Business Ethics or Ethical Evaluation of Auto Companies - Essay Example

ETHICAL EVALUATION OF AUTO COMPANIES EXPANSION IN CHINA Student Name Course Instructor Date of Submission ETHICAL EVALUATION OF AUTO COMPANIES EXPANSION IN CHINA From the beginning of human civilization to the modern age, the question of morality has been very significant in our societies. Philosophers researched tirelessly on the concept of moral coexistence. Various scholarly interventions have shown how morality has inevitable practical application in our societies and its evolution for the common good of all men on the planet. Although different philosophers have exhibited significantly different views on the concept of morality, it is quite plausible how each has had tremendous influence on the recognition of what is right and wrong. In this discussion, I will examine ethical theories namely; Utilitarianism, Kantian deontology, Justice, Rights and Normative ethical relativism. These theories will guide in the evaluating of the decision by Auto companies to expand automobile industry in China. The discussion will seek to identify what is morally unacceptable for the Auto companies to venture in the expanding the Chinese automobile market. According to Mackie (1977) and Rachels (1998), ethical theories are a subdivision of philosophy that seeks to answer questions in morality. The term utilitarianism is derived from the noun ‘utility’. Utility refers to the state of an object, idea, item or action being useful, profitable or beneficial. According to Utilitarianism, an action, rule or principle is right if its consequences and contribution maximize pleasure, happiness and minimizing any suffering of the majority in a given population (Crisp, 1997; Darwall, 1995; Long, 1990 & Smart, 1993). Utilitarians argue that actions should lead to overall usability, satisfaction, and happiness (Mill, 1863; Smart & Williams, 1973). The greatest happiness principle is the chief goal of utilitarians. However, an action may qualify to be right even when the consequences are poor considering the alternative consequences would be much worse. “What is good” and “what is right” is essentially significant in drawing conclusion about the rightness of an action, rule or principle. There is tremendous growth of the car industry in China due to the demand for cars by the middle class. The government has provided an enabling framework for investment in cars industry to meet the growing demand. As well, the exciting Chinese automobile market has attracted many automobile investors. People prefer to have their own cars for various reasons i.e. convenience or as a status symbol. Therefore, the government’s promotion of car industry in the country is solely for the benefit of the entire society i.e. to maximize on the greatest happiness principle (Smart & Williams, 1973). The Auto companies in China are morally wrong to manufacture environmentally harmful products. A clean environment supports life and benefits every person. From a utilitarian perspective, environmental degradation as a result of automobile emissions would have severe health implications than just the convenience of having personal cars or social recognition. The companies violate the principle of utility as advocated by utilitarians (Scarre, 1996). They should take into account the environmental consequences of their products by complying with all applicable emission standards to alleviate environment degradation. Deontological ethics form a part of normative theories on acts that are morally approved, forbidden, or permitted (Kant, 1964; Darwell, Ed., 2003; Olson, 1967 & Beauchamp, 1991). As utilitarianism, deontological ethics are moral theories that guide and assess our choices of what we ought to do. They are founded on the belief that we are obliged to abide by defined rules that stipulate what is right and wrong. However, deontologists don’t look at the consequences of specific decisions thus they are non-consequentialist (Kant, 1964 & Darwell, 2003). The nature of specific acts is examined. For instance, Kantian deontology may not take into consideration that a drunk driver arrived home safely. Instead, driving under the influence of alcohol is wrong. He emphasizes that people demonstrate moral uprightness in acting from duty. The duties may be absolute, prima facie or conditional. Some duties may not allow exceptions while others can be overridden by more important duties or may only hold under certain situations. Moral uprightness comes with observation of highest good and the good will. To act in good will is to act out of duty. Good and evil are defined in terms of universal law or obligation (Kant, 1964). Actions are truly moral if they have the right intention and are based on “good will” determined by a law of "universal conformity". A person may do something with good will but the outcome of the act cannot be used to determine whether the person had good will or not since consequences may arise accidentally contrary to the person’s intentions (Kant, 1964; Beauchamp, 1991). The role of government is to provide an enabling environment for its citizens. The Chinese government was acting in the highest good and good will to liberalize the automobile market hence its approach is morally acceptable. The liberalization of automobile industry has various benefits to the citizens i.e. quality products, fair prices and services reliability. It is morally upright for an investor to invest where there is both market and future growth prospects for their goods and services. Therefore, in investing in Chinese automobile industry, Auto companies are ethically within the boundaries of accepted universal law (Kant, 1964). Since the Kantian deontology does not consider the consequences of an action, the rising environmental pollution and depletion of resources in China is completely overlooked. According to rights