my second assignment

my second assignment of business ethics

what must i do.........

- i have to pick any topic in business ethics that i like
-  make a question of that topic i choose
- answer that question

utilitarianism
1) what are utilitarianism
2) types of utilitarianism

                  



 Utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory.It is the most well-known and prevalent forms of consequential. Consequentialism is an umbrella term for a range of moral theories that state the rightness or wrongness of an action should be based solely on the results produced by that action.There have been many different forms of theory of consequentialist nature throughout history. When modern utilitarisnism's most influential exponent, Jeremy Bentham, set out his moral theory in 1789, it was not an unfamiliar concept. Utilitarians are consequentialists with a welfarist theory of value, that is, who focus on welfare, well-being, or happiness as the relevant consequence. There are a number of different theoretical choices to be made within the consequentialist and utilitarian families, especially about how to understand value and how to  understand the function from value to duty or obligation. Different conceptions of utilitarianism result from different conceptions of happiness or well-being. Some, such as Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), interpret happiness in subjective terms as consisting in or depending importantly upon the person’s contingent and variable psychological states. For instance, hedonism claims that happiness consists in pleasure and the absence of pain. Pleasure might be thought of as a qualitatively homogenous mental state or sensation or, alternatively, as any mental state or sensation that one wants to continue and will, ceteris paribus, take steps to prolong. Similarly, pain might be thought of as a qualitatively homogeneous mental state or sensation or, alternatively, as any mental state or sensation that one dislikes and will, ceteris paribus, take steps to discontinue. Others construe happiness as consisting in the satisfaction of actual or idealized desire. Still others conceive of happiness or welfare in more objective terms as consisting in perfection (e.g. the realization of one’s essential  capacities) or some list of objective goods (e.g. knowledge, achievement, friendship).                       Types of Utilitarianism.. The first variant of is hedonic. It was popularised by the irrepressible social Jeremy Bentham. He took the view that something was good for people if it resulted in sentient pleasure. In other words, if it resulted in some conscious feeling of contentment or euphoria. Thus, the moral society was one that maximised sentient pleasure.

The hedonic version of utilitarianism is frequently caricatured. It would seem to encourage us to become a "mad assembly of pleasure hogs constantly out for a buzz" (goodin's words). But Goodin counters this by saying Bentham's theory was simply premised on the factual accuracy of the hedonic psychology.
For example, on the assumption that it was empirically true that people acted so as to obtain pleasure. This can easily be corrected with a more accurate and sophisticated psychology. This bring us to the second variant: preference utilitarianism. This replaces the pictures of human beings as short-term pleasure hogs, with the picture of human beings as longer-them preference-satisficers. Actually, "replace" is not a good word because hedonic utilitarianism is really subsumed within preference utilitarianism: short term pleasures are a subset of preferences.                                                         
 
A problem for both of these versions of utilitarianism is that they are egalitarian in their treatment of pleasures or preferences. In other word, the goal is simply one of maximisation, the quality of what it being maximised is irrelvant. The sadist and the saint all count for the same or, in Bentham's famous words, "pushpin [a child's game] is as good as poetry".
 This seemed unpalatable to some ( John Stuart Mill and G. E. Moore ), so much so that they tried to introduce some qualitative distinctions between pleasures or preferences. A certain weighting could then be given to the superior of higher pleasures or preferences.

Goodin thinks there is a more convincing answer to this worry : welfare utilitarianism. This variant does not focus on subjective pleasures or preferences. Instead, it focuses on objective welfare interests. For example, life expectancy. access to education, employment, health, access to housing and so on. 

video

                                                             

                                                             video corporate governance

                                   

video

video about business ethics...

the reasons why business ethics is considered oxymoron?

REASONS BUSINESS ETHICS  is considered oxymoron
By oxymoron, we mean the bringing together of two apparently contradictory concepts such as cheerful pessimist or deafening silence.

