• 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

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
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.
 
Last edited:
Do you believe that businesses can 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" as though anyone was arguing otherwise. 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.

I think they are justified with acting within the law. Of course we can always change the law... but that shouldn't be done, except if what they are doing is causing problems. But thats why we have regulation and such things.
 
I think they're required to do whatever will best serve their shareholders within the confines of the law. In many cases, that means that they should do additional "ethical" things so as to win good publicity and avoid criticism/lawsuits. I don't think there are really ethical obligations beyond that.
 
I voted yes for many look at companies policies. For instance I seldom shop Wal Mart and almost never buy Pepsico products, I also avoid tyson. I try not to shop at Home depot either.

One of the sources I use is the AFA
 
I voted yes for many look at companies policies. For instance I seldom shop Wal Mart and almost never buy Pepsico products, I also avoid tyson. I try not to shop at Home depot either.

One of the sources I use is the AFA

What is wrong with Pepsico?
 
I voted yes for many look at companies policies. For instance I seldom shop Wal Mart and almost never buy Pepsico products, I also avoid tyson. I try not to shop at Home depot either.

One of the sources I use is the AFA


The people working at the Wall Mart pharmacy I go to have gone beyond the call of duty for me.
 
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.

Of course ethics and legalities are separated.

Anyone can function unethically while functioning within the confines of the law - which is why there's a code of conduct, ethics reforms, ethics committies and so on and so forth for businesses.
 
I voted yes for many look at companies policies. For instance I seldom shop Wal Mart and almost never buy Pepsico products, I also avoid tyson. I try not to shop at Home depot either.

One of the sources I use is the AFA

What is AFA?

I think ethically businesses are responsible to their shareholders and maximizing their shareholders profit. They have no real particular ethical responsibility to society.
 
no
absolutely not

enlightened management might recognize that to engage in activities which would be found ethically wholesome is beneficial to the company. but, to engage in business beyond the confines of the law, to the detriment of the company (usually financial), could be found to constitute a failure to uphold a fiduciary obligation to the business owners

one of the unusual, but positive aspects of ben & jerry's (before it was acquired) was the self imposed restriction that the highest paid employee could not receive income which was more than seven times that paid to the lowest earning employee. a very clear, ethical business decision, but one which would not work to the detriment of the company
 
How is it impossible?

Ethic issues can be very minor - or happen infrequently. Such as a store selling the same product and pricing it different depending on where it's located within the store - or what time of the year it is.

This is generally considered to be unethical because it can be seen as cheating a customer - but there's no law against either.
 
and after that, you're going to tell us about the problems with pepsico?

The problem is they are more concerned about liberal agendas then selling product. I make a choice to try to buy from companies that are concerned with business not social agendas
 
(afterthought)

Unethical practices come out especially in areas where businesses go to other countries to function on their soil without so many interferences and regulations - in our country we cannot govern every aspect of foreign-employment. In other countries they might not be quite so concerned with certain issues - thus - they have more lax laws . . . this creates a window in which unethical practices are permissible, frequent, and with little recourse.

A good example is child-labor - unethical yes - but illegal? That depends on where you're are.
 
Last edited:
Businesses, no matter how large, are ultimately composed of individuals. Individuals should always choose to act ethically as well as legally. Therefore, yes.
 
The problem is they are more concerned about liberal agendas then selling product. I make a choice to try to buy from companies that are concerned with business not social agendas

I hear the brownies at the Westboro Babtist bake sales are pretty tasty.
 
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.

It's totally possible for corporate management to act completely within the law and still be unethical. Ethics and legality are two very different things. In fact, it is those companies who only toe the legal line who can be most guilty of unethical conduct.

Every human being should strive for ethical conduct. Companies are run by human beings. Companies have a moral responsibility to behave in an ethical manner regardless of the law.
 
Businesses, no matter how large, are ultimately composed of individuals. Individuals should always choose to act ethically as well as legally. Therefore, yes.

Does that include the business as a whole, on a macro scale? I agree with you, on an individual basis, we do need to act ethically, but I'm not sure that would translate to the entire business as well.
 
Does that include the business as a whole, on a macro scale? I agree with you, on an individual basis, we do need to act ethically, but I'm not sure that would translate to the entire business as well.

In the eyes of the law a business is a legal entity - so that would refer to it as a whole in this sense.
 
OK, a question for those who say that a business is neglecting its fiduciary responsibilities if it goes above and beyond the law to establish its own code of ethics (say, through corporate social responsibility, or tough self-imposed environmental standards):

If the shareholders have elected the Board of Directors, which has hired executives who care about social responsibility, isn't that just an expression of the shareholders' wishes? Is it so unfathomable that shareholders might believe "Behaving ethically is more important than maximizing profit"? You are free to invest your money in a less scrupulous company if you feel you aren't getting a good enough rate of return, and allow the people who care about business ethics to lose out on profits. Or alternatively, you're free to elect a new Board of Directors that promises to forsake any ethical responsibilities beyond those necessitated by law or by PR.

I think it's a myth that corporations should, as a rule, only be concerned about delivering the maximum profit to their shareholders, within the confines of the law. There certainly are companies that behave that way, in which you are free to invest. But don't be upset if you choose to invest your money in a company with a strict code of conduct, since you knew or should have known their policy BEFORE you invested. And if a previously unscrupulous company finds its soul, and that cuts into your profits? Well, that's just a risk you take when you're investing.
 
Last edited:
OK, a question for those who say that a business is neglecting its fiduciary responsibilities if it goes above and beyond the law to establish its own code of ethics (say, through corporate social responsibility, or tough self-imposed environmental standards):

Just to be clear, that is not what I was saying. I myself said that businesses don't have a responsibility to do more than the law requires, not that they cannot.
 
Back
Top Bottom