Quick Summary of the Disasters and Criminal Acitivity of the Bush Admin. Over the Last Seven Weeks

From Hendrik Hertzberg at the New Yorker:

"In the seven weeks since the previous Clinton-Obama debate, the death toll of American troops in Iraq had reached four thousand; the President had admitted that his "national-security team," including the Vice-President, had met regularly in the White House to approve the torture of prisoners; house repossessions topped fifty thousand per month and unemployment topped five per cent; and the poll-measured proportion of Americans who believe that "things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track" hit eighty-one per cent, a record."

-HT: Dailykos

Scientific Studies Establish a Clear Link Between Smog and Premature Death

Here -- Contrary to the pronouncements of the Bush Administration, who want to deny the link for the sake of business. Yet another piece of the Bush narrative that puts profits over people.

What's Sad Is That Many Real-Live American Grownups Think This Strategy Is Reasonable.

McCain's super fucktarded economic plan. Same plan, different retard. Yeah, let's lower taxes, so that we'll be in an even worse position re: balancing the budget and restoring infrastructure, paying for unemployment, healthcare, education, etc. Let's tax less, and just spend money we don't have. The last 8 years didn't convince you that this experiment doesn't work, huh? Or when Bush Sr. did it and it fucked everything up? Or when Reagan did it and it fucked everything up? Contrast that with FDR's New Deal Years, the Clinton Years, and the last 10 years in most Western European countries, where unprecedented growth and prosperity results from mixing capitalism with -- gasp -- governmental regulation and social safety nets. There just is no contest.

I'm sorry but if you're over 25 and still think like Bush and McCain re: economic policy, you're clueless.

Two Incongruities

Incongruity #1: citizens are up in arms about foul play in various sports cases (e.g., players using hormones, lying about their age, etc.), to the point that they want federal court cases about them. On the other hand, the Bush Administration lies about the case for war in Iraq, about wiretapping, ignored threats of terrorist attacks before 9/11, enabled the conditions for economic crisis, etc. But nobody seems willing to do much about it.

Incongruity #2: People who doubt the consensus expert testimony of scientists that global warming is real, but who were utterly convinced by the shitty case for Iraq having WMDs.

Pentagon Records Detail Prisoner Abuse by US Military

Here.

McCain

The Price of Food Has Risen 80% Over Just 3 Years Due to Globalized Capitalism

Here. Now dozens of countries are facing the prospects of violent revolt of its citizens. More virtues of the wonderful free market.

Another Blissful Consequence of Conservative Economic Policy

Here.

Manufacturing Consent for a New War With Iran

Here is the latest piece of propaganda added to the narrative for a case for war with Iran from the public relations arm of the White House (aka, mainstream news).

Flintstones, meet the Flintstones

Meanwhile, as ALL THE OTHER industrialized nations BESIDES US are perfectly poised for the political, environmental and economic crises related to oil, with high-tech, high-speed mass transit railways, we're still trying to figure out if mass transit is a good idea.

And if that weren't enough...

...here's yet another decisive reason to kick out Cheney, too.

Yet another conclusive reason to impeach

Here. But of course nothing wil happen, because most citizens are impervious to facts.

Helpful Recent Discussion on Bullshit and Truth in the Contemporary World

Yet Another Empirical Refutation of Conservative and Libertarian Views of Economics

This is what happens when you de-regulate markets and lower taxes to the extent that conservatives like Bush Jr. has done. How many times do we have to run the experiment? It happened under Nixon, it happened under Reagan, it happened under Bush I, and now it has happened under Bush II. But of course, they're ideologues. Their views are impervious to evidence.

Back to FDR's New Deal, folks. That demonstrably worked. Or better, let's move to the economic plans demonstrated to make people better off in today's economy -- e.g., that of Germany, Switzerland, Holland, etc.

Bush Administration Injustice, take 5 billion

More base-level corruption within the Bush Administration revealed:

Reposted: Notes on Globalization: Brecher and Costello's "Race to the Bottom"

Notes: Brecher and Costello’s “The Race to the Bottom”

Thesis: Contrary to the claims of its proponents, globalization is not making life better for everyone around the world. In fact, globalization is making everyone (besides the relative handful of movers and shakers of the global economy) worse off.

The argument often given for the beneficial nature of globalization: As we turn the whole world into a giant free market capitalist economic system (i.e., in every country, the means of production are privately owned, governments do not interfere with the market via tariffs, regulations, etc.), market competition will lead to (a) countries specializing in the products that they can make the best, and at the cheapest rate; (b) the most efficient companies will win out. Since, by definition, the efficient companies have the best products at the lowest prices, (c) the consumers benefit as well. For (a) affordable, high-quality products and (b) a surplus of jobs created by globalization translates into a higher standard of living for everyone. Therefore, everyone benefits - both companies and consumers - from globalization.

Brecher and Costello’s basic reply: Actually, only a few benefit, and the rest of the world becomes worse off, from globalization. Although many factors contribute to this result, here are two of the main factors:

(I) The market forces of globalized free market capitalism (especially the fierce and un-policed competition among corporations) lead companies to minimize production costs. This translates into “forc[ing] workers, communities, and countries to compete for lower labor, social and environmental costs – force them to a race to the bottom.” (p. 16) The idea is that, for large multinational corporations to stay competitive in a de-regulated free market, they must reduce costs as much as possible. Ultimately, and in actual current practice, this cashes out in terms of finding (i) a work force that is both (a) cheap and (b) unable to insist on fair treatment (treating employees fairly – respecting their rights, compensating them with reasonable pay and benefits in return for hard, quality work - is costly), and (ii) cheap natural resources/materials to make products, in an area with (iii) the least amount of government-imposed (a) costs and (b) regulations of various sorts (e.g., environmental regulations) on businesses. There is little that non-corporate citizens, or even governments, can do to resist such corporate behavior in such circumstances. For corporations can (nearly) effortlessly close down factories and move plants elsewhere, where people, communities and countries are desperate enough to put up with such treatment.

(II) Large, multinational corporations aren’t the only one’s involved in this inequitable process. Unaccountable international institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank are also part of the problem. For they go into economically and politically struggling countries with false promises of curing their problems. In fact, the countries become worse off as a result of their “help”. For, in exchange for their intervention, such countries have to sign-on to “structural adjustment programs.” These involve such things as (a) selling off their natural resources to privately owned companies, (b) de-regulating their markets (i.e., integrating them into the global free market), and (c) taking on huge, hopelessly unmanageable interest rates from the loans they provide.

(III) Therefore, while it is clