Business **** Ethics Ch 11,12, 13, 14,15

Conscious Beings

Human activities have profound influences on animal life. Some of our actions are intentionally aimed at animals. For instance, raising and killing them for meat, experimenting on them, and eradicating some of them as pests. Other actions that are not aimed at animals but affect them nonetheless, such as logging of forests, and development of urban areas.

Three of the Possible Answers to the Question: What Entities Have Moral Standing

1. Human Beings 2. Conscious Beings 3. Organisms The above groups we identify as having moral standing influence the kinds of justifications we find acceptable for moral claims about the environment

3 Methods Governments Might Employ

1. The regulatory approach: This involves the making of laws that established environmental regulations, which are then enforced by government agencies in courts. On one hand this approach seems fair in the sense that environmental regulations apply to all business equally. On the other hand, this approach has possible drawbacks: - Lack of a subtle or slight degree of difference: Universal standards must apply to all business equally; or sometimes insufficiently nuanced to take potentially relevant contextual matters into account. For example, some US paper companies were required to install expensive equipment to deal with their emissions, even though these companies emissions were effectively diluted by the ocean. -Lack of incentives: Regulation can take away an industry's incentive to do more than the minimum required by law. 2. The incentives approach: On this approach, tax breaks and subsidies are used to reward companies for developing environmentally sound equipment and practices. An advantage of this approach is that it encourages businesses to act voluntarily in protecting the environment; However, this approach has disadvantages: - Slowness: its affects are likely to come slowly so it may not adequately address environmental problems that require an immediate solution. - Rewards for reducing bad practices: It amounts to rewarding businesses for not polluting. Rewards should not be given behavior. That should be morally expected. 3. The Pricing Approach: This defines a cost or charge for a specific kind of pollution in a specific area at a specific time. Charges are tied to the amount of damage caused. On one variety of this approach: The government allows companies to buy permits to pollute a limited amount. Companies may also be allowed tousle these permits to each other. For example: Carob credits- with allow holders to emit specific quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere- are traded internationally. While the incentive approach rewards companies for acting inappropriately the pricing approach permits companies to pay for acting inappropriately. Advantages of the pricing approach: -it places the costs of pollution on the polluters themselves. Disadvantages: -Difficulty of Pricing: It is hard to set the price tag for pollution permits. -Removes moral stigma of pollution.

Questions in Chapter 13

1. Who or what is wronged when the environment is damaged? 2. What guidelines might companies use to determine their environmental moral obligations? 3. How might governments regulate commercial activities that damage the environment?

#2 International law and regulation

An increasing amount law and regulation comes from above the level of the nation state. Many rules which affect businesses are negotiated in supranational bodies such as the European Union. Regulations applying on a international scale

#1 Transitional Identities

As individuals, our identity and sense of ourselves as members of society are not as contained within our citizenship of a particular nation state as they once were. Instead, people increasingly have identities which transcend nation boundaries. They think of themselves as banker or scholars, Africans or South Americans, Green peace members or PricewaterhouseCooper employees. The society of which an individual identifies themselves as a member does not coincide with the citizenry of a state.

Basic Ideas from George. lol

Basic considerations: Company loyalty and free speech and prudence ( consider our long term goals )

George's consideration against whistle blowing (Prudence) Snitches lay in Ditches

Because the consequences for whistle blowing are often so disastrous, such action is not taken lightly. Penalties suffered by whistleblowers include: 1.Dismissal, barriers to advance in career, or measures to discredit the whistleblower ; e.g.: transfer to undesirable work roles, being given work for which one is unqualified, being given too much work, or even being pressured to undergo psychological examination for alleged instability. ( thats messed up) 2. Blacklisting in the industry: firms may be unwilling to hire someone who is known to have blown the whistle on her company. 3. Ostracism: exclusion from a group: A whistleblowers colleagues may regard him as a rat, hungry for public attention, snitches lay in ditches, eager for scandal and discord. Peers may dislike a whistleblowers perceived disloyalty , or resent the whistle blower for doing the right thing when they did not. DeGeorge: Rarely are whistle blower seen as hero's by their fellow workers. A possible explanation of that may be, by this action the whistle blower has implied that fellow workers who did not blow the whistle are guilty of immorality, complicity in in the wrong doings of the company or cowardice. his presence is a constant reminder of their oral failure.

