I Have Weeks 1-5 A Total Of 15 Pages I Don’t Have A Book

I Have Weeks 1 5 A Total Of 15 Pages I Dont Have A Book So This Is W

I have weeks 1-5 A total of 15 pages. I dont have a book so this is what my instructor suggests...Instructor says: I sent you some of the topics for the case studies from the Taking Sides book. You may answer these questions as your case study portion of the assignments. I did take some notes on the topics from the book from previously submitted assignments: Issue 3: Is Increasing Profits the only Social Responsibility of Business? Issue 5: Clashing Views in Business Ethics and Society. Which viewpoint do you side with? Why? Explain. Issue 14: Should advertising directed at children be restricted? Issue 9: Should price gouging be regulated? Issue 12: Is "Employment-at-Will" Good Social Policy? Is Risk Presented by Derivatives Manageable? Is CEO compensation justified by performance? Perhaps you can use these topics for your weekly case studies if you can’t access the book.

Paper For Above instruction

In this paper, I will explore a selection of ethical issues and debates arising in contemporary business practices, drawing from the topics provided by my instructor for the case studies. Due to the lack of access to the textbook "Taking Sides," I will critically analyze the issues based on existing knowledge, scholarly perspectives, and ethical reasoning, aiming to respond thoughtfully to each issue.

Issue 3: Is Increasing Profits the only Social Responsibility of Business?

This issue questions whether a company's primary or sole responsibility is to maximize profits or whether it has broader social responsibilities. Classical economic theory, as presented by Milton Friedman (1970), asserts that the primary obligation of business is to increase profits for shareholders within legal and ethical boundaries. Friedman argued that pursuing profits inherently benefits society by creating jobs, fostering innovation, and increasing economic efficiency.

However, more nuanced perspectives emphasize that businesses also bear responsibilities toward stakeholders, including employees, customers, communities, and the environment (Freeman, 1984). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) advocates argue that profit-making should be balanced with ethical considerations and social impact (Porter & Kramer, 2006). The sustainable business approach suggests that long-term profitability depends on social and environmental stewardship.

Therefore, I believe that increasing profits should not be the only social responsibility of business. Companies have ethical obligations to operate responsibly, considering their impact on various stakeholder groups. Ignoring social responsibilities can lead to practices that harm society and ultimately threaten the long-term viability of the business.

Issue 5: Clashing Views in Business Ethics and Society

This issue involves multiple perspectives on ethical issues in business, such as capitalism versus social responsibility, individual rights versus societal good, or profit versus ethics. A common debate centers around whether ethical principles should always be upheld despite financial loss or whether profitability justifies ethical compromises.

On one side, strict deontological ethics emphasize that businesses must adhere to moral principles, even at the expense of profits (Kant, 1785). On the other hand, utilitarian perspectives focus on outcomes, arguing that actions are justified if they produce the greatest good for the greatest number (Mill, 1863). The clash emerges when ethical principles conflict with economic interests or corporate goals.

My stance aligns with a balanced view—believing that ethical considerations should guide business decisions but also recognizing pragmatic constraints. Ethical lapses compromise reputation, trust, and sustainability, thus harming both society and the business in the long run (Crane et al., 2014). A responsible approach integrates ethical standards with strategic goals.

Issue 14: Should Advertising Directed at Children Be Restricted?

This issue addresses the moral and social implications of marketing to children, a vulnerable population. Critics of targeted advertising argue it manipulates impressionable minds, promotes materialism, and may contribute to unhealthy lifestyles, such as childhood obesity (Hastings et al., 2003). Supporters claim that advertising is a form of free speech and that parents or guardians can regulate children's media consumption.

Regulation of children's advertising varies by country, with many implementing stricter rules to protect minors from exploitation. Ethically, marketing to children raises concerns about informed consent, vulnerable audiences, and whether commercial interests override children's best interests (Valkenburg & Cantor, 2001). Given children's limited ability to critically evaluate advertising messages, restrictions seem justified to safeguard their well-being.

In conclusion, I support restrictions on advertising directed at children to ensure ethical marketing practices and protect their development and health.

Issue 9: Should Price Gouging Be Regulated?

Price gouging refers to drastic increases in prices for essential goods and services during emergencies or crises. Critics argue that such practices exploit consumers in vulnerable situations and undermine social equity. Conversely, some see high prices as a necessary response to supply shortages, incentivizing increased production or resource allocation.

Regulatory responses often aim to prevent unjustifiable price hikes, especially during disasters, to protect consumers from exploitation (Roberts et al., 2018). Ethical considerations suggest that price gouging is unjust, especially when essential needs are involved. Governments and regulatory agencies have a moral obligation to intervene to prevent abuse and ensure equitable access.

Thus, I believe that price gouging should be regulated, with clear legal boundaries to prevent exploitation while allowing market mechanisms to operate efficiently outside crisis situations.

Issue 12: Is "Employment-at-Will" Good Social Policy?

"Employment-at-will" allows employers or employees to terminate employment relations at any time without cause or notice, barring illegal reasons. Advocates claim this flexibility promotes economic efficiency, labor market fluidity, and managerial discretion (Harris & Sadowksy, 2006). Critics argue that it undermines job security, erodes workers' rights, and fosters insecurity.

Empirical evidence indicates that employment-at-will can lead to unfair dismissals and discourage employee engagement (Farber, 2010). Ethical concerns include the imbalance of power and vulnerability of workers, especially in vulnerable sectors. Many policies advocate for protections against unjust firing and for employee rights.

In my view, while flexibility has economic advantages, a balance must be struck to protect workers from arbitrary dismissals. Proper regulation and legal protections improve social fairness and promote a more equitable labor market.

Conclusion

The examined issues reveal the complexities of ethical decision-making in business. Balancing profit motives with social responsibilities, protecting vulnerable populations, regulating unethical practices, and ensuring fairness are ongoing challenges requiring thoughtful ethical frameworks. Responsible business conduct benefits both society and organizational sustainability, emphasizing that ethical considerations are integral to sound management and societal progress.

References

• Crane, A., Matten, D., Glozer, S., & Spence, L. (2014). Ethical Principles in Business. In Business ethics: Managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization (4th ed., pp. 45-72). Oxford University Press.
• Farber, H. S. (2010). The economics of the employment relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24(3), 77-98.
• Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman.
• Harris, J. R., & Sadowksy, S. (2006). Employment at Will and the Constitution. Harvard Law Review, 119(4), 106; 16-24.
• Hastings, G., Stead, M., Webb, J., et al. (2003). Abuse of Power? The Case of Advertising to Children. International Journal of Advertising, 22(2), 237–260.
• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by Mary Gregor, 1997.
• Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Parker, Son, and Bourn.
• Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M.R. (2006). Strategy & Society: The Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78–92.
• Roberts, T., Hite, W., & Mathieson, P. (2018). Price gouging during catastrophic events. Journal of Business Ethics, 149(1), 163-179.
• Valkenburg, P. M., & Cantor, J. (2001). The Impact of Childhood Media Use on Socialization and Behavior. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 22(3), 275–290.