Globalisation and its effect on Individuals/Humanity
Globalisation is good for individuals but bad for humanity.
While Globalisation may have many beneficial traits that have improved economical, social and political aspects of life here on Earth, I believe it still remains a detrimental operating method when applied to humanity as a whole. Globalisation itself is rife with international exploitation and promotes unfair practice in many ways. The term globalisation refers to a modern phenomenon based on the connection of nations, cultures or businesses, often through economic activity (Archibugi & Iammarino 2002). Specifically it refers to these groups becoming interdependent with one another on a global scale and therefore having more of a potential impact when decisions or actions are carried out (Crane & Matten 2007). Much can be said to refute or support the statement that globalisation is bad for humanity and beneficial to individuals but a lot of the ethical theories concerning this topic do seem to support the claim. It is important to acknowledge that humanity can suffer through the impact of globalisation because if we don’t things will become worse for the planet as a whole and leave only certain individuals to benefit.
It is well known that globalisation is the cause of many “ethical problems for the manager of the multinational corporation” (Velasquez 2000, p. 343). The way that they choose to react to this potential for injustice seems to be largely dependent on the ethical principles that can be applied to the situation. Ethical relativism is one theory that has perhaps been a contributor to the failings of globalisation in the business world and the multinational managers implementing this theory aren’t even fully responsible as this contemporary approach is one that has been approved since the early 1970’s (Velasquez 2000). Ethical relativism asks that to consider whether something is right or wrong one simply needs to apply the cultural norms of the society that the situation is taking
While Globalisation may have many beneficial traits that have improved economical, social and political aspects of life here on Earth, I believe it still remains a detrimental operating method when applied to humanity as a whole. Globalisation itself is rife with international exploitation and promotes unfair practice in many ways. The term globalisation refers to a modern phenomenon based on the connection of nations, cultures or businesses, often through economic activity (Archibugi & Iammarino 2002). Specifically it refers to these groups becoming interdependent with one another on a global scale and therefore having more of a potential impact when decisions or actions are carried out (Crane & Matten 2007). Much can be said to refute or support the statement that globalisation is bad for humanity and beneficial to individuals but a lot of the ethical theories concerning this topic do seem to support the claim. It is important to acknowledge that humanity can suffer through the impact of globalisation because if we don’t things will become worse for the planet as a whole and leave only certain individuals to benefit.
It is well known that globalisation is the cause of many “ethical problems for the manager of the multinational corporation” (Velasquez 2000, p. 343). The way that they choose to react to this potential for injustice seems to be largely dependent on the ethical principles that can be applied to the situation. Ethical relativism is one theory that has perhaps been a contributor to the failings of globalisation in the business world and the multinational managers implementing this theory aren’t even fully responsible as this contemporary approach is one that has been approved since the early 1970’s (Velasquez 2000). Ethical relativism asks that to consider whether something is right or wrong one simply needs to apply the cultural norms of the society that the situation is taking