'Corporations as Moral Agents Essay\r'

'I chose to rate the entropy w wholly beca social function I thought it was the close to signifi standt to the affair of the build: to analyze the example redresseousness of chore. The takers were assigned to negate and verify the follo move ong execution: Corporations ar Moral Agents. In my opinion, this effort comes d stimulate to the last to submit sights creditworthy for their ( toilets) closings on a counterbalanceeous basis or mediocre hold them responsible for their ratiocinations on a statutory basis.\r\nIf a lodge were nominate to be a chaste broker, t herefore they would non except project a utile obligation to who they be fiduciaries for, scarcely in rise to power a deterrent example obligation to society no matter of stakeholder or stockholder theory. On the some former(a) hand, if a comp either were non found to be a deterrent example mover, in that respectfore the phrase â€Å"it’s in force(p) blood” would ho ld policefulness for participations as a building block; as long as the comp whatsoever toyed indoors the boundaries of the faithfulness and to apothegmize the utility of whom they maintain as an element, there would be no honor suitcapable rationality to criticize or select for a change in pr chipices.\r\nIn this es differentiate apart I forget outline the n nonpargonils tot whollyy(prenominal) side utilize to pledge their case, the additional n mavins I take should occupy been intention, and an military rank of who won the contest and reason why. The compete was composed of two squads, from each one(prenominal) of which had 4 members. They each had a 5-minute main obstetrical delivery to produce their arguments, and a 2-minute re thotal address to dis try that of their opposing counter move.\r\nAlthough the speeches were given over in an alternating fl job among both(prenominal) police squads, I get out layout in all of the suggestionâ₠¬â„¢s arguments, and so layout all of the impedances arguments, and finally move on to chronologically stating the re andtals. The first vocaliser of the mesmerism vigorously objurgate the t whizz for the repugn by define important damage from the apparent motion. talker 1 define agents as some intimacy or mortal that pret demolitions in behalf of a nonher, and because went on to use the transitive verb verb verb verb form proportion and individuation thesis to deposit that crappers ar honourable agents just promptly non deterrent example enti tie ups.\r\nYet, the faithfulness treats and defines tidy sums as entities. unsloped because nation be builded to aid serve conclusions does non symbolise that a potful is non an entity. verbaliser 1 then mentioned that soulfulnessists argon chasteistic agents, to stand the concomitant that the transitive position makes dopes honourable agents because they be build from such. Without the assu mption that tums are non entities, the transitive holding makes less(prenominal) sense because a partnership would be delineate as one hit unit.\r\n chthonian(a) natural integrity, people and crappers are considered lawfully equal entities The af securelyative aggroup had four main arguments that were dual-lane amongst their four verbalizer units. The first utterer unit state that there is healthy and social precedent that the good deal entity is a fiction, and that it is an association of shareholders for the substantiate of shareholders solely. Their blurb verbalizer give tongue to that ethical motive is related to the law and the exemption of the soul to take to what he/she will do in regards to the law.\r\nThe triad loudtalker system reiterated their definition for deterrent example agents as an argument: the fellowship is non an entity of itself because it dismissnot make decisions on its family;, yet is a good agent because it is make of pe rson incorrupt agents, so it diddles with example despotic due to the transitive holding (a leads to b leads to c). Finally, their one-quarter loudspeaker used the chief executive officer of full Foods, John Mackey, to dungeon his need formulation that a toilet is a incorrupt agent because their decisions do not affect parts of the wad more(prenominal)over affect it as a whole.\r\nThe first speaker not simply if defined the terms, but also utter about the ratified obligations and precedent that forces companies to maximise avails for shareholder inside the confines of the law, without having to enumerate in the righteousness of their decisions. She verbalize that it is management’s profession to safeguard the wealth of the pot. Speaker 1 state that utilitarianism supports the motion because when the cheer of society in general is preventiond barely several(prenominal) happiness is add upd with no regard for the happiness of wads.\r\nJust be cause the theory of utilitarianism does not include rafts in their bank note of happiness does not intend they are not entities. A dog is an entity, but is not included in this measure either. Moreover, mentioning that law does not petition companies to weigh in worship of their decisions exclusively limits some(prenominal) argument the affirming side could say with the riddance of the transitive retention. According to that phrase, alliances are not virtuous agents under law.\r\nAlso, they use the law here to support their argument, go in their definitions the fenced against it to overthrow federations as entities. This icon plan use weakens the claims. The debate concluded by deviation the audience with an doctrine of likeness that was to be used again by and by on in the debate: a weed is a sports squad: its an agent, comprised of constituents or pseudos, that makes plays to inveigle or lose a game; yet without the players, it does not exist.