The question determine if Business Ethic can be an oxymoron is very relevant because these two areas seem to be very incompatible. Indeed if we have a look to their respective definitions they do not work together first. Succeeding in business is largely about advancing our own private interests, aggressively competing against other people, beating them out for the same prize, and having unlimited ambition for money, position, and power. The moral life by contrast, focuses on our duties to hurt anyone (deliberately or accidentally ), to place other people's interest ahead of our own when it's called for, and always to treat others with the dignity and respect they deserve. An oxymoron is the juxtaposition of two apparently contradictory words or concepts. The very contradiction that is inherent in Business Ethics is an indication of the challenge that individuals who work for organisations face when they have to take decisions that involves conflicts of interest. Aim of business and ethics are contradictory and incompatible (apparently). Business ethics put values in conflict according to Trevino and Nelson on 2007. The global concept of business is fundamentally based on the principle of competation for limited resources. That means the practice of maximizing one's gains at the expense of others. The outcome is the creation of a hierarchy of those who have and those who have not. Therefore the aim is "to eliminate" the others in orders in order to obtain more. As said Mielton Friedman "The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits"

                                                                                                                               

Principles of corporate governance

Contemporary discussions of corporate governance tend to refer to principles raised in three documents released since 1990: The  Cadbury Report (UK, 1992), the Principles of Corporate Governance (OECD, 1998 and 2004), the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (US, 2002). The Cadbury and OECD reports present general principals around which businesses are expected to operate to assure proper governance. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, informally referred to as Sarbox or Sox, is an attempt by the federal government in the United States to legislate several of the principles recommended in the Cadbury and OECD reports.There are :

1. Rights and equitable treatment of shareholders: Organizations should respect the rights of shareholders and help shareholders to exercise those rights. They can help shareholders exercise their rights by openly and effectively communicating information and bencouraging shareholders to participate in general meetings.
2. Interests of other stakeholders:Organizations should recognize that they have legal, contractual, social, and market driven obligations to non-shareholder stakeholders, including employees, investors, creditors, suppliers, local communities, customers, and policy makers.          
3. Role and responsibilities of the board: The board needs sufficient relevant skills and understanding to review and challenge management performance. It also needs adequate size and appropriate levels of independence and commitment    
   
4. Integrity and ethical behaviour:Integrity should be a fundamental requirement in choosing corporate officers and board members. Organizations should develop a code of conduct for their directors and executives that promotes ethical and responsible decision making.              
   
5. Disclosure and transparency:Organizations should clarify and make publicly known the roles and responsibilities of board and management to provide stakeholders with a level of accountability. They should also implement procedures to independently verify and safeguard the integrity of the company's financial reporting. Disclosure of material matters concerning the organization should be timely and balanced to ensure that all investors have access to clear, factual information.        

what is Corporate governance??

Corporate governance is the system by which companies are directed and controlled. It involves regulatory and market mechanisms, and the roles and relationships between a company’s management, its board, its shareholders and other stakeholders, and the goals for which the corporation is governed.

                                                                                      

Lately, corporate governance has been comprehensively defined as a system of law and sound approaches by which corporations are directed and controlled focusing on the internal and external corporate structures with the intention of monitoring the actions of management and directors and thereby mitigating agency risks stemming from the devious deeds of these corporate officers

      

In contemporary business corporations, the main external stakeholder groups are shareholders, debtholders, trade creditors, suppliers, customers and communities affected by the corporation's activities.Internal stakeholders are the board of directors, executives, and other employees.

Much of the contemporary interest in corporate governance is concerned with mitigation of the conflicts of interests between stakeholders. Ways of mitigating or preventing these conflicts of interests include the processes, customs, policies, laws, and institutions which have an impact on the way a company is controlled. An important theme of corporate governance is the nature and extent of accountability of people in the business.

                                                              

A related but separate thread of discussions focuses on the impact of a corporate governance system on economic efficiency, with a strong emphasis on shareholders' welfare.large firms where there is a separation of ownership and management and no controlling shareholder, the principal–agent issue arises between upper-management (the "agent") which may have very different interests, and by definition considerably more information, than shareholders (the "principals"). The danger arises that rather than overseeing management on behalf of shareholders, the board of directors may become insulated from shareholders and beholden to management.This aspect is particularly present in contemporary public debates and developments in regulatory policy.

                                                                                                      

Economic analysis has resulted in a literature on the subject.One source defines corporate governance as "the set of conditions that shapes the ex post bargaining over the quasi-rents generated by a firm. The firm itself is modelled as a governance structure acting through the mechanisms of contract.

There has been renewed interest in the corporate governance practices of modern corporations, particularly in relation to accountability, since the high-profile collapses of a number of large corporations during 2001-2002, most of which involved accounting fraud. Corporate scandals of various forms have maintained public and political interest in the regulation of corporate governance. In the U.S., these include Enron Corporation and MCI Inc. (formerly WorldCom). Their demise is associated with the U.S. federal government passing the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002, intending to restore public confidence in corporate governance. Comparable failures in Australia are associated with the eventual passage of the CLERP 9 reforms. Similar corporate failures in other countries stimulated increased regulatory interest in Italy.