other person had always been late, or I could explain the temper that the other person would often display. Between the two of these ideals, I would much more be apt to follow the attitudes of the ethical egoists. In neither case did I state that my opposition committed the sexist and racist acts, but through ethical egoist beliefs the only concern I have is the betterment of myself and I do not feel compelled to defend the rumors. So I feel I would have a better chance to get the position if I stayed away from the views of Kant. Milton Friedman, a Nobel Prize winning economist believes that there is also a social responsibility expected of business. Friedman believes the management's only duty is to make shareholder wealth. The important things he wanted managers to remember is that there are certain limitations, like obeying the law. In Friedman's eye's if you were a manager who did anything other than cause a rise in company's profit then you are not being fair to the investors who place their money in the stock of the company and depend on the profit maximizing, or you are being unfair toward society as a whole. The text offers an opposing view to the canonical views of Friedman's social responsibility of business followings. It states, "The very phrase social responsibility of business, which is what the debate is supposed to be about, is an oxymoron, since only human beings can have moral responsibilities. Corporations may consist of the interactions of human beings in various roles, but they are not human beings themselves." In referring to the argument whether or not delegating moral responsibility to a corporation alone is sufficient enough to refute Friedman's beliefs, then yes I think it is enough I understand that shareholders place money in corporations and expect a profit, in this case it is the responsibility of the managing staff (not necessarily moral) but more or less the duty of the manager to increase profit. In ...
