Case

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 23
  • Published : April 17, 2011
Open Document
Text Preview
(WORD COUNT: 1326 WORDS, KINDLY NOTE THAT, THE WORD COUNT DOESN’T INCLUDE THE COVER PAGE, INDEX PAGE AND THE REFERENCE PAGE OF THIS ASSIGNMENT PAPER)

MODULE: BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT ETHICS: MD4033 STUDENT NAME AND ID: ASHUTOSH GHOSH: S20462422

SR. NO. 1

INDEX
Does the closing of a plant when it ceases to be profitable violate the “moral minimum”? Who are the affected stakeholders, and how should their

PAGE NO. 3

2

interests be considered? Who should take primary responsibility for those laid off or

5

3

terminated because of a plant closing?

7

4

REFERENCES

9

2

MODULE: BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT ETHICS: MD4033 STUDENT NAME AND ID: ASHUTOSH GHOSH: S20462422

Does the closing of a plant when it ceases to be profitable violate the “moral minimum”?

Simon, Powers and Gunnemann states that corporate responsibility includes the concept of, “everyone has „moral minimum‟ obligation of not to impose social injury”, there are two major points in explaining the difference, one is “affirmative duties”, that is actively do something good and the other is “negative injunction”, that is nothing to do bad (Simon, Powers, & Gunnemann, 1997, p. 62). Robbery could be an example, where a “negative injunction” could be that one person should not steal anything from the other whereas the “affirmative duty” could be the obligation made by the bystander when the action takes place to stop the robbery. According to the Utilitarian theory, the worth moral actions or practices is determined solely by the related consequences where they choose the action which minimizes the harms to its best and maximized the benefits (Simon, Powers, & Gunnemann, 1997, p. 21). According to the authors the moral minimum of the business is to only follow the “negative injunction” against causing harm to the society. A business may take “affirmative action” to stop social harm, and still this action would not be considered in the „moral minimum‟, implying that however one may choose to limit the conception of social responsibility; one cannot exclude this negative injunction. Although reasons may exist why certain persons or institutions cannot or shouldn‟t

3

MODULE: BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT ETHICS: MD4033 STUDENT NAME AND ID: ASHUTOSH GHOSH: S20462422

be required pursue moral or social good in all situations, there are many fewer reasons why one should be excused from the injunction against harming others". There is a thin line between the „affirmative duty” and a “negative injunction” which is generally not obvious and thus they are certainly overlapping between the need to take a positive action and the need of not to take negative action (Simon, Powers, & Gunnemann, 1997, pp. 62-62). In this context morality is concerned with practices defining right and wrong. (Beauchamp & Bowie, Morality and Ethical Theory, 1997, p. 1) From the given case, the answer could be “may be”. The reasoning to this could be either an “affirmative duty” or an “negative injunction”. While considering the above case, it can be analyzed that the closing of the plant would affect two groups of people. 1. Large number of small stockholders who loosen their retirement savings if the plant did not close. 2. Large number of employees if the plant closes is the “negative injunction” which says closing of the plant will affect the livelihood of the workers working in the plant or on the other hand is the “negative injunction” relates, not to provide extra benefits and funding to the plant as it could affect the livelihood of the stock holders. In both the above scenario the moral minimum would be affected.

4

MODULE: BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT ETHICS: MD4033 STUDENT NAME AND ID: ASHUTOSH GHOSH: S20462422

Who are the affected stakeholders, and how should their interests be considered?

By R. Edward Freeman, “Stakeholders are those groups who have a stake in or claim on the firm, which includes suppliers, customers, employees, stockholders...
tracking img