The Adelphia Communications Scandal John Rigas started Adelphia Communcations in 1952 with the help of two partners, but soon bought it out. The company was taken public in 1986 and as a result would have to abide by the regulations of the SEC. By the early 2000s, Adelphia was one of the top cable companies in the United States. This was the peak of a corporation that would begin a downward spiral over the first half of 2002 as a result of fraudulent use of the company’s assets at its’ shareholders expense. Members of the Rigas family drove the company to bankruptcy through rampant spending of company funds on personal expenditures (Barlaup, 2009). These expenditures included the likes of gross misuse of the company’s aircraft for personal trips by members of the Rigas family and the construction of a personal golf course on the family’s private land (Markon, 2002). This was accomplished after careful manipulation of the company’s reported numbers and fabrication of transactions within the company. Co-borrowing and self-dealing were commonplace in this time period that resulted in over 2 billion dollars’ worth of debt. All this was done under the nose of shareholders and culminated in an insurmountable debt that would lead the company to bankruptcy and to the imprisonment of multiple members of the Rigas family (Barlaup, 2009). Ethical Problem One The first blatant ethical issue in the Adelphia scandal stems from the idea that the Rigas family used corporate money for personal use. Nearly $12.8 billion was used to start construction on a personal golf course on their own private land and even more to cover the expenses of the use of the company aircraft for personal reasons. The use of this money was then hidden thro... ... middle of paper ... ...axim that you would wish all other rational people to follow, as if it were a universal law” (Pecorino, 2000). The idea in his theory is that all people should act in a way towards others that he would want other people to act towards others as according to good will and universal law. Take for example giving a performance report for a subpar employee. Do you give that person a stellar performance report because you like them as a person? Or are you up front with them and tell them their performance is lacking and needs to improve? To follow the Categorical Imperative, you give them the poor report because it is the right thing to do to help that person succeed in the future. It explores the idea that an act or a decision can still be morally good as it follows the guiding rules of the universe, even if that act does not produce maximized good (Barlaup, 2009).
In the essay titled “Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals” published in the Morality and Moral Controversies course textbook, Immanuel Kant argues that the view of the world and its laws is structured by human concepts and categories, and the rationale of it is the source of morality which depends upon belief in the existence of God. In Kant’s work, categorical imperative was established in order to have a standard rationale from where all moral requirements derive. Therefore, categorical imperative is an obligation to act morally, out of duty and good will alone. In Immanuel Kant’s writing human reason and or rational are innate morals which are responsible for helping human. Needless to say, this also allows people to be able to distinct right from wrong. For the aforementioned reasons, there is no doubt that any action has to be executed solely out of a duty alone and it should not focus on the consequence but on the motive and intent of the action. Kant supports his argument by dividing the essay into three sections. In the first section he calls attention to common sense mor...
Categorical imperatives are the basis of morality because they provoke pure reasons for every human beings actions. By the end of his work, one will understand Kant’s beliefs on morality, but to explain this, he goes into depth on the difference between hypothetical imperatives and Categorical Imperative, two different formulations of the Categorical Imperative, and a few examples. According to Kant, there are two types on imperatives, categorical imperatives and hypothetical imperatives. The Categorical Imperative is based on relation and not by means, which hypothetical imperatives are based on.
Kant argued that the Categorical Imperative (CI) was the test for morally permissible actions. The CI states: I must act in such a way that I can will that my maxim should become a universal law. Maxims which fail to pass the CI do so because they lead to a contradiction or impossibility. Kant believes this imperative stems from the rationality of the will itself, and thus it is necessary regardless of the particular ends of an individual; the CI is an innate constituent of being a rational individual. As a result, failure ...
Immanuel Kant is a popular modern day philosopher. He was a modest and humble man of his time. He never left his hometown, never married and never strayed from his schedule. Kant may come off as boring, while he was an introvert but he had a great amount to offer. His thoughts and concepts from the 1700s are still observed today. His most recognized work is from the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Here Kant expresses his idea of ‘The Good Will’ and the ‘Categorical Imperative’.
Kant argues the idea of a categorical imperative, which all humans should choose good acts based on a univers...
