Business Ethics The Funding of Political Parties

Question: Describe about the Business Ethics for The Funding of Political Parties. Answer: A1 In todays complex era, goals are essential to accomplish the desired results in a specified time period. Goals play a major role in both personal and professional life. In other words, it also can be said that, setting goals is an important task for the people. Moreover, with the help of defined goals, business organizations become able to accomplish their objectives in an effective way. The goals of business are differ from the goals of professions such as medicine and law (Nickerson Planken, 2015). For example, the goals of business are important part of the business process. The business goals express that what business firms expect to accomplish within a specific time period. The business goals may be related to the corporation as a whole, employees, departments, customers, or some other area of the company. The business goals are totally related to the growth and success of the businesses. Apart from this, the goals of professions such as medicine and law are related to the education and career of the people. For example, the professions goals play a key role to give direction to the career of people. Moreover, with the help of the professions goals, people decide that in which profession they want to make their career (Fried, 2011). Hence, the goals of business are totally different from the goals of professions. Yes, I do agree with the view that there is a fundamental conflict between ethics and business. The main reason behind it is that business firms want to earn more and more profits for the growth of the business. In that case, if they conduct all the business activities in an ethical manner then they would not be able to earn more profits that they desire (Halis, Akowa Tagraf, 2007). In this way, the major fundamental conflict is that ethics is pitted opposed to profit. A3 Albert Carr states that no one should think any the worse of the game of business. It is because of its standards of right and wrong is different from the customary traditions of morality in our society. Along with this, Carrs poker equivalence supports this contention in an effective manner. According to Albert Carr, business is similar to poker and in view of the fact everybody knows the rules and regulations of the game properly. Furthermore, Carr says that bluffing is not fraud in the context of business. Bluffing is an essential component of effective business and therefore it is an acceptable practice. Moreover, Carrs poker analogy also expresses that; moral standards of the private/personal life are not appropriate in the business or professional life (Shaw Barry, 2015). According to Albert Carr, truthtelling that is considered as an ethical value in the business firms must be discarded. He believes that truthtelling must be reinstated by the bluffing; and deception should be portrayed by poker in the workplaces. In this way, Carrs poker analogy supports the contention in an effective manner. On the other hand, I am not agreeing with the statement of Albert Carr. The main reason behind it is that, according to me, business is not a game. All the participants have their dignity. They have their own choices. Moreover, I believe that truthtelling is an important aspect of business. Bluffing is unethical and hazardous for the growth of the business. The life of people does not have separate moral spheres. Hence, people should operate their business in an ethical manner. They are also obliged to perform their responsibilities towards the societies in which they survive (Shaw, 2016). In this way, business is not a game and employers must follow the basic rules, law, and ethical custom for the success of the business. B4 No, I am not agree with the statement that, Companies have a right to donate money to political parties. It's the companys money, so they can do whatever they want with it. There are numerous reasons behind this. The major reason is that business corporations do not have their own funds to run the businesses. The investors and shareholders invest their money within business firms. The business firms use the money of their investors and shareholders to operate their business and to improve their marketability as well as profitability at the global level. In that case, business corporations would be obliged to take permission of their investors and shareholders before the donation of money to political parties (Ewing, Rowbottom, Tham, 2011). Along with this, the investors and shareholders have the rights to know that where the firms are using their money. They invest their money to get the higher profits. In this situation, if companies donate money to political parties then they w ant to be sure that they will achieve their profits on the regular time periods. On the other hand, according to me, corporate donations have an effect on the rights of stakeholders of the organizations. It may influence the profits of the employees and shareholders of the businesses. Apart from this, it is also true that, companies have a right to donate money to political parties. But, it