifestyle gives you a right to special rights.

Giving benefits for domestic partners is not for gays it also covers heterosexuals.
Click to expand...

No it is not, no matter how much you want to pretend that it is. If you want to be taken seriously I suggest you you don't put up things like that and state that it is an unbiased source. And what exactly is immoral about homosexuality, I mean, what reason do you have to say that it is besides that you believe some book tells you it is?

Also what special rights are LGBT Americans wanting? We just want the right to be treated the same as heterosexuals, at least I do, and every LGBT person I know.

Oh, and the I have a gay family member, is akin to saying I have a black friend. It doesn't get you a free pass to say anything you want about LGBT people, and not get called out on it.
 
ptif219 said:
That is a nonbiased source that is stating facts.

By the way I have a family member that is gay. I do not hate people just their sinful immoral actions.

I do not believe choosing a lifestyle gives you a right to special rights.

Giving benefits for domestic partners is not for gays it also covers heterosexuals.
Click to expand...


Yourstar asked a question that you haven't answered and I'm also very curious: what makes being gay immoral? The fact that you don't choose that lifestyle? I truly don't understand how people can be against gays... I mean, why not? And please, don't mention religion. I want a pragmatic reason.
 
ptif219 said:
They treat gays with respect. They give domstic partners rights it is not just gays. How much money does coke give to gay pride marches. See how you take things out of context to decieve people
Click to expand...

The GULLY | Commercial Closet | Pepsi Marches Into Gay Pride

A greater presence for Diet Pepsi in gay media is anticipated later this year, though no details are confirmed. Intriguingly, gay themes have already crept into the company's general ads. Its Doritos brand featured a commercial with Enrique Iglesias that has a gay tease joke, while Lays showed several guys posturing not to touch each other during a sporting event. Up in Canada, a flamboyant man broke the news of his "bisexuality" in a Pepsi commercial in which he declared that he loved both Pepsi and Diet Pepsi.

Pepsi was also a recent sponsor of Canada's PrideVision gay TV network. Arch-enemy Coca-Cola supported Divers/cité, Montreal's Gay Pride event, but has not yet made U.S. gay marketing efforts, aside from sponsorship of Gay Pride in Atlanta, its home city.
Click to expand...

As I stated before. I do not need to insult you to destroy your illogical arguments. You should stop drinking Coca-Cola. You might get homo-cooties.
 
Last edited:
No.

Corporations are not people, they are institutions, and as such they have no other moral obligation than to fulfill their purpose, which is to generate profit for their owners. Any humanitarian efforts or ethical constraints displayed by a corporation are, and should be, in furtherance of that goal.

Likewise, governments are institutions with the purpose of protecting their citizens. If a corporation's activities harm the citizens, it is the government's moral obligation to correct the situation.
 
I'd like to think so.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
No.

Corporations are not people, they are institutions, and as such they have no other moral obligation than to fulfill their purpose, which is to generate profit for their owners. Any humanitarian efforts or ethical constraints displayed by a corporation are, and should be, in furtherance of that goal.
Click to expand...

I think this is a perfect illustration of the mindset which I completely disagree with. When corporations are viewed as anonymous entities, rather than as collections of people, people are more willing to forgive their ethical transgressions to an extent that most people would NEVER tolerate from partnerships or sole proprietorships that are linked much more closely with a specific person's livelihood.

Most people frown on individuals behaving unethically in pursuit of a profit...even if their actions are legal. Yet somehow that same mindset vanishes entirely when talking about large groups of people (i.e. corporations), and the unethical actions of corporations are tolerated or even praised as doing what is necessary to maximize profit.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Most people frown on individuals behaving unethically in pursuit of a profit...even if their actions are legal.
Click to expand...

If so many frown upon their actions, and frown upon them so severely, then why should they continue to be legal in the first place?
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
If so many frown upon their actions, and frown upon them so severely, then why should they continue to be legal in the first place?
Click to expand...

Well, that's a completely separate issue. I'm not necessarily saying that it "should" be legal in all cases, but you know as well as I do that the law is a slow-moving animal that lags years behind the public conscience. Furthermore, the government might not always be ABLE to police every ethical transgression, or making it illegal might create other unintended consequences. But regardless of WHY something hasn't been made illegal, most people would frown on unethical actions.