#5 The rise of the multinational corporation

Before the growing trend of the MNC, international commerce largely took the form of trade. Following the 2nd world war corporations began using foreign direct investment (FDI) to establish locally incorporated but controlled entities inside numerous economies while simultaneously taking on multiple national citizenships. MNC's could be expected to be particularly loyal to the country in which they have their main base. but that is not the case. MNC's shift their headquarters based on changes in the economic climate. NGO's prefer to lobby MNC because they are more willing and more able than governments

DG's Permissible WB (A)

Condition 1: There is a threat of serious harm The firm through its product or policy, will do serious and considerable harm to employees or to the public. The harm must be of a particularly bad kind and there must be plenty if it. 1) by making serious and considerable harm essential we plainly rule out cases that seem too insubstantial to justify W. 2) Serous and conderable harm is very broad, we could look at it as " danger to life and health; " one form of harm DG leaves out is financial harm.

DG's Permissible WB (B)

Condition 2: The employees Immediate superior has been informed - without result: Once employee identifies a serious threat to the user of product or to the general public, they should report it to their immediate superior and make their moral concern known. Condition 2 is fulfilled with the superior ignores your concern. 1) it is appropriate the firm be given a chance by its own employee to rectify the situation. before public is informed 2)Internal action should be the best and quickest way to rectify the situation.

Condition 1 Review

Condition One: This condition considers only the threat of harm, which is to say a future harm. But recall that whistleblowing cannot be permissible on DG's view if condition one is not satisfied. DG's guidelines seem to imply that one may not blow the whistle about harms that have already been done, where there is no threat of further harm in the future. However, if it too late to avert harm it is still appropriate to hold a company liable for it. Possible justifications include: - Possibility of having the company compensate for harm - Deterring the company and the other companies from acting in a similar manner in the future.

Condition 2 Review

Condition Two: Once employees identify a serious threat to the user of the product or the general public, they should report it. But suppose an employee only suspects, or has identified a threat but does not know how serious it is? How much effort should he/she make in identifying a serious threat? Silence seems to offer a loophole for someone who wishes to avoid moral responsibility, thus employees and employers can avoid moral responsibility relating to a threat by simply keeping themselves ignorant of it. This may allow people to dodge responsibility too easily. If an employee at least has a reasonable suspicion of a threat, he/she should find out if there is a threat and if it is serious.

DG's Permissible WB (C)

Conditions 3: others in the company have been informed without result: If ones immediate superior foes nothing effective about the concern or complaint the employee then should exhaust the internal procedures and possibilities within the firm. This usually will involve taking the matter up the managerial ladder and if necessary and possible to the board of directors. If there is not enough tim to raise the threat with all authorities within the firm and the threat must be made public to be averted DG regards the employee as fulfilling condition 3.

DeGeorges type of WB

DG does not consider all types of WB, only WB that is: 1. External: information is revealed to a source outside the company, such as government or media. 2.Impersonal: the WBer is not revealing information about an offense against herself (sexual harassment) 3. Private Sector: the WBer is not a government employee divulging a governmental practice. A.) We shall be concerned with (1) employees of profit making firms, who , for moral reasons, in the hope and expectation that a product will be made safe, or a practice changed, (2) make public information about a product or practice of the firm owing to faulty design, the use of inferior material, or the failure to follow safety procedures, (3) threatens to produce serious harm to the public in general, to employees, or to individual users of product.

DG's Criticism

DG's considerations against WB incline one not do it. Prudence implies that one might receive backlash if they do decide to WB from being put on a black list to undergoing psychological evaluation. But negative backlash is not always the case. There may be rewards including emotional gratitude and even financial. Loyalty: Showing loyalty to X doesn't mean you must support everything X does. rather showing loyalty to X involves promoting X's best interests.

Government Regulations

Everyone has the right to have the environment protected for the benefit of present and future generations through reasonable legislation and other measures that prevent pollution and ecological degradation, promote conservation and secure ecological sustainable development and use of natural resources.