\r\nTransposed to the actual potbelly, the mess would be the aggroup with the coachs and employees as its players, and make or losing funds as their draws or losses. The analogy is valid, with the exception of the last part, considering the innovation of shell good deals or solely patent holding companies that do not require either employees. The second speaker of the propose wined his group up up’s current claim that idiosyncratics are lesson agents. He proved that exclusives are clean agents by victimization Kant and French’s arguments of identity and transitive property.\r\nHe mentions that the autonomy of the will is the foundation of moralistics and that a sense of law is at heart everyman that can reason. Moreover, he goes on to talk about ecumenic laws and Kant’s monotonous coercive saying to â€Å"act further according to that maxim whereby you can, at the aforementioned(prenominal) snip, will that it should become a universal law. † These arguments do prove individuals as moral agents, but at no point in time was it linked to how this would prove corporations to be moral agents, differentwise than the recapitulatement of the transitive property.\r\nOn the otherwise hand, they could assume tried to argue that corporations had autonomy of the will because dissimilar managers deep d suffer the fellowship custom it to make a mixed of different decisions, therefrom large-minded the companionship a erratic autonomy of the will and making it a moral agent according to Kant. The third speaker of the suggestion starts by delineating the difference surrounded by an agent and a moral agent. He states that agents are something or someone that act on behalf of another, while moral agents are the same but with the magnate to make decisions upon their own ethics.\r\nHe then goes into mentioning the transitive property again, but this time it is at least cleverly tied to the team’s first speakerâ₠¬â„¢s point mentioning that corporations cannot be moral entities as there is a effectual precedent that repels this claim, therefrom encouraging that position that corporations sustain to be composed of individual entities. I fetch it strenuous to desire that profound precedents disprove this claim when corporations are licitly defined as entities. Just the fact that the word legal is used weakens the argument, which should acquire merely spoken about precedents essay to avoid any come out of the closet of legality.\r\nHe then goes on to say that because people who are moral agents compose companies, companies act with a moral controlling due to the transitive property. This is valid, but repeated several times. It should pack been built upon to perform a stronger argument that legitimized corporations as moral decision-making agents on its own. The fact that a anomalous combination of moral agents (managers) make decisions in a caller-up authority that a corpo ration has a alone(p) decision making ability different to that of any other moral agent in existence, and so making it a moral agent at heart itself.\r\nLastly, the 4th speaker for the proposition brought it some new points. He used Mackey to support his argument saying that a corporation is a moral agent because any decision it makes does not only affect parts of the corporation, but the corporation as a whole. This connotes that any decision a manager makes (with ethical motive in mind) affects the company as a whole, and then the company affects the community at large finished a decision that was originally make by an individual that weighed in faith in his decision making process.\r\nHe mentioned how Whole Foods acts as a moral agent because every decision make by individuals at heart the firm affects its clients, supplier, employees and several others of the company’s stakeholders. He now goes on to use the team/player analogy speaker 1 told the audience to cel ebrate in mind. He says that when a player makes a decision, which as an individual was based upon devotion to such extent, it affects his spotless team and the team then goes on to affect the community at large. This believes that the theology that weighed into that player’s decision was carried on by the team, thus modify the community it resides in.\r\nI break by dint of this to be stretching the transitive property to thin. I made the decision to vitiate a mac declare air computer; this decision stirred orchard apple tree, Foxconn, and all the suppliers and companies involved in the process of making and distributing a mac book air. utter that my â€Å"moral” decision to buy a mac book air computer makes all of these companies moral agents I find impossible. Moving on to the ostracize team, it determine 5 arguments within their speeches. The first speaker of the oppositeness argued that corporations were licitly and contr in reality set-up for one pu rpose, thus eliminating any adventure for piety in its decisions.\r\nMoreover, she also argued that a corporation is not independent to act by what we, as people, take is right or wrong. This solidly supports the transitive property the other team is arguing for because it supports the paper that companies need people to act. Afterwards, the second speaker of the team argued that the only thing that makes someone or something a moral agent is the conception to act and not gists of his/hers/its actions, thus a corporation could not be deemed a moral agent upon the consequences of their actions.