tions taken by the utility company, although legal, could have resulted in severe financial penalties for their customer, while at the same time, having had little effect on the overall profit of ConEdison. These business practices should be viewed as unreasonable as well as unethical. When making decisions that could profoundly effect another companies’ profits, it should be the obligation of the executives and managers of any company to set and example of ethical business practices and maintain a set of values that exhibit appropriate behavior. The moral minimum is a philosophy suggests,The purpose of the corporation is to maximize profits, but subject to the requirement that it must do so in conformity with the moral minimum, meaning that the firm should be free to strive for profits as long as it commits no harm.1 When ConEdison decided to shut off the electricity of the Knitting Factory directly before a large volume weekend, they exhibited actions that were extreme in nature and unnecessary in the overall business relations between the two companies. Although the Knitting Factory had apparently paid bills late in the past, there was nothing to suggest that they did not eventually pay them. If the utility company’s concern of non-payment had propelled the decision of ConElectric to cut off electrical supply, there would be a more substantial and more ethical reason to cut off their service. However, ConEdison’s ignored the attempts on the customers’ behalf to pay in a reasonable manner, their formal complaints, the letters from the client’s president, and instead, demanded a deposit of $800 on their $2000 bill. The client did not warrant the somewhat “defiant” action of discontinuing service from ConEdison.Although the client is obliged to pay their service bills on time, if not punished in the past, it is reasonable to assume that they would not incur such an extreme penalty on any fut...
