Singer began his argument by using an analogy of a young boy in danger of drowning in a pond . The basic premise of the analogy was that if you were to see a young boy in danger of drowning on your way to teach some class, then chances are you would stop and save that boy. The reason why Singer states you would do so is because you don’t have anything of significant value to lose. In that situation, a human life would outweigh being late to whatever class you had to teach or ruining some clothes that could be replaced. Then, he takes this analogy and uses it to explain what the “obligation to assist” is and why he feels we are obligated to assist. He argues that if we could see the reasoning behind his analogy of the drowning boy then it …show more content…
This is his basic framework for his actual argument on the corporate responsibilities of shareholders. He explains that corporations only exist to maximize profits for their shareholders. Therefore when it comes to managers who work in the corporations, Friedman believes that this is the promise that they make to shareholders. The flaw in this thinking is that if businesses ONLY exist to make a profit, then how many boundaries should a manager be allowed to overstep in keeping their promise? For example, let’s pretend you’re a manager working at a company and you’ve stumbled across information that could potentially harm your company’s reputation and in turn will probably hurt their bottom line. This is information that should be made public because it threatens the safety of the consumers of that buy the product. Is the manager in this case suppose to turn a blind eye to all the safety issues so they can keep bringing in more revenue? I think not. This argument does not hold up when it comes to issues like safety and health. While businesses do on some level exist so they can make money, that should not always be the primary consideration because some things are more …show more content…
The idea behind stakeholder theory is that it’s all about making the stakeholder which is the group that has a stake in the company , better off. In this model, corporate responsibility involves anyone who has direct ties to the company. For example, as an employee you are responsible to do things such as “...follow the instructions of management most of the time, to speak favorably about the company, and to be responsible citizens in the local communities in which the company operates.” In return for this form of loyalty and their labor, the company is expected to do things such as be there for them during hard times and other standard employee benefits such as wages and security. The whole idea behind corporate responsibility in this theory is that who you have a responsibility to becomes wider if you focus on the stakeholders. This could work if it wasn’t for the fact that even if you get something out of being invested, sometimes that isn’t enough. For example, if you work for a company and you catch your CEO doing some shady stuff. As an employee, you’re invested in whether or not this company continues to thrive under the current CEO. But your loyalty isn’t deserved if the company is engaging in morally questionable behavior. This idea of corporate responsibility fails when applied to real life scenarios in companies that might engage in misconduct or unethical practices. In general, I think that the
The first premise of his argument (P1) states Most people would agree with this premise, regardless of their specific reasoning. Connecting suffering and death to a lack of basic needs seems clear and its characterization as bad seems to be in alignment with our common sense. However, some might still object for reasons that would be challenging or impossible to refute. In spite of any such objections, the premise can be accepted and those who disagree should step away at this point.
In this essay we are going to analyze the main ideas included in “Feeding the Hungry” by Jan Narveson and the main aspects included in “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” by Peter Singer. In “Feeding the Hungry” the author stated that each of us has a right to liberty that includes choosing whether or not to help those who are starving. On the contrary in “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” the author argues that affluent people ought to give large amounts of money to help the world’s poor.
Singer’s utilitarian theory points out his main arguments for his statement “If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it” (375). He supports this by suggesting that were are morally obligated to prevent bad no matter the “proximity or distance” , “the number of other people who, in respect to that evil, are in the same situation we are” and that we ought to prevent hunger by sacrificing only their luxuries, which are of lesser moral importance (378). This meaning that we shouldn’t limit our aide to only those that we can see or that we know because morally there is no different between our obligation to them and our obligation to those overseas. Also, we should limit our aide to what we think ...
Singer starts with the base of assumption that suffering and death from lack of the essentials of food, water, shelter, and proper medical assistance are bad. I find no problem with accepting this assumption as it is consistent with most widely accepted moral theories. Singer continues by stating “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it”(Singer, Pg.231). Like his first statement, this one is easy to swallow. No moral code, save for maybe ethical egoism or nihilism, would attempt to refute either of his premises. His final conclusion is that if it is in our power to stop suffering and death from lack of the essentials, without sacrificing anything of comparable moral worth, we are morally obligated to do so. This essentially removes the current definition of charity, making giving money to famine relief, not a supererogatory act, but a moral duty of all people who have the ability to do so. Singer admits that this would drastically change the way people live their lives. Instead of living with any disposable income, people would be giving money to those who are living under bad or unsurvivable conditions. But wi...
Carroll, A. B., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2006). Business & society: Ethics and stakeholder management. Mason, Ohio [u.a.: Thomson/South-Western.
To back up this argument, Singer gives a simple example. Imagine you are walking home one day and you see a young child drowning in a shallow pond. Singer obviously says that you ought to walk over to the water and save the child in danger.
Singer's argument appears to be mainly an appeal to logos, in his argument he reasons why he thinks it is morally required of people to give for famine relief and other needs. However, his argument relies heavily on pathos as well. The main thrust of his argument is this “If I am walking past a shallow pond and see a child dro...
According with the textbook and other internet sources, Milton Friedman described in his thesis that the main goal of a business is to generate gains or profits. As a result, several business have been using such thesis as a justification for some of the decisions they made. In the case of “A Civil Action” we had the two companies contaminating the little town water with chemicals used during the elaboration of their products. The use of trichloroethylene was apparently causing some of the children of the place to developed respiratory and other cancerous diseases such as leukemia. After the death of several children, people on town began to worry about the situation and everything pointed out ...