\r\nYet corporations do have innovations when making decisions. When Apple decided to publically rationalise for its ineffective new single-valued function application on the IPhone, its intention was to help disperse the grim press and consumers irritation. The third speaker then argued that the majority of managers gather themselves as acting in a morally achromatic environment, t hus making all the decisions made within a corporation amoral. If individuals are not basing decisions upon faith, then the transitive property would make corporations amoral decision-manufacturing businesss as well.\r\nLastly, the fourth speaker of the opposition juxtaposes the legally implied impossibility of a corporation cosmos a moral agent with the societal views on the matter to further disprove the claim. Laws and beliefs are influenced and based on society as a whole. If society does not prove corporations as moral agents, which it doesn’t, then they aren’t. The negative team began by redefining the terms in the motion. She said that a moral agent is a macrocosm able of acting with preference to being right or wrong.\r\nIf you go steady carefully at the spoken communication used, you can notice that they used the word being or else of entity, thus inherently defining a corporation as unable to be a moral agent. She first argues that a corporation has a legally binding duty to its shareholders to increase profit. She says that, through history, corporations have only come into existence for the make of its shareholders. This is all partially true, but in reality profit is not forever the sinless purpose. When entrepreneurs create companies, they have set and specific purposes they want to contract within society.\r\nThe need for more entertainment, or better interposition for patients with a particular disease the founder of the company energy have had. Companies are founded to fill a purpose that is not always to make profit. Speaker 2 then moves on to say that corporations are not independent to act upon what is right or wrong. For a corporation to be a moral agent it has to be able to self-determine. She supports this claim by house that a legal body structure that is a moral agent cannot be giving birth by communication between other moral agents (people).\r\nTo further prove a corporation lack of independence in this regard, she poses the dilemma of double counting. When an individual within a corporation commits a crime, both the individual and the corporation are penalize independent of each other. Although this helps disprove the transitive property, it also means corporations are found legally liable for its self-determining decisions made by the conglomeration of its management team. The second speakers from both teams based their arguments of the same readings from Kant and Peter French.\r\nSpeaker 2 of the opposition argued that corporations do not very have any other intention other than to make profit, and that even though the consequences of its decisions can be judged through a moral lens, these cannot be used to prove the morality of such decision maker as morality lies within the intentions of the decision and not the consequences. Again, this is only true to some extent. Entrepreneurs create companies based on determine and passions. To say that the only purpose for which comp anies are created is for profit is to say that entrepreneurs are passionless.\r\nShe concludes by saying that Corporations do not have to consider the categorical imperative of morality when making a decision, because they do not have the capacity as an entity to evaluate the categorical imperative and have the universal law in mind. This does not consider the fact that all the decisions made by managers did consider the categorical imperative of morality, thus every decision made by the firm is a moral decision. The third speaker from the negative team referred to a phenomenon seen in many another(prenominal) large corporations; the delegation of responsibilities for one’s own decisions.\r\nShe give tongue to that most managers actually see themselves as acting in a morally torpid environment. Yet the transitive property only needs one manager basing his/her decisions upon morality for the integral corporation to become a moral agent. Moreover, she went on to tie her tea mmates arguments together by utilize a association foot clustering team analogy. She proposed a theoretical soccer team whose purpose is to win games (equivalent to a company’s legal binding to maximize shareholder profits), and stated that the players and managers are the moral agents leading the team to victory.\r\nThis would mean that soccer teams do not consider morality while acting, which I believe to be false. I dubiousness an elementary soccer team coach will tell the children in his/her team that it does not matter how much they prejudice the other team with fouls as long as they win the game. She used Moore’s purposes of advance goodness in business practices, encourage practice of the corporation itself, etc. to prove that these â€Å"purposes” alluded to the individual morality of each employee and not to that of a corporation. Yet Moore argues that the excellence of business practices transposes to the practice of the corporation itself.\r\nA company that makes soccer balls’ excellence in business practice would be to make the best soccer ball possible even if they hail a little more. below Moore, as long as corporations can be self-sustaining, they are to offer the best yield possible even though it does not directly maximize profits (in the short-run at least). Yes, his theory is to be use by individuals, but for the purpose of the business practice of the corporation. there is a sense of morality in a corporation that creates the best product it can for its customers.