Hmv Ethical Issues Gift Cards
HMV VOUCHERS A TOCKEN OF ETHICS
Q2
“There is one and only one social responsibility of business–to use it resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud”(Friedman). When the question is asked, are corporations moral agents capable of acting morally and immorally just as people are? The answer to the question is somewhat not as easy as the question being asked. Corporate responsibility could be argued that a corporation has a set of rules and objectives to be adhered to, carried out and achieved, creating the idea that they are morally responsible for these actions and acting like an individual. On the other side Velasquez separates corporation nonresponsibility into two views “Intermediate” and “Concession”. Velasquez suggests that when an individual or a group inside the organisation or corporation “knowingly” engage in objectives for the better or the worst of the company it “makes perfect sense” to suggests that actions taken both moral and immoral leaves the organisations “morally responsible” for these actions. However it is also key to the understanding that the individuals are the “primary bearers” of moral responsibility, Velasquez also makes the argument that individuals or groups can make decisions or actions based on the corporate structure and policies stating they “have an enormous influence on the choices, beliefs, and behaviours of corporate employees" whilst also reiterating that the final action or decision is made by the individual and suggesting that "corporate actions flow wholly out of human choices and behaviours." Friedman’s views are contrastable with Velasquez theories of moral and immoral responsibilities. Understanding that actions both by individuals and by corporations have consequences is key to understanding ethical questions and theory.
Ethical scandals in Ireland over the last
Q2
“There is one and only one social responsibility of business–to use it resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud”(Friedman). When the question is asked, are corporations moral agents capable of acting morally and immorally just as people are? The answer to the question is somewhat not as easy as the question being asked. Corporate responsibility could be argued that a corporation has a set of rules and objectives to be adhered to, carried out and achieved, creating the idea that they are morally responsible for these actions and acting like an individual. On the other side Velasquez separates corporation nonresponsibility into two views “Intermediate” and “Concession”. Velasquez suggests that when an individual or a group inside the organisation or corporation “knowingly” engage in objectives for the better or the worst of the company it “makes perfect sense” to suggests that actions taken both moral and immoral leaves the organisations “morally responsible” for these actions. However it is also key to the understanding that the individuals are the “primary bearers” of moral responsibility, Velasquez also makes the argument that individuals or groups can make decisions or actions based on the corporate structure and policies stating they “have an enormous influence on the choices, beliefs, and behaviours of corporate employees" whilst also reiterating that the final action or decision is made by the individual and suggesting that "corporate actions flow wholly out of human choices and behaviours." Friedman’s views are contrastable with Velasquez theories of moral and immoral responsibilities. Understanding that actions both by individuals and by corporations have consequences is key to understanding ethical questions and theory.
Ethical scandals in Ireland over the last