How are companies to think about whether their environmental actions are morally permissible? Des Jargons' Guidelines for Companies

Des Jargons holds that commerce must act in a way that sustains the environment. 1. Don't use renewable resources faster than the earth can replenish them. - When a resource is renewable we can use some of it without permanently reducing it's supply. 2. Don't use non-renewable resources at a rate faster than the development of alternatives. - When a resource is non-renewable, we permanently reduce the supply by using it. Oil or coal for instance, took millions of years to produce. If we use up such resources, we should insure that others will be able to derive similar benefits from alternative resources. Therefore Rule 2 serves as an ethical incentive for those who use non-renewable sources to work towards the development of alternatives. 3. Don't generate waste faster than the environment can assimilate. Rule #3 incentivises the minimizing or treatment of waste; where there can be no assimilation, waste may not be generated. Des Jargons does not explain the extent to which a company should make up for its past environmental damage.

The duty of rescue

Earlier in this chapter we notes that one prominent feature of globalization is the rise in power of MNC. We also mentions that MNC's could/should use their power for the better. Scenario 1: imagine that you were walking along the road and you saw a child drowning in a paddling pool in a garden separated by the road by a low fence. If no one else was present, or was making any visible attempt to save the girl then surely its clear that you would have a duty to climb over and save the girl from drowning. This scenario should apply to various institutions capable of collective decision making which individual human beings can constitute through their joint efforts.

Frederick Elliston on Anonymity

Elliston points out that whistleblowers who direct the authorities to evidence without letting their own identity be revealed have sometimes been held in low regard. For instance: - individuals ought to take responsibility for their actions, especially those with serious consequences such as a major legal or financial trouble for a company. - A company should be able to know the identify of its accuser; and - The option of anonymous whistleblowing could greatly increase the number of tips to the authorities from employees since their risk to whistleblowing is greatly reduced.

MNC's and NGOs running shit

Example: Exxon Mobil and the World Bank persuaded the government of Chad to let the World Bank, Exxon Mobile and representatives of the local and international NGO's tale the decisions about how these revenues from oil were to be spent. an MNC a supranational regulatory body and several NGO's were successfully dictating a government on how to spend their money. A broad consensus has emerged that an organization attains legitimacy by being accountable to the people on whose lives its activities impact. In this context "accountable" means that the organization is required to justify its activities to the people in question, and that those people have the power either to reaffirm or revoke the organizations authority based on their actions and justifications. Organizations in a country may not be directly accountable to the people whose lives they affect, like elected government officials are, but even thats a stretch. But the organizations are still accountable to not the people but a democratically elected government because that government issues them a license, or decides to framework rules within which they operate. This give them an indirect form of legitimacy via elected government but barely. But too often, not just MNC but also NGO's ad supranational regulators are neither directly nor indirectly accountable to the people affected by their activities. There is a general crisis of legitimacy in our era of globalization. because the bodies which do have legitimacy- especially democratic states are becoming weaker and so less able to hold other organizations to account, whole the bodies which are not really accountable to states (NGOs MNCS are increasingly in effect accountable to no one, or else accountable to a small board of directors or investors. When a MNC operates in a LEDC it is rare that it is truly accountable to the countries government. If MNC's are to acquire legitimacy they must become accountable to communities affected by their operations not just the investors back home.

Condition 2 (cont'd) and Condition 3 Review

For DG - if either the immediate superior or other authorities in the firm correct the situation, then whistleblowing after the fact is unjustified. It is arguable that this is not always correct. Suppose a worker finds out that her company is about to have protesters severely beaten, the worker informs her superiors, and as a result the beating is called off, but this may let the company off too easily. It may be that the worker has a moral obligation to make the (abandon) plan public. The consequent punishment of the company or complicit individuals within it may serve important functions such as: - appropriate retribution for ordering the beating - rehabilitation of those who ordered it - deterrence of other companies that might otherwise consider such actions.

When we consider whether any beings have moral standing, the question is not can they reason, nor can they talk, but can they suffer?

If we accept this view, then when we encounter a creature suffering, we will not ask whether this creature can be wronged, we will accept it by virtue of its suffering that it can be wronged. It seems that in factory farms, animals are being wronged hence if animals have moral standings then it seems that humans are continually committing a great wrong in the treatment of factory-raised animals.

Child Labor

If work interferes with there ability to educate them selves or be child go out and play, this would be morally problematic. If children are to grow into healthy well rounded adults they must not be slaving away at work or school all day everyday. Child labor is morally problematic when it is dangerous to the child. children are more at risk to injury and illness than adults. they re also more at risk to not knowing who to turn to when there is work place violence. in other words they are not fully competent decision makers. their brains have not yet fully developed.

Anonymous Whistleblowing

In the case of anonymous whistleblowing, the whistleblower either (a) contacts the external authorities anonymously, or (b) reveals her identity to the authorities, but requests that they do not reveal her identity to her company. DG regards anonymity as undesirable since he believes that such information tends not be taken seriously (lacks credibility).

Accountability: Indirect & direct

Indirect way for MNC's to achieve accountability: is to acquire greater legitimacy through oversight of body which was itself directly democratically accountable. In other words if a MNC is truly accountable to a body that is itself democratically accountable then that MNC is indirectly accountable to that body of people who is affected. This way of achieving accountability has 2 significant obstacles: 1. though supranational bodies already have the power to make laws and regulations they generally do not have the power to police these laws and regs. withers they are reliant on national government to do the policing or else the regulations they introduce take the form of voluntary codes of conduct. 2. supranational bodies such as the EU and UN are having their own crisis of legitimacy so MNC cannot sue them as a base of legitimacy when they them selves are in question. Direct way for MNC to achieve accountability and greater legitimacy: Through internal restructuring to achieve direct accountability. this would entail MNCs transforming their internal structures so that they were truly democratically accountable, not just to investors but to all stake holders including communities in which they operate. This would involve a down right revolutionary change in the way corporations are structures. in effect relegating investors to a minor role

Incentive Gaming:

Is a term from psychology which refers to the ways that workers manipulate pay for performance schemes in order to benefit themselves rather than the employer. Any pay 4 performance scheme will imperfectly incentives employees.

Is it morally permissible for MNC to hold double standards on working conditions for people in LEDC's

It is morally impermissible for an MNC to provide its customers and employees in one country with a lower level of safety (product safety in the one case, workplace safety in the other) that it provides to its customers an employees in another country. MNC's might cry Moral relativism is the view that ethical standards, morality, and positions of right or wrong are culturally based and therefore subject to a person's individual choice. We can all decide what is right for ourselves. to justify what they are doing Is there any reason to expect that those put most at risk by dangerous products in poorer countries would trade that risk off against value at a different rate from those who are in the same position but come from a rusher country. Yes richer people are generally willing to spend more to avoid a given risk than poorer people are. Richer people are more willing to spend more on just about anteing poorer people are , they have more to spend. Simply insisting that the same safety product standards should apply world wide could actually reduce the welfare of people in poorer countries. Making products safer generally costs extra money and manufactures raise that extra money by charging higher prices to consumers. Unfortunately it may seem that it might be in the poorer countries benefit to continue to purchase cheaply made products. One thing that could close this loop hole that MNC's seem to have found is that the government of an LEDC in which MNC self products or employ workers will have to set or appointed a regulator to set minimum product and workplace safety standards based o the VPF relevant to that countries population. if there is no Value of preventing Fatality, no safety regulation, or the official safety standards are clearly too low, then the MNC ought to set its own safety standards for its operation in that country. Negligence: Businesses, just like individuals have a general background "duty of care" to individuals with whom they interact. because of this duty of care a business is morally at fault if it knowingly fails to implement a risk reducing measure which it easily cold have. for example maybe to pay Mike Jordan 20 mill a year for endorsing nike and maybe put some of that tp improve safety standards at LEDC's

Standards in Less Economically developed countries

MNC have received criticism about the working conditions of their employees or the employees of their suppliers in poorer countries. Nike was caught red handed with exploiting child labors with low wages and dangerous working conditions. Sweatshop: is a term that is broadly used to include a variety of poor working conditions. typically sweatshops are in old buildings with poor or little ventilation; poor sanitary facilities and unsafe,unhealthy and crowded working conditions.

Can MNC's put pressure or influence on the State? TRANSITIONAL WITHDRAWAL

MNC's are able to use corporate power of transnational withdrawal. If a national government does not enact laws and regulations which are favorable to them, MNC's often have the option of withdrawing their operations from that country and setting up shop somewhere else where the regulations are favorable. This can be a menacing prospect for governments, which need to be protect the jobs and employment options of their citizens and need tax revenue that comes from MNC's, can often exert pressure on governments to introduce laws and rips with favor MNC's. This pressure has the potential to set off a race between countries on who has the most favorable environment for a MNC. but believing poorer protection and less justice to their citizens

MNC "donating" money to politicians and political parties

MNC's can directly or by round about routes donate money to political parties and politicians to finance their election campaigns. Giving money to a politicians campaign/ endorsing them in a loop hole of our political system. Corporations may donate money to a certain political leader in return for special favors, look at the NRA for example. They put money into the pockets of dozens of republican congressmen and women and these very men and women support gun control.

MNC influence on politicians

MNC's can exert pressure and influence on state through lobbying. This is when MNC reps present information to politicians and government officials, usually in a selective or biased way, so as to try to persuade the state to do what is in the MNC best interest. Lobbying can vary lavish hospitality for politicians and officials

5th: Bribing

MNC's can influence government officials by bribery o other wise corrupting politicians. When a politician or gov official accepts a bribe he or she is not only committing a crime but also failing to live up to their obligations to protect the welfare of citizens at risk.

Must we consider future generations?

Many climate change experts predict that as a result of our activities today, future generations could face catastrophic events. These events will cause greater and more frequent threats to human health and welfare. we have been considering who or what can be wronged, but so far the discussions have been limited to entities that currently exist. It may be appropriate to consider not only beings currently living, but also future generations. For example, before forests are destroyed, we should reflect on how its destruction will affect the lives of future generations as well as people who exist now. Everyone has rights irrespective of whether he exists now or in the future. If we fail now to act in a way that shelters future people against devastating events, then we failed to protect their rights, even if the rights of current people remain secure.

#3 The rise of non-governmental organisations

NGO's are campaigning groups -often international- which raise public awareness about a specific set of issues and out pressure on governments, regulators and business to bring about change.

Who or What has Moral Standing?

Note that having moral standing is different from being a moral agent. To be capable of being wronged one does not have to be a moral agent, for example, babies have moral standing, but are not yet moral agents.

Conditions 4-5 Jointly Generate Obligation.

Obligatory whistleblowing: DG 4-5: Condition 4: The employee has clearly persuasive evidence. Condition 5: The employee has a reasonable belief that the whistleblowing will rectify the situation; so the success must be worth the risk. A similar criticism applies to the term "obligatory" whistleblowing. Some cases may be obligatory without being praiseworthy. Here are examples: - The CEO of the company has ordered illegal acts that have caused an environmental disaster. The cause of this disaster is likely to be discovered soon by the public. But before this occurs, the CEO reviews the company's role in causing the disaster. Here the CEO does what she presumably, morally ought to do. But at least some people would not regard her deeds as praiseworthy. -Other cases may be obligatory but also praiseworthy. - Suppose someone discovers a severe mis-deed in his company that threatens the public. A misdeed that he is severely discouraged from reporting externally. To alert the public may be his duty. Imagine a catastrophe that might be averted if he makes public what he knows. In such cases doing one's duty is likely to be commendable.

Organisms

Organisms that do not have consciousness, like trees and fungi, cannot be argued to have moral standing on the basis of having the capacity to suffer, yet people argue that organisms do have moral standing. One method of arguing this claim articulates a thought experiment that might show that we do ascribe moral standing to organisms. The thought experiment, however does not identify why we give organisms moral standing.

#4 Privatization

Particularly since the 1980's, there has been a worldwide trend of state provided resources being transferred into private ownership. -water supply -telecommunications -Electricity supply -transportation services -postal services

Conditions 1-3 Jointly Generate Permissibility

Permissible whistleblowing: DG 1-3: Condition 1: There's a threat of serious, considerable harm Condition 2: The employee's immediate superior has been informed without result. Condition 3: Others in the company informed without result. The term "permissible" whistleblowing covers various categories, including highly recommended, but not mandatory, AND acceptable, but not praiseworthy.