does not mean that they can do whatever they want with the money. The major objective of business firms must be the pleasure of its employees, shareholders, and customers. The business corporations must take care that their donations are not influencing the profits and rights of the people (Kolb, 2008). In this way, it is clear that, companies may donate their money to political parties. But, there are some conditions that they must consider before making donation to political parties. C1 Yes, I am agree with the statement that, Sweatshops cannot be unethical, because after all people choose to work in them. A sweatshop refers as the business that infringes the laws related to the child labor, safety, wage, health, etc. on the regular basis. Along with this, according the department of labor, sweatshop definitely violates two or more essential labor laws such as: minimum wage, fire safety laws, child labor and so on. People also know that if they are choosing sweatshops then they are ready to accept atrocious working conditions. The Sweatshops are already unethical and the workers know it very well (Hartman, 2013). Moreover, sexual harassment, minimum wages, oral abuse, non-payment of wages, illicit firings, no benefits, etc. are the unethical working conditions that people choose to work in sweatshop. Currently, the corrupt practices of sweatshop are going on all around the world. Business firms are converting in sweatshops to hire more and more people at lower co sts. Employees especially women workers are sexually as well as physically verbally harassed under poor working environments or conditions. On the other hand, it is true that, Sweatshops are already unethical. It does not mean that they cannot be more unscrupulous. Sweatshops can be more unethical. They can take advantages of their types of business. For example, if they are paying minimum wages then they may refuse to pay to the workers. Along with this, they may force to women workers to spend their nights in the sweatshops. They may take benefit of the nature of the work. Also, the employers may force to the workers to work 120 hours per week in place of 60-80 hours/week (Oliphant, 2013). In this way, it can be assumed that, sweatshops can be more unethical as a result of the nature of their business. C4 The standard theory that is proposed by De George is not the theory of whistleblowing. The theory is related to justified whistleblowing. Along with this, in the standard theory of justified whistleblowing, De George states three major conditions that make whistleblowing (an act) morally permissible or justified. For example, the harm that would be done by the business organization to the public is serious as well as significant. In other words, a business firm may do serious harm throughout its product to the public for the safety of the user of the product. This is the first condition that makes whistleblowing ethically permissible (Shaw Barry, 2015). Moreover, if an employee recognizes a serious threat that may be harmful to the public and also informs about the threat to the superior; then this act would also be morally permissible. The main reason behind it is that a threat of a specific product may dangerous for the life of the people. Along with this, if an employee does not receive proper response of the supervisor about the concern or complain; then he/she may fatigue internal procedures or also may inform to the board of directors of the company. This is the third condition that makes whistleblowing ethically permissible. Moreover, whistleblowing is ever morally obligatory. The main reason behind it is the whistleblowing focuses on the ethics, morals, and values. Also, with the help of whistleblowing, people of the business firms may take actions against the wrong doings. Whistleblowing plays a major role to reduce the discriminations and conflicts among the members of the organizations (Tavani Grodzinsky, 2014). In this way, it is a moral act that motivates all the people to act ethically. So, it must be morally obligatory. References Ewing, K., Rowbottom, J., Tham, J. (2011). The Funding of Political Parties: Where Now? NY: Routledge. Fried, R.M. (2011). Igniting Your True Purpose and Passion: A businesslike guide to fulfill your professional goals and personal dreams. USA: BookBaby. Halis, M., Akowa, O., Tagraf, H. (2007). The relationship between ethics and quality: Conflicts and common grounds. Serbian Journal of Management, 2(2), 127-145. Hartman, E.M. (2013). Virtue in Business: Conversations with Aristotle. USA: Cambridge University Press. Kolb, R.W. (2008). Encyclopedia of Business Ethics and Society, Volume 1. USA: SAGE. Nickerson, C. Planken, B. (2015). Introducing Business English. NY: Routledge. Oliphant, J. (2013). My Revision Notes: OCR A2 Religious Studies: Religious Ethics. UK: Hachette UK. Shaw, W.H. (2016). Business Ethics. USA: Cengage Learning. Shaw, W.H., Barry, V. (2015). Moral Issues in Business. USA: Cengage Learning. Tavani, H. T., Grodzinsky, F. S. (2014). Trust, betrayal, and whistle-blowing: Reflections on the Edward Snowden case. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society, 44(3), 8-13.