...impoverished conditions could be saved. It is often said that people are generally motivated by self-interest. Singer believes that the existence of altruism in society is higher than most people assume. Therefore, if people give priority to this altruism, there existences will be additionally satisfying and just. It brings me to the question of whether material items are nearly as important as saving a child from dying? Singer’s interpretation of morality and the steps to alleviate global poverty reflect a truly utilitarian perspective. In deciding between what is right and wrong he often considers what people ought to do. He recognizes deep down people understand the honest truth is always the one they’d rather not do out of selfish desires. Singer’s novel is a paradigm of moral philosophy as it is well contended, engaging, and an important topic in society today.
Singer’s principle ‘If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance we ought, morally, to do it,’ outlines such high obligations for people of wealthy countries that are too demanding. I do not agree with Peter Singer’s principle. This principle limits my freedom of choice, my freedom to act. It fails to recognize the morals and ethics I value as a person. It requires me to favor those who are physically distant rather than my neighbor; furthermore, the drowning child example does not support his thesis because physical distance affects the amount of obligation I feel to help others. And lastly it rejects other moral concerns we have, that may be of equal importance.
This paper will have a detailed discussion on the shareholder theory of Milton Friedman and the stakeholder theory of Edward Freeman. Friedman argued that “neo-classical economic theory suggests that the purpose of the organisations is to make profits in their accountability to themselves and their shareholders and that only by doing so can business contribute to wealth for itself and society at large”. On the other hand, the theory of stakeholder suggests that the managers of an organisation do not only have the duty towards the firm’s shareholders; rather towards the individuals and constituencies who contribute to the company’s wealth, capacity and activities. These individuals or constituencies can be the shareholders, employees, customers, local community and the suppliers (Freeman 1984 pp. 409–421).
Stakeholders are those groups or individual in society that have a direct interest in the performance and activities of business. The main stakeholders are employees, shareholders, customers, suppliers, financiers and the local community. Stakeholders may not hold any formal authority over the organization, but theorists such as Professor Charles Handy believe that a firm’s best long-term interests are served by paying close attention to the needs of each of these stakeholders. The modern view is that a firm has responsibilities to all its stakeholders i.e. everyone with a legitimate interest in the company. These include shareholders, competitors, government, employees, directors, distributors, customers, sub-contractors, pressure groups and local community. Although a company’s directors owes a legal duty to the shareholders, they also have moral responsibilities to other stakeholder group’s objectives in their entirely. As a firm can’t meet all stakeholders’ objectives in their entirety, they have to compromise. A company should try to serve the needs of these groups or individuals, but whilst some needs are common, other needs conflict. By the development of this second runway, the public and stakeholders are affected in one or other way and it can be positive and negative.
...ve the company profits, and under a legal framework established by the federal government to control the acceptable business behavior that somewhat affects the society. On the other hand, the second model, suggested by Edward Freeman, is the stakeholder theory or the wide view that generates the opposite idea of socially responsible behavior of a corporation. The theory argues that the shareholders-centered idea is incomplete, since there are stakeholders, who are affected by a business decision and also can affect a corporation involved (Fassin, 2012). By definition, according to Beauchamp et al. (2009, p.61), the parties, which have a stake; an investment, benefit, any claims for considerations or influences in the activities that make up the business are defined as stakeholders. This includes stockholders, employees, customers, managers, suppliers, local community
What is a stakeholder; they are groups or individuals with a vested interest in the outcome of an organization. Anyone that has added to its success or progression and has also benefited from the organizations success. Here we have two types of stakeholders, internal and external those are within your company. The internal stakeholders are those within the company that will directly benefit monetary from their influences to the company achievement, internal stakeholders are employees, managers, and the owners. While you’re external stakeholders are those that are affected by the concerns and results from the company decisions, they are your consumers, vendor, and government, all with different responsibilities as stakeholders
Stakeholder is main part in the business in the 21th century. As firms that want to grow and develop their business globally, stakeholders must be the main part that managers must take in account. Therefore, firms that focus on stakeholder concerns and interests will be able to improve relationships with their stakeholders which may make it easy to them to operate and lead to ideas for services or products that will address and satisfy stakeholder needs and wants (Zollinger P, 2009). If managers want to optimize firm’s social and financial performance, their vision on shareholder, community and employee’s interests should gather along with other vision of stakeholder groups whereas if the managers and stakeholders’ vision do not gather, that will be caused less stakeholders’ responses and cooperative toward the management as well as they may contest managerial decisions. Thus, the consequence of less cooperative and responses from stakeholders may affect firm’s financial and/or social performance negatively (Tashman, P, & Real in, J, 2013). According to Clarkson (1995) stated that the stakeholders can be divided into two types, first type is primary stakeholders who have either official contractual or formal relationships with the organization such as customers, employees, suppliers and shareholders. While, the second type is secondary stakeholders like, non-profit organizations, competitors, local community and government who do not have such contrasts. However, Homburg, C, Stierl, M, & Bornemann, T (2013) claim customers and employees are the most important in the primary stakeholders because they are the most influence on firm performance.