Prospect Theory:

Shows that people are willing to risk a great deal more in order to avoid a loss than to secure a gain.

Last Man Scenario - Thought Experiment

Suppose that a poison with extraordinary powers spreads through the earth. It kills every conscious creature and remains potent indefinitely so that no conscious creature will be able to live on earth again. The poison kills every creature on earth except for one: a last man who has a few minutes left to live. Suppose this man has the opportunity to destroy the global environment. We can imagine that by pressing a button he can destroy the whole world. Would it be wrong for him to press the button? If our intuition is that it would be wrong, then our question should be to whom, or what is the last man doing wrong? Not humans or other conscious beings since they are all dead. Thus the only option left is that he is doing wrong to the other non-conscious organisms. Which means we think that non-conscious organisms have moral standing.

Human Beings

Suppose we think that only humans can be wronged. Then if we criticize the destruction of forests, we must explain how this destruction would harm humans. This view of nature is called anthropocentric. (Human-centered): it sees the significance of nature in terms of human interest. That anthropocentric approach has long been employed for thinking about environmental damage.

Legitimacy

The question of whether the actions of a body such as a business or a state are morally right or just is distinct from the question of whether they are legitimate. When a body takes and implements decisions about a range of matters, we can ask in the first place about the content of those decisions-ie whether the decisions taken were correct, prudent, fair or morally right. In the second place, though, we can ask something different: we can ask whether that body has the right to be taking and implementing decisions abut the range of matters in question in the first place. If it does have that right then it has legitimacy, it has as we say authority to take decisions on those matters. If it does not have the authority then it is illegitimate. Scenario 1: If an angry mob decides to take matters into their own hands and stones a criminal to death would you find it to be just? legitimate? You may in some cases depending on what crime was committed believe it was just but you wouldn't find it to be legitimate, what authority does the mob have to make that sort of judgment call. Decisions can be just but no legit Scenario 2: Decisions can be unjust but also legitimate. Lets say you didn't vote for the presidential election and now the party that is in power is making unjust decisions in your opinion but you find that the government has legitimacy because after all it was elected. MNCS have appropriated state like powers especially in LEDC's. Which is very scary if you think about the example of DEIC charter being granted special rights all the way to being able to wage war. But it is the everyday things that MNC's take over which is real concerning due to legitimacy.

4th way an MNC can influence or pressure the State: Revolving doors

This revolving door phenomenon can be brought into play when the same individual holds a position in government and a position in a MNC ! WOW either simultaneously to in quick succession. When an elite group of individuals is shuffled back and forth between the government which makes the rules and corporations which are meant to follow them, it is all too east for the interests of the latter to guide the actions of the former.

Conflicts between MNC's and States

Though many states have relatively harmonious relations with the MNCs operating in their territory, there are a variety of ways in which the interests of states and the interests of the MNC conflict. 1. The government of a state has an obligation to protect the welfare of its citizens and an obligation to work to achieve a just society for its citizens. Because of these obligations the state should introduce regulations on businesses to protect the citizens . Justice also may depend that governments tax the profits or transactions of businesses, in order to fund public spending on infrastructure, schools and hospitals. All of these measures that the government would introduce for the sake of a just society can add costs of doing business for MNC's Another reason for potential conflict is that the state as an actor in the economy of a country, will often be anchorage of providing services which MNC's also provide, or would like to provide. For example a state may provide health insurance or drinking water to its citizens. An MNC which sold health insurance or supplied water would be in competition with the state. The rise of MNC's tends to weaken the nation state.

Obligatory WB

WB is said to be not merely permissible but obligatory when both the following 2 conditions apply, in the addition to the three conditions outlined above: Condition 4: The WB must have or have accessible, documented evidence that would convince a reasonable impartial observer that ones view of the situation is correct and that the compacts product or practice poses a serious and likely danger to the public or the user of the product. As one climbs the corporate latter they will gain more access to more information as they go strengthening their case. Condition 5: The employee has a reasonable belief that the WB will rectify the situation, so the success must be worth the risk. The employee must have good reasons to believe that by going public the necessary changes will be brought about . the chance of being successful must be worth the risk one takes and the danger to which one is exposed.