Kant made a distinction between two types of duties which are hypothetical imperatives and categorical imperatives. Hypothetical imperatives are rules or duties people ought to observe if certain ends are to be achieved. Hypothetical imperatives are sometimes called “if-then” imperatives, which are condit...
In Section One and Section Two of his work. Kant explores his position on his fundamental principle of morality, or his “categorical imperative”, or his idea that all actions are moral and “good” if they are performed as a duty. Such an idea is exemplified when he says, “I should never act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law” (Kant 14). The philosopher uses examples such as suicide and helping others in distress to apply his principal to possible real life situation. Kant is successful in regards to both issues. As a result, it means that categorical imperative can plausibly be understood as the fundamental principle of all morality. Kant’s reasoning for his categorical imperative is written in a way that makes the theory out to be very plausible.
... value through discussing duty in light of a priori and experience. In conclusion, he suggests that because actions depend on specific circumstances, a priori beliefs cannot be extracted from experience. People’s experiences and actions are based on circumstantial motivations; thus they can’t conform to categorical imperatives either because categorical imperatives are principles that are intrinsically good and must be obeyed despite the circumstance or situation. Kant concludes that rational beings are ends in themselves and that principle is a universal law, which comes from reason and not experience.
The year is 1952 and a young John Rigas purchased a cable company for a mere $300 in Coudersport, Pennsylvania with high hopes of building the company into a successful family owned and operated business (AICPA, 2005, para. 3); a business that would remain unparallel to the rest of its competition. In the late 1990s his dreams came to fruition; John Rigas, along with a few close family members and investors, purchased Century Communications for $5.2 billion and merged the companies together becoming the 6th largest cable company serving more than 5.6 million subscribers (AICPA, 2005, para. 4). Ensuring that the majority of Adelphia’s voting stock and control of the board remained in the hands of f...
The first formulation of the Categorical Imperative is defined by Kant to "act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”. Good moral actions are those of which are motivated by maxims which can be consistently willed that it’s generalized form be a universal law of nature. These maxims are otherwise known as universal maxims. Maxims can then be put through the Categorical Imerative test to determine their universalisability and thus the premissability of the maxim. To test a maxim we must ask ourselves whether we can consistently will for a maxim to be obeyed by everyone all the time....
“When a company called Enron… ascends to the number seven spot on the Fortune 500 and then collapses in weeks into a smoking ruin, its stock worth pennies, its CEO, a confidante of presidents, more or less evaporated, there must be lessons in there somewhere.” - Daniel Henninger.
Only a few control activities were established for Adelphia. Large sums of money from Adelphia and various subsidiaries were merged together that the Rigas family had access to and could withdraw from at any time. There was not anyone who investigated such withdrawals and if it was necessary for the operations of Adelphia. This, ultimately led to earnings being inflated known as, “co-mingling” (Adelphia Communications). Additionally, management had the ability to override various policies, in which they did. For instance, with cash transactions that exceeded one million dollars, Tim Rigas had to approve such cash transactions to his father John Rigas. With ineffective corporate governance in place (as mentioned above),
The universal law formula of the categorical imperative ("the CI") is an unconditional moral law stating that one should “act only on that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” A maxim is the motivating principle or reason for one’s actions. A moral act is an act by which its maxim can become universal law that would apply to all rational creatures. As a universal law, all rational creatures must act according to this maxim. The CI requires one to imagine a world where the maxim one wishes to act by becomes a universal law, in which all people must act according to this maxim. If one wills this maxim to become universal law that all rational creatures must follow, but there is a contradiction in conception or will, than this maxim cannot become universal law, and thus, the act is not morally permissible. A contradiction in conception occurs when by willing one’s maxim to become universal law, one is imagining a logically impossible world, for there is a contradiction in the very idea of every rational creature acting on this maxim. In contrast, a contradiction in will does not yield a logically impossible world, but there is a contradiction in willing what it is one proposes to do and in wanting the maxim to become universal law.
In this chapter I will explain Immanuel Kant concept of what is right and how the categorical imperative plays an important role in his moral philosophy.
The Good Will, The Notion of Duty and the Nature of Imperatives (both Hypothetical and Categorical).