Chris MacDonald Discusses Loophole Flouting

 Chris MacDonald Discusses Loophole Flouting

Chris MacDonald writing from The Business Ethics Blog is discussing Japanese whaling practices as these actions connect to the larger moral and ethical framework of the nation at large. It’s a good read. I recommend it. If you have time, go to his web site and read the full post (and then sign yourself up as a follower!).

James Pilant

Chris MacDonaldJapan’s loophole flouting is bad for business | The Business Ethics Blog

Japan has flouted the 1986 moratorium on whaling, making use of a loophole that allows whaling for scientific purposes. In effect, the country’s fleet kills whales for what it claims are “scientific” purposes, and sells the meat for human consumption. You don’t have to be an ardent defender of the world’s whales to see the problems inherent in an having a key player in the world’s economy flouting an international standard.

And just think for a minute about that approach to compliance. It effectively means adopting the credo, do what you want, spirit of the law be damned, as long as you can find even the narrowest of loopholes. What example does has the country’s leadership been setting for the business community? How can government ministers look business leaders in the eye and encourage them to cleave to the meaning and intent of regulations? How can the government ask business, without risking hypocrisy, not to make cynical, self-serving use of loopholes?

Naturally, the government of Japan is not alone in this dilemma. The demands of political expediency often mean that political leaders get caught in a do-as-I say, not-as-I-do self-contradiction. But Japan’s stance on whaling seems a particularly blatant example. And the future of the issue still remains unclear. Japan has only committed to cancelling its whale hunt for this year. Time will tell whether the Japanese government, on this issue at least, demonstrates character worthy of emulation, or instead goes back to an approach aimed merely at securing short-term gains.

via Japan’s loophole flouting is bad for business | The Business Ethics Blog.

From around the web.

From the web site, Ethics and the Environment.

http://ethicsandtheenvironment.wordpress.com/2013/06/25/the-purpose-of-this-blog/

The Australian government has taken legal action against Japan over concerns Japanese whaling in the Southern Ocean was not done for scientific purposes.

According to BBC news, the case is been held in the International Court of Justice in The Hague, with Australia arguing that Japan’s scientific whaling program (under which it kills whales) is commercial whaling in disguise. A moratorium which bans commercial whaling was put in place in 1986 by the International whaling commission.

According to The Age, a Melbourne based newspaper, Australia Government counsel Bill Campbell told the court, “Japan seeks to cloak its ongoing commercial whaling in the lab coat of science.”

Mike Double from the Australia Antarctic division told AlJazeera Japan’s scientific whaling was not scientific because whales do not have to be killed to be study.

“We simply do not need to kill whales for the science,” he said. “We can collect all the information we need to conserve and manage these whales through non-lethal methods.”

Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus, who is representing Australia in court, said that more than 10,000 whales had been killed by Japanese whalers since the moratorium was introduced.

He said Australia wanted to see whaling practices halted “once and for all.”

Glock Pistols, Ethics and CSR (via The Business Ethics Blog)

This is a particularly timely essay from The Business Ethics Blog.

(I have a confession to make. When I saw that Professor MacDonald had a post on this subject, I went to the site and immediately hit the reblog button. I hadn’t read it. I had complete confidence that MacDonald would write a good post. I have read it now and, of course, it’s excellent and I recommend it to you.)

James Pilant

P.S. I once owned a seven shot Glock, the thinner concealable version.

Glock Pistols, Ethics and CSR It’s been a week now since the Tuscon, Arizona killings in which Jared Lee Loughner apparently emptied the high-capacity magazine of his 9 mm pistol. Plenty has already been written about the awful killing. Inevitably, some of it has focused on the weapon he carried, namely the Glock. According to Wikipedia’s Glock page, The Glock is a series of semi-automatic pistols designed and produced by Glock Ges.m.b.H., located in Deutsch-Wagram, Austria. … Read More

via The Business Ethics Blog

Chris MacDonald defines ethics (via John Ayo Olaghere)

I read Chris MacDonald’s blog, The Business Ethics Blog, regularly but somehow I missed his definitions of business ethics and ethics. Mr. Olaghere spotted the definitions and kindly posted them. Thanks!

