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 (not necessarily moral responsibility) but more or less the duty of the manager to increase profit. Mark Pastin and Michael Hooker present an ethical analysis of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act or (FCPA). They use two perspectives described as "end-point assessment" and "rule assessment." Through end-point assessment the FCPA has caused a loss in business for U.S. manufacturing, and has caused a rather insignificant effect on improving commercial moral value. Through the rule assessment viewpoint of the FCPA, Pastin and Hooker gives way to saying that the rules forbidding bribery are malleable. They say the fact that the FCPA causes a loss in business is what in turn bends the rules and causes bribery. Robert E. Fredrick a critic of Pastin and Hooker argues that the legislative body responsible for passing FCPA laws are not bending towards bribery, but are morally neutral. He feels the FCPA laws should be changed and that the prima facie rule is wrong and should not bend. Simply, Fredrick wants to state that there is not an immoral legislation at hand, and there is a difference between bribery and extortion.Ok so maybe I got into the book just a little, but once I started with the project of researching ethics in the work place I wanted to know all I could find out about it. It was more than evident to me that values and morals were fighting a losing battle against mergers and dollar signs. But I knew there had to be a way to combine the two. However after doing my research I have come to this conclusion. Between 800 and 900 years ago, human beings sought honor. Knights lived for nothing but honor and were guided by their values alone. A...