For example, what would you think of an individual who buys a product and returns it to take advantage of the rebate? Or someone selling a car who withholds negative information from prospective buyers? Or someone who sues anyone who crosses him just for the sake of harrassment? These actions are all (usually) legal...but few people would approve of the lack of ethics behind them. And if the person's only justification was "I made a lot of money within the bounds of the law," that would probably incite an even MORE negative reaction from the public.

Yet when a corporation behaves legally but unethically, many people tolerate it. And some even PRAISE the corporation for doing what is necessary to maximize their profit. I think this is due to the fact that a corporation seems more removed from our day-to-day lives than individuals do, rather than any rational distinction between individuals and corporations that makes this kind of behavior acceptable for one and not the other.
 
Last edited:
Hoplite said:
The law has stated otherwise on several occasions.
Click to expand...

That's my problem with this. If corporations want to be treated legally as individuals, they should also be forced to behave ethically as individuals. They can't choose to be legally individuals until they realize it has some cons, thats just too blatantly hypocritical for my tastes.
 
repeter said:
That's my problem with this. If corporations want to be treated legally as individuals, they should also be forced to behave ethically as individuals. They can't choose to be legally individuals until they realize it has some cons, thats just too blatantly hypocritical for my tastes.
Click to expand...

I don't believe any corporate body would be freed of the obligations set forth by the criminal code. And many individuals on this thread seem to be basing ethics on law and not the other way around.

Corporations are no more individualistic than a union, an association, an agency, a movement, a group, or even your casual neighborhood get-together. It is unethical and unconstitutional to restrict the freedom of corporations to speak or to spend their own money as it is to restrict the above mentioned organizations from doing the same things. Corporations are GROUPS OF INDIVIDUALS, and ALL GROUPS OF INDIVIDUALS share the same rights enumerated in the constitution.
 
Kandahar said:
I think this is a perfect illustration of the mindset which I completely disagree with. When corporations are viewed as anonymous entities, rather than as collections of people, people are more willing to forgive their ethical transgressions to an extent that most people would NEVER tolerate from partnerships or sole proprietorships that are linked much more closely with a specific person's livelihood.

Most people frown on individuals behaving unethically in pursuit of a profit...even if their actions are legal. Yet somehow that same mindset vanishes entirely when talking about large groups of people (i.e. corporations), and the unethical actions of corporations are tolerated or even praised as doing what is necessary to maximize profit.
Click to expand...

It depends on how you're defining, "ethical". If you refer to providing quality goods and services, then a company has a responsibility to it's own survival to operate in an ethical manner. In that case ethics = profit.

Does a company have an ethical responsibility to protect a customer from his own ignorance? That goes back to providing quality customer service. If the salesman, or whatever, allows a customer to purchase a product that is totally opposite of what he needs, then that customer is probably going to chose a company that can better inform him to his needs, in the future. Again, ethics = profit.

Does a company have an ethical responsibility to fund something like the Special Olympics? Well, it's good PR, so ethics = profits.

Should a company have a responsibility to fund something like a gay rights group? IMO, any company that involves itself in politics, or religion is shooting itself in the foot. Speaking from personal experience, I don't and will never allow my company to be associated with anything political, or religious, or anti-religious. In that case, what may be defined as ethical activity could mean a loss in profits.

Does a company have some responsibility to improve society, aside from the laws that regulate it's particular industry? No.

Companies exist from one reason: to exchange goods and services for money. Every company has a responsibility to itself to accomplish that goal as best it can. Engaging in ethical conduct can achieve that goal; however, "ethical conduct", maybe defined.

As a business owner, will I bend the rules to make a buck? You bet I will. Will I engage in conduct that I define as unethical? There's going to have to be a helluva lot of cash sitting on the table for me to do that. Now, if the cash is under the table? That's a different story.
 
Many Companies and Corporations do not actually do business within the law but they simply pay their way through it. As far as ethics go unfortunately many only have the one ethic of making money any way they can even if that means destroying the lives of their workers or seeking out illegal immigrants to do the work that they don't want to pay an American to do. Its a sad state of affairs reality I have always believed that a Company should always be held on a higher standard then a small business because as we saw a couple of years ago if they go bankrupt and the Government has to bail them out the economy goes to hell in a hand basket.

Course the bailout was stupid anyways especially seeings as we pride ourselves on a Free Market Economy where you make and break yourself based on your business decisions and we were expected to bail out these companies that failed themselves. Goes to show that the ethic card doesn't apply to the companies like it should.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom