Should we establish a universal, formalist rule forbidding layoffs of all hard-working, competent employees, or should we rely on utilitarian reasoning, libertarian thought, virtue theory, or religious beliefs to answer that question. Explain.
In my opinion, establishing a universal, formalist rule forbidding layoff of hardworking and competent employees is never a realist solution. For instance, in an organization facing challenges that have been assessed and approved to be solved by employees’ layoff, it could be a coincidence that all the employees in the department facing the layoffs are hardworking and competent. Therefore, at least some employees would have to be released. I would prefer the utilitarian reason to solve the problem of employee layoffs. According to utilitarianism, an action should produce the best consequences possible. Therefore, in this regard, an organization would lay off some employees and maintain others in order to stabilize its productions. This would serve the best interest of the organization as well as the employees who survive the layoffs. I would prefer this option because if the organization maintains the overload of employees, it faces challenges such as bankruptcy because the compensations given to employees would outweigh the production like the case with Malden Mills in the case study.
Do you think it would be accurate and fair to say that Feuerstein’s ethical choice to protect his employees led to the decline of his business? Explain.
Even though there are several factors that the organization and would have led to the decline of the business, which include cheaper fleece substitutes in the market, and time spent in rebuilding. It would be wrong to dismiss that Feuerstein’s ethical choice to protect his employees led to the decline in his business. In business, the factors of production, which includes labor, should always be kept in balance with the output. Desperate situations always call for desperate interventions. As well as keeping the employees in his organization was ethical, he could have considered the fact that the output could not sustain the number of employees. He could have laid off some employees until the business picks operations and recall them back to the organization. This would still be a moral and ethical choice.
Should American companies refuse to do business in countries that:
- Do not practice democracy?
Despite the fact that the American ancestors chose democracy as the preferred form of governance, it is not the only form of governance. Additionally, it is does not necessarily imply that democracy is right or wrong. Therefore, American companies should do business with any country that cooperates with their principles, even if these countries do not practice democracy
- Routinely practice discrimination
Discrimination is against the ethical standards of business operations. Therefore, in countries where discrimination is routinely practiced, American companies should desist from doing business in these territories since discriminations discourages cooperation
- Tolerate or even encourage the abuse of children? Explain.
The abuse of any person in the society is considered unethical. In countries where child abuse is tolerated or encouraged, American companies should not do business in these territories since this would mean that the companies support this unethical conduct. It would also imply that since these companies represent the U.S. in foreign economies, the U.S. government supports child abuse, which is not the case. The government strongly advocates for upholding the dignity of any person including children.