theory, a right is something that an individual or a group of individuals are entitled to if they want to do something (Feinberg, 1980; Finnis, 1980; Lomasky, 1987; Lyons, 1994 & Wellman, 1985). Rights for a person to do something means that the other people have a correlative duty not interfere with that person’s performance of his/her right. This means that if someone has a right, others people have a corresponding duty to provide what the right requires. There are negative and positive rights. According to negative rights, the person entitled to the rights is left on his/her own, free of interference in the exercise of the right (Lyons, 1994 & Wellman, 1985). Alternatively, an individual entitled with positive rights have something to be provided for them to exercise their right i.e. if the right to free education is a positive right of all Americans, then American society must provide free education to all American citizens. There are two main rights concepts to be analyzed in the Chinese case study. These include the right to property ownership and the right to a clean and healthy environment. The ownership of property, and more specifically automobiles in legally allowed as long as they are acquired through a just manner (Wellman, 1985). Individuals exercise their right to purchase goods and services they need. The Auto companies alike are doing their duty to manufacture cars to meet market demand of their clients who have a right to own property. As a result, it is morally acceptable for the companies to promote investment in the Chinese automobile industry. It is the right of every citizen to enjoy clean and healthy environment according to the world’s environment protection conventions (Anton, D. & Dinah L. S2011). This is a general right which is inalienable and has been enacted nearly by all states in the world. Clean environment is necessary for the enjoyment of other rights. The car companies are violating citizens’ rights by causing environment harm through products which are environmentally detrimental (Anton, D. & Dinah L. S2011). The rights theory observes that any universal right or duty must always be observed without exception i.e. there are no exceptions to universal rules and a right may be overridden by a more important consideration or fail to apply to a specific situation (Lomasky, 1987; Lyons, 1994). According to normative ethical relativism, moral principles vary from one society to another depending on a society’s definition of moral uprightness and wrongness (Hinman, 2011 & Hugman, 2012). It argues that all thinking about basic principles of ethics is always relative and there are no entirely universal moral standards that can be applied to all people at all times. As a result, moral laws significantly vary by having what is approved in one society being morally condemned in another society (Hinman, 2011 & Hugman, 2012). This is relevant in the modern contemporary society where there is emphasis to respect and uphold cultural, ethical and racial diversity. Over the last decades, biologists and ecologists demonstrated how humans cause significant harm to their environment and natural resources (Anton & Dinah 2011). This was due to lack of moral commitment to environmental protection. As a result, there was necessity of a moral judgment and guidance in environment protection for the common good of all. As Auto companies expand Chinese automobiles, we fail to understand their society’s moral obligation towards environment and natural resources protection. They should not assume other countries have no moral consideration to preserve their environment and natural resources. By manufacturing environmentally harmful products, they may be violating others moral obligations to environment and natural resources protection. John Rawls in his justice theory argue that there is no society that can be just without fairness and equality (Rawls,J. 2009 & Rawls, J.1999). Central to Rawls justice theory is the concept of justice and equality alongside what he terms as “Veil of ignorance”. “Veil of ignorance” helps to explore the biases in our societies and help to restore justice by reasoning without personal biases. This promotes justice in the society by acting with regard to liberty principle or the deference principle. According to liberty principle, each person has equal right as any other. The difference principle implies that social inequality would arise only where differences in social advantage would not benefit everyone. Thus far, the right and the good are basic to Rawls's justice theory. As a Kantian liberal, Raw believes that justice should be universalizable. Robert Nozick entitlement theory is based on three principles; that if an individual acquires a property in accordance with the principle of justice in acquisition, then he/she is entitled to that property. In addition if an individual acquires the property in accordance with the principle of justice in transfer from another person entitled to the property, then that person is entitled to the property (Boaz, 2010 & Wolff, 1991). His entitlement theory does not adopt any mechanisms to determine how distribution of wealth should be done but it is based on the three principles of distributive justice highlighted above. Nozick emphasizes on respect of individuals’ natural rights and autonomy and concludes his principles by stating that there is no an individual entitled to a property except by observing the first two principles of entitlement theory. It is acceptable for the Auto companies to invest in Chinese growing economy according to Rawls’s justice theory. Justice theory is based on the idea that society is a system of cooperation for mutual advantage between individuals or organizations. Justice is ensured when clients can meet there desires by purchasing commodities they desire in the market and as well, when investors can make revenues