Bài giảng Business Law - Chapter 4: Business Ethics, Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Governance, and Critical Thinking

Copyright © 2013 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McGraw-Hill/Irwin1The Nature of LawThe Resolution of Private DisputesBusiness and The ConstitutionBusiness Ethics, Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Governance, and Critical ThinkingFoundations of American LawPARTBusiness Ethics, Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Governance, and Critical ThinkingPAETRHC4It is not what a lawyer tells me I may do; but what humanity, reason, and justice, tell me I ought to do. Edmund BurkeAppreciate strengths & weaknesses of various ethical theoriesLearn to apply guidelines for ethical decision making Recognize critical thinking errorsBe an ethical leaderLearning ObjectivesBusiness EthicsEthics is the study of how people should actEthics also refers to the values and beliefs related to the nature of human conductBased on ethical standards or moral orientationBusiness ethics: business conduct that seeks to balance the values of society with the goal of profitable operationEthical TheoriesTeleological ethical theories focus on the consequences of a decisionDeontological ethical theories focus on decisions or actions aloneRecognize that ethical values are as diverse as individual humansRights TheoryBasic deontological view: certain rights are fundamentalKantianism (from Immanuel Kant) applies the categorical imperative: judge an action by applying it universallyModern Rights Theories soften Kant’s absolute duty approach, yet protect fundamental rights (a strength of the theory)Justice TheoryBasic teleological view: a society’s benefits and burdens should be allocated fairly among its membersJohn Rawls argued for the:Greatest Equal Liberty Principle – each person has an equal right to basic rights and libertiesDifference Principle – inequalities acceptable only if elimination would harm the poorest classUtilitarianismBasic teleological view: maximize utility for society as a whole with cost-benefit analysisJeremy Bentham & Stuart MillStrength of theory is in the simplicity of a cost-benefit analysisCriticism of theory: how does a person measure all the costs and benefits?Profit MaximizationBasic teleological view: maximize the firm’s long-run profits within the limits of lawFrom economists Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, and Thomas SowellIf legal, then ethicalStrength of the theory is focus on profits as a mechanism for creating social benefitCriticism of the theory: underlying assumptions may be flawedBusiness StakeholdersStakeholders are internal and external to the firm and include society as a wholeStakeholders have their own interests in the particular business actions of a companyExamining stakeholder interests supports efforts by a company to engage in corporate social responsibilityGuidelines for Ethical Decision MakingThinking CriticallyEthical decision making requires critical thinking, or the ability to evaluate arguments logically, honestly, and objectivelyLearn to identify the fallacies in thinkingNon Sequiturs and Appeals to PityA non sequitur is a conclusion that does not follow from the facts Result: they miss the pointAppeals to pity gains support for an argument by focusing on a victim’s predicamentOften also a non sequitur!False AnalogiesA false analogy is arguing that since a set of facts are similar to another set of facts, the two are alike in other ways Company X and Company Y are both largeCompany X did activity 1, so Company Y should also do activity 1Both are sandwiches, but not the sameCircular Reasoning and Argumentum ad PopulumIf a person assumes the thing the person is trying to prove, circular reasoning occurs (begging the question)Example: we should tell the truth because lying is wrongArgumentum ad populum is an emotional appeal to popular beliefsThe bandwagon fallacy is essentially the same flaw in reasoningArgumentum ad Baculum and Argumentum ad HominemArgumentum ad baculum uses threats or fear to support a position Often occurs in unequal bargaining situationArgumentum ad hominem (argument against the man) attacks the person, not his or her reasoningArgument from Authority and False CauseArgument from authority relies on an opinion because of the speaker’s status as an expert or position of authority rather than the quality of the speaker’s argumentIf a speaker observes two events and concludes there is a causal link between them when there is no such link, a false cause fallacy has occurred The Gambler’s Fallacy & Appeals to TraditionThe gambler’s fallacy results from the mistaken belief that independent prior outcomes affect future outcomesExample: the chances of getting heads when flipping a coin do not improve with each flipIf a speaker declares that something should be done a certain way because that is the way it has been done in the past, the speaker has made an appeal to tradition Reductio ad absurdumReductio ad absurdum carries an argument to its logical end, but does not consider whether it is an inevitable or probable resultOften called the slippery slope fallacyExample: “Eating fast food causes weight gain. If you are overweight you will die of a heart attack. Fast food leads to heart attacks.” Lure of The New and Sunk Cost FallacyThe lure of the new argument is the opposite of appeals to tradition because the argument claims since something is new it must be betterThe sunk cost fallacy is an attempt to recover investments (time, money, etc.) by spending more“Throwing good money after bad” behavior4-*Thought QuestionIf your boss asked you to shred documents as part of a “routine document retention policy” and you knew the documents were important to a criminal investigation, what would you do?