Animal Ethics

We are generally confused about moral issues concerning animals. What is the difference between killing a whale or killing pigs, sheep, cattle or chicken for meat? If we are to make sense of this distinction we need to explain why killing pigs is unproblematic, but killing whales is so bad that it amounts to moral suicide? What is the relevant difference? 1. Hunting whales is especially cruel, but it seems that the treatment of animals in factory farms might be just as cruel. 2. There is a limited number of whales, but there is no reason to expect the disappearance of pigs. Pigs are practically unlimited, but whales are not. But, that point does not seem to express the essence of Tutu's views. He didn't say that killing the whales would be acceptable if they weren't limited in number, or that they can be killed as long that we insure that enough whales remain to avoid extinction. 3. Whales are intelligent, but some other animals that are eaten are intelligent too, such as pigs. Comparisons between animals' differences in intelligences has credibility issues - given that there are other variables that come into play: environmental influences and the physical endowments of the subject animal. 4. Whales are magnificent. But does the size and beauty of a creature matter and make it more worthy than an animal of lesser size and lesser beauty? So much so that killing the magnificent whale is considered moral suicide, yet killing the lesser animal not? If this is what you believe, then one has to apply an aesthetic "score" to a moral scale.

George's consideration FOR whistle blowing (Free Speech)

We live in a country that is a liberal society that allows us to freely state our minds, unless by doing so we cause direct, significant harm to others. Free speech allows us to give criticism to not only the state and our elected officials but also of companies, including those that employ us. So if we value free speech,we should be inclined to accept that WB is legitimate

DeGeorges presumptions about WB

When making a decision we rely on a default assumption, the duty of proof of that assumption is showing that assumption to be false. For example in the court of law it is assumed the person under arrest is innocent until proven guilty. In regards to whistleblowing, DeGeorge assumes by default that it is unjustified. ones duty is there fore to show that it is justified to whistle blow in a given situation. Why Presume it is unjustified? -conformity to the traditional presumption in the literature on WB -Consistency with commercial practice: WB is uncommon, indicating that it is probably usually regarded as inappropriate.

Supplier standards

in some cases of MNC's the workers in question of wrong doing were not employed directly by an MNC. but rather by a business which was contracted to supply the MNC in question. case #1: A MNC is in position of power and authority over another business and instructs that other business to perpetrate abuses, in this case the MNC would be just as morally responsible as the contracted business. Case #2: The MNC did not instruct its upper to perpetrate abuses but will be aware that it does happen, in this case the MNC's moral responsibility is not equal of the supplier. the MNC should nonetheless intervene. If the MNC knowingly puts itself in a position where it is directly benefiting from the fruits of workplace abuse, then it is tactically condoning and materially encouraging such practices. Case #3 : MNC is un aware of the abuse perpetrated by its supplier. This sometimes but not always declares free from blame of the MNC of moral responsibility for the abuses. Ignorance frees the MNC from moral responsibility if it is non culpable ignorance (non deserving ignorance) in other words ignorance that does not result from the MNC omission to do something it ought to have done , such as carry out a review or research its suppliers before hiring them. but some ignorance is culpable ignorance. It can also add to an MNC's moral responsibility if a supplier has subjected its employees to unacceptable workplace conditions as a result of pressure put on it by the MNC to cut costs.

Work Place Abuse

is it morally permissible for the employees of MNC's and their suppliers to be abused, verbally, physically, and sexually, in the workplace? We can unequivocally condemn verbal, sexual and physical abuse of the employees of MNCs.

George's consideration against whistle blowing (Loyalty)

it is appropriate for an employee to be loyal- to have a certain positive attitude to her company,her work, her fellow employees and her employers. reasons to be loyal: -gratitude to her employer for offering her a job -engagement in a mutually beneficial relationship with her employer -Identification with the firm and her fellow workers, since all are engaged in a joint enterprise: if workers are to be more than cogs in an impersonal machine they come to see the company as their company Loyalty should incline one against whistleblowing