from their products and services. Also, individuals have a right to own property they have purchased. This idea is also supported by Robert Nozick in his entitlement theory on the principle of just acquisition, transfer and rectification. Also, Auto companies have violated the environmental justice in China. Justice is violated considering the high scale of environmental and natural resources degradation when the automobile industry benefits only a few economically able elites. The automobiles have detrimental effects on sustaining nature and will continue to worsen environment degradation with the increasing trend in China. Since the concept of justice is similar to rights, and people rights have significantly been violated through environmentally unfriendly automobiles that are causing environmental pollution, then justice is not done. The environment pollution will have severe health implications on the citizens’ health hence the Auto companies are legally bound to uphold environmental justice by producing environment friendly products. In applying ethical theories to evaluate the question “Was it wrong for the car companies to help China expand its auto industry?” it provides a definite mechanism to solve moral dilemmas that can take into account conflicting interests. In conclusion, business ethics and moral principles are absolutely inevitable in the modern business environment. A given business strategic decision may have diverse implications on the society. This is so especially doing business across different cultures, societies and ethical backgrounds i.e. venturing in the regional and international markets. Since a single decision may have multi-faceted implications, both negative and positive, business practitioners should engage high thought order in solving business dilemmas. The high thought order is the adoption of moral justification their actions by evaluating the diverse view points of scholars and communities of practice. (Word Count: 2100) References Anton, D. K. And Dinah L. S(2011).Environmental Protection and Human Rights. New York: Cambridge University Press. Baxi, Upendra,(2006). Bentham’s Theory of Legislation, 7th ed. (reprint). LexisNexis, New Delhi. Beauchamp, Tom L. 1991. Philosophical Ethics: An Introduction to Moral Philosophy, 2nd Ed. New York: McGraw Hill. Bentham, J., 1789 (1948), An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and of Legislation, Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Boaz , D. (2010). The Libertarian Reader: Classic and Contemporary Writings from Lao Tzu to. New York:Simon and Schuster. Broad, C. D. 1930. Five Types of Ethical Theory. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co. Crisp, Roger (1997). Mill on Utilitarianism. London: Routledge Darwall, Stephen (1995). Hume and the Invention of Utilitarianism, University Park, PA: Penn State University Press. Darwell, S (Ed.) (2003) Deontology: Contemporary Expressions, Moral Constraints and Moral Goals. New York: Wiley. Feinberg, J. (1980).Rights, Justice, and the Bounds of Liberty. Princeton: Princeton Finnis, J. (1980).Natural Law and Natural Rights. New York: Oxford University Press. Hinman, L. M. (2011). Ethics: A Pluralistic Approach to Moral Theory. New York: Cengage Learning. Hohfeld, W. (2001).Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in JudicialReasoning. Burlington, VT: Dartmouth Publishing Company and Ashgate Publishing Limited. Hugman, R. (2012).Culture, Values and Ethics in Social Work: Embracing Diversity. NewYork: Routledge.  Kant, Immanuel (1964). Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. Harper and Row Publishers, Inc. Lomasky, L. (1987).Persons, Rights, and the Moral Community. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lyons, D. 1994.Rights, Welfare, and Mill’s Moral Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mackie, J. L. (1977). Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. Penguin Books, Har-mondsworth. Mill, J. (1979).Utilitarianism. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company. Mill, J.S. (1863). Utilitarianism.Marxists. Retieved March 2013, from http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mill-john-stuart/1863/utility/ch01.htm Mill, J.S. (1863).Utilitarianism. Justiceharvard. Retieved March 2013, from http://www.justiceharvard.org/resources/j-s-mill-utilitarianism-1863/ Moreland, J.P. Ethics Theories: Utilitarianism Vs. Deontological Ethics. CRI because truth mstters.Retrieved March 2013, from http://www.equip.org/articles/ethics-theories-utilitarianism-vs-deontological-ethics/ Olson, Robert G. (1967). 'Deontological Ethics'. Paul Edwards (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Collier Macmillan Rachels, J., editor (1998). Ethical Theory. Oxford Readings in Philosophy. Oxford Rainbolt, G. (1993). Rights as Normative Constraints on Others.Philosophy andPhenomenological Research53: 93–112. Rawls, J. & Rawls, J. (2009). A Theory of Justice. New York: Harvard University Press. Rawls, J. A (1999).Theory of Justice.Revised Ed. New York: Oxford University Press. Rawls, J. A Theory of Justice, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press (Cambridge, MA:1971). Rawls, J., 1971, a Theory of Justice, Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Rosenblum, Nancy (1978). Bentham's Theory of the Modern State, New York: Cambridge University Press Scarre, Geoffrey (1996). Utilitarianism, London: Routledge Schofield, Philip (2006). Utility and Democracy: the Political Thought of Jeremy Bentham, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Smart, J. J. C. and Williams, B. A. O. (1973). Utilitarianism: For and Against. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Wellman, C. (1985). A Theory of Rights: Persons Under Laws, Institutions, and Morals. Wolff, J. (1991). Robert Nozick: Property, Justice, and the Minimal State.: Stanford University Press. Read More