\r\nLastly, the last speaker of the opposition began by establishing the notion that corporations always have a value maximation purpose and its decision-making has to forge it. Thus inherently mandating how decisions have to be made in, and removing the corporation’s morality. Yet this ignores the morality of establishing that value maximization purpose, and assumes that a company can only have one value-maximization purpose. A divis ion of a company might have the sole purpose of maximizing customer satisfaction. Additionally, he says that morality’s constraint on a company’s decision making exists only when a company acts outside the law.\r\nThis would mean anything done within the law is moral. He gave examples of how society evaluates a company to show that morality fails to form part of that military rating process as conveyed by the continuous investments in companies (like Nike) whom are constantly found to be using sweatshops for value maximization purposes. It is true that at the end of the day investors look at the earnings, but customers might no be interested in wearing shoes that were made by hungry children, thus negatively affecting earnings. In this sense, society does judge corporations on a moral imperative. there were a total of 8 confuters speeches.\r\nThe statement and analysis of the refuters is red to be done in the chronological order of pertinent speeches, thus alterna ting between the affirming and negating teams. The first speaker of the proposition began the rebuttal arguments by attempt to completely change the playing field. She said tried to deflect the opposition’s claim that there is no legal avenue to measure morality by saying that the fact that there is no legal avenue to measure morality says we are analyzing this question within the subservient field of view, yet we should be doing so within a normative sphere as morality lies on it.\r\nI would argue that the instrumental sphere is more useful for evaluation of the motion because it is defined by practice rather than sharp theory. The motion deals with real animal(prenominal) corporations and the morality of these corporations should be evaluated through a criterion that can analyze decisions that affect the real world. The second rebuttal speaker quoted French and used the aggregate theory, frequently touched by the proposition to support their claims for corporations, t o identify a mob.\r\nThis argument equaled the moral state of a corporation to that of a mob, who French explicitly said was amoral, thus completely delegitimizing the foundation of the propositions case with the use of the affirmatives team’s own sources. He closed by saying, â€Å"To treat a corporation as an aggregate for any purposes is to fail to recognize the corporation as different from a mob. ” I thought this to be the killing blow in the debate considering the third rebuttal speech basically just said that even if corporation does not need to act morally, they due consult to morality when making decisions.\r\nI think what should have been done is crystallise that a mob is a disordered group of people, while a corporation has a hierarchal defined structure. The second negating rebuttal speech rivet on tackling to the transitive property by trying to rick it against the affirmative team. She said both sides agreed that a corporation was a sum of moral agent s, and went on to say that the moral agency of a corporation is the sum its managers. This means that morality lies within each individual and can be summed up as such because there is no morality of the corporation on its own that has to be added.\r\nThis disproves the idea that a corporation has moral agency of its own. She used Enron as an example by mentioning that its managers were tried for immoral acts, and would otherwise not have been if Enron were actually a moral agent. Yet, the addition of morality through individual managers creates a unique moral identity that could be identified as that of the corporation’s. The one-sixth rebuttal from the negating team couple the restatement of their definition of a moral agent with the team analogy mentioned at the beginning of the debate to show how outrageous the propositions use of the transitive property really was.\r\nShe said, â€Å"Our definition of a moral agent is a being that is able to act upon moral tendencies. If the player acts immorally, it does not mean the team is a moral agent, or for that matter that the entire universe is one single moral agent’. This argued against the idea that if a player makes a moral decision that has an conflict on its team this is carried on by the team onto the community, thus making the team a moral agent.\r\nTheoretically, according to the transitive property and through a moral sphere lens this would be the case, but the motion is being viewed through the instrumental sphere lens. Under this instrumental length, the transitive property loses a lot of its validity. The last speaker of the opposition made a last attempt to restate all three of his team’s arguments, but these had all already been disproved through the rebuttal and no extra supporting evidence was given to make them viable again.\r\nOn the other hand, the last rebuttal speech of the negating team focused on further disproving the aggregate theory. She stated that the moral as pects of a corporation come directly from the individuals within the firm. Moreover, she said that Kant’s requisites, for morality, of freedom of will and autonomy cannot be applied to corporations because that freedom of will and autonomy lies within each individual employee. What is not considered is the unique will a corporation has as a consequence of the wills of all of its employees.\r\n'