est communities in the world), the ethical choiceto pursue this drug had clear implications in terms ofbusiness efficacy (3). But unlike many corporations, Merckrecognized a moral obligation reduce the suffering ofmillions of people, and as a result, made a costly butethically sound decision to pursue research, development,production and distribution of the drug.Many business theorists would argue that Merck's choicemay have been ethically sound, but that it did not reflectappropriate business acumen. The choice was costly,impacted competitiveness for the company at a time whenrisking declining sales was not in their best interest, andput the company in risk of liability (4). But the companyalso had an obligation to their shareholders to makebusiness decisions that represented their best interests,and the conflict between the interests of those outside ofthe corporate structure and the shareholders, employees andadministrators of the company demonstrate the reason thatethical choices are not applied more freely in the businessarena. It can also be argued that by making ethicaldecisions in favor of drug development, that Merck was alsoinherently making unethical decisions in terms of theirobligation to the shareholders and the standards of behaviorbased in their agreed contractual relationship. Becausecorporations are primarily economic institutions, thequestion of whether they can be expected to apply moralstandards that risk their economic viability underscoreswhat some have argued is the oxymoronic element of "businessethics."This perspective has come into greater focus ascompanies turn to multinational expansion, and enter intocommunities with different standards for business operationand differing moral standards that determine ethicalbehavior in general. For example, the standards that areembraced in the United States in terms of child labor lawsmay not have the same implication in other countries, andthe question of child labor an...
