Chris MacDonald gets high marks from me. His writing is good all the time. And this one is one of his best.
Read about the ethics of the decline and fall of the American penny!
James Pilant
Tag: Chris MacDonald
Chris MacDonald – Chilean Miners: What Is Rescue Worth?
You cannot accuse Professor MacDonald of not being timely.
This article is a very clever while straightforward analysis on what on the surface is a simple question but ethically has more arms than an octopus in circus sideshow.
Here is the ethical thought problem he poses –
So, a thought experiment: what if there were only one company qualified to do the rescue work, or only one company available locally? What should that company charge?
A few quick options:
1. They should charge whatever the market will bear, which would essentially amount to charging the most the Chilean government and/or the mining company involved are willing to pay.
2. They should charge nothing. They should be happy to be involved, and to charge anything would be to put a price on human lives, which is unacceptably exploitative.
3. They should charge just enough to cover their own costs — machinery, fuel, and maybe their own workers’ wages.
4. They should charge exactly the same to drill this hole as they would to drill any other hole of similar size, depth, and complexity. No more (that would be exploitative), and no less (that would be foolish).
Do you favour one of those four? On what grounds? Or can you suggest another principled answer?
Follow his columns, he writes regularly and if you follow the articles and pay a little attention, you will probably have the equivalent experience of an undergraduate class in business ethics!
James Pilant
Chris MacDonald Comments On “No more tears? Think again. (via Pharm Regulations)”
Major academic honcho, Chris MacDonald, calls attention to the background of my posting and right he is. I should have put more links and information into it. I’ll be more careful next time.
Here are his remarks –
Nice find (the Pharma Regulations blog). It’s worth following their link to the CNN story:
http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/20/news/companies/johnson_johnson_mounting_problems/index.htm
which in turn links to *this* CNN story…
http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/02/news/companies/mcneil_motrin_phantom_recall/index.htm
…which gives some hint of the reason for the recall (basically, there’s a problem with how the Motrin tablets dissolve).
It gives me great pleasure to be able to call attention to specific comments. The longer a piece is or the more significant the author (in the business or academic world), the more likely such a posting is.
James Pilant
Philip Brookes Adds To His Friedman Comments!
A few days ago, I reblogged a post from the web site, Get Aktiv. Since then, one of my favorite bloggers, Chris MacDonald, added a thought to which I replied and Mr. Brookes decided to significantly add to his argument. Below is a sentence from his argument, one that I particularly liked. It would, of course, be best if you read the entire post. I’ve written the occasional argument for a position. They take considerable time. So, honor his efforts and go to his site.
There is no legal reason (as a general rule – there may be certain exceptions in some states or countries around the world) that a company must extract every last cent of profit out of every situation. Instead, it seems to me just good ethics and business sense to operate transparently with your stakeholders so that you all share a common goal for the organisation, a la The Body Shop. The Directors of this company are clearly acting in good faith with their shareholders and customers, and within the bounds of the law, to sell environmentally and socially responsible products. Although it may be possible to sell other beauty products and make a higher profit, this is not the exclusive responsibility of the directors.
I went and had a look at Mr. Brookes’ web presence and it is significant. He is a consultant, has an article on blogging and is a proud family man, (provided that there is only one Philip Brookes in Australia). I’m going to continue to read his blog. I think you should too.
James Pilant
Ethics Blog Roundup – 07/24/10
David Gebler writing on the blog, Business Ethics, discusses safety violations, codes of silence and what not to do when advancing safety practices.
Shel Horowitz begins his latest blog post (Principled Profit) with these words: As my Boomer generation ages, and as our parents move well into the elder category, I reflect often on something I learned as a young organizer with the Gray Panthers (1979-80): the idea that society had best learn how to incorporate people with disabilities into active daily life, because most of us were going to grow into that category sooner or later.
Horowitz writes that today, his entry is part of an event, Worldwide BloggersUnite, Empowering People with Disabilities. I’d give it a read and take a look at the idea behind the event.
I would like to call attention to two Chris MacDonald postings. A few days ago, Professor MacDonald posted an interview with the author of the “The Authenticity Hoax.” Since then the posting has had some comments (skip past mine) and they have been interesting. Chris gets pretty tough there in that last one. So, I recommend a read of the comments section.
The second MacDonald posting concerns British Petroleum’s faked photographs. MacDonald implies that he has been willing to give BP the benefit of the doubt in the past (I firmly believe this is true. I thought he was too fair) but he is increasingly doubtful of their motives and honesty.
A new business ethics blog has appeared. I give it a warm welcome and a hope of many postings!
Ethics Blog Roundup 7/21/10
Shel Horowitz is back from vacation with a posting on confronting racism, a topic much in the news.