James Pilant

Chris MacDonald, Ph.D. of The Business Ethics Blog defines ethics and business ethics. He  teaches  Philosophy, including business ethics, at Saint Mary’s University in Halifax, Canada, and a Nonresident Senior Fellow at Duke University’s Kenan Institute for Ethics. He is a member of the Editorial Board of the Journal of Business Ethics. He has been named one of the “100 Most Influential People in Business Ethics”, two years in a row. “Ethics” ca … Read More

via John Ayo Olaghere

Top Business Ethics Posts 1/4/11

David Gebler on his blog, Business Ethics, calls attention to Johnson & Johnson’s legal problems.

Here’s an excerpt Today’s business press reports that a lawsuit filed last week on behalf of Johnson & Johnson shareholders accused the company’s directors of ignoring “red flags” foreshadowing product recalls and government probes of manufacturing defects and marketing practices.

The Engineering Ethics Blog has a post about efficiency thusly, “Does Improving Efficiency Really Save Energy?”

Here’s an excerpt Don’t get the idea I think efficiency is bad. If I did, I couldn’t very well call myself an engineer. However, Jevons reminds us that, like many other things in life, energy efficiency can be helpful in limited circumstances. But expecting it to solve all the world’s energy problems is not only unrealistic, but probably counterproductive as well.

Chris MacDonald writing in his blog, The Business Ethics Blog, discusses the topic, Greenpeace, Tar Sands and “Fighting Fire with Fire.”

Here’s an excerpt Many people think companies deserve few or no protections against attacks. Some people, for example, think companies should not even be able to sue for slander or libel. Likewise, corporations (and other organizations) do not enjoy the same regulatory protections and ethical standards that protect individual humans when they are the subjects of university-based research.

Jack Marshall writing in Ethics Alarms had an interesting post about when e-mail posts cross the ethical line.

Here’s an excerpt A lack of civility is considered a breach of professionalism in all jurisdictions, but not an ethical violation calling into question fitness to practice law—the standard for bar discipline—unless it is extreme, and usually not until there have been warnings issued. Apparently this particular spat was just too much for the Bar to take, perhaps because it reflects badly on the entire profession.

Julian Friedland in his blog, Business Ethics Memo, asks an excellent question, “Should American Business Protect American Jobs?”

Here’s an excerpt Which is what I’ve been saying for sometime myself, arguing that it’s irrational on Rawlsian social-contract grounds for this nation to be shipping so many of its jobs overseas. But it’s not clear what can be done if corporations are unwilling to support regulations that would encourage American companies to keep jobs here.

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.

Chris MacDonald’s Latest Post: Boycotting BP Is Futile and Unethical

Professor MacDonald has an interesting post today (It’s dated June 9th.).

Here is an excerpt –

Professor Chris MacDonald

… there’s the fact that a boycott of BP gas stations won’t actually hurt the organization you’re trying to hurt. In practice, “boycotting BP” means boycotting BP-branded retail outlets. And as an editorial in the LA Times pointed out, “BP stations are independently owned, so a boycott hurts individual retailers more than London-based BP.” So, sure, boycott BP stations — that is, if your goal is to hurt a bunch of small businesses already operating on razor-thin profit margins. Put a few minimum-wage gas jockeys and cashiers out of work. The difference simply will not be felt at BP’s head office. (The same naturally goes for vandalism of BP stations, which is both unethical and criminal.)

I wanted to do something to hurt the company’s profits. But MacDonald is quite right. A boycott would be ineffective.

His reasoned argument is better than my emotional response but isn’t that the way it always is, reason defeats emotion if given time?

I can add to his argument, that Loren Steffy of the Houston Chronicle business page has been suggesting in his last three blog posts that British Petroleum is likely to wind up in bankruptcy or acquired by another company. What effect will a boycott have on that situation? None as far as I can tell. Not to mention that the enormous losses arising out of the current disaster are far more economically damaging then anything a boycott could approach. It seems likely that the company will perish on its own.

James Pilant

Business Ethics Blogs, Who I Follow

I currently follow the postings on the following blogs:

Chris MacDonald – The Business Ethics Blog

Lauren Bloom’s Blog

Gael O’Brien The Week in Ethics

Jonathon Tasini Working Life

Karen Fraser  Ethical Reputations

Julian Friedland Business Ethics Memo

Robert A. G. Monks

Jeffrey Seglin The Right Thing

Jeffrey Pfeffer Rational Rants

Richard Eskow Night Light

Karl Stephan Engineering Ethics Blog

Shel Horowitz Principled Profit

David Gebler Blog: Business Ethics