The Engineering Ethics Blog discusses education and the importance of experience, ability and education in different ways in different times. He is particularly upset with President Obama for his over emphasis on college as opposed to other kinds of learning. There is a lot of societal comment here. I quote:
The natural tendency of our society, unfortunately, is to look up to people who (1) have lots of money, (2) have lots of people working for them, or (3) manipulate symbols instead of real things.
I agree with him pretty much across the board but I am an advocate for education other than just credential education, that is, an education that enriches the many aspects of a person’s life as opposed to simply a note on the wall, a permission slip for employment often with no more intellectual importance than a postage stamp.
Gael O’Brien takes on the ethics of brand identity in the aftermath of so much corporate wrong doing. She points out much more kindly than me that their brand identities of quality and concern for clients were less than real. The article asks more questions than it answers but we as a people and a society will have to answer those questions. As corporations dominate every aspect of our lives, whether or not we have made a deal with concerned people or the devils’s acolytes is one that has to be dealt with.
Chris MacDonald is cruising into philosophical territory with an interview with Andrew Potter about his new book, The Authenticity Hoax. The book’s thesis is that authenticity, the seeking of an identity through consumer purchasing, is based on dubious claims and is inherently self defeating for too often the goal of the authentic is a societal story with little relation to the self but everything to do with the preoccupations of the society around us. The book sounds fascinating.
The Leading In Context Blog discusses green office supplies (something I didn’t know existed).
These gentlemen discuss green office supplies:
James Pilant
Business Ethics?
Chris MacDonald has some insightful comments on what is meant by business ethics. He points out that you could also use the topic of corporate citizenship, stakeholder theory, the triple bottom line, corporate sustainability, etc. All of these cover part of the matter at hand: what is the right thing to do ethically? I believe that he wishes the subject title, business ethics, to be the primary one to simplify the field. I also use the phrase, business ethics, as the title and the subject of my blog. But what part of the field does mine cover? I aim heavily at corporate crime and let my indignation flourish at times.
This blog and what I want to do with it evolve over time. Keep watching.
MacDonald suggests that the Oxford Handbook of Business Ethics will provide some clarity to the field.
I hope he’s right. Ethical clarity is relatively rare and a tighter definition of our terms could at least move us in that direction.
James Pilant
World Cup Ethics And Flexible Ethics In The Wake Of The BP Disaster
Two extremes, right? The title represents Chris MacDonald’s last two blog entries. His June 15th entry discusses worker productivity and the World Cup. Here MacDonald asks the question, “How should an important-but-time-consuming cultural event like the World Cup be integrated into the workplace?” You should give it a read.
His other entry is for June 14th. Here he discusses whether or not ethical obligations appear differently under conditions of stress, in this case, in the aftermath of BP’s contribution to the environmental movement. He makes comparison between the Katrina aftermath and the current gulf situation. He concludes with a pretty paragraph. Let me quote it in full.
Now there are of course differences in the two cases. In the Katrina and Haiti cases, people were literally fighting for survival — it was literally life-or-death. Presumably no one in the Gulf Coast tourism industry is literally going to starve to death. But still, the general question remains interesting: to what extent can ethical rules legitimately be bent, when someone’s interests are seriously threatened?
Not a Churchillian statement by any measure but a good summing up.
You could probably avoid a number of my posts by simply putting MacDonald in your favorites and checking him every couple of days.
James Pilant
The Ethics Of A Soccer Ball
Chris MacDonald writes in his blog, The Business Ethics Blog, of the controversy over the design of soccer ball used in the World Cup. It is often the case that an examination of an extremely small part of reality or some basic component of a larger system can lay out larger patterns or allow the formation of the most basic elements of an ethical analysis. The soccer ball controversy is argued at different levels, play experience and scientific analysis. These two arguments can be broken down further for ethical analysis. MacDonald explains the questions raised by the change in the kind of ball.
Ethics Roundup – Blogs 6/11/10
Chris MacDonald considers the ethical elements of what is owed the shareholders of British Petroleum. His conclusion is dramatic. (And I think giving the comments a read is a good idea on this one.)
Lauren Bloom takes on the question of Helen Thomas and what should have happened in the light of her remarks. She wants to know why Hearst Corporation didn’t provide any help for her in the crisis. (I was surprised to discover that my opinion in the matter was identical with Ms. Bloom’s.)
Alain Sherter is on fire today, at first, angry, satirical, and then he segues into a discussion of what constitutes a sophisticated investor and then he gets indignant and angry again. It’s the kind of writing I expect from him. Sherter is extremely knowledgeable about the world of finance, outraged at the unprosecuted and protected bandits of our economy and dismayed by the public’s lack of concern, the government’s craven inability to act and the docility and foolishness of beltway comedians who call themselves journalists. If a few hundred people shared his convictions and ability, wall street would be a different place.
Pilant's Business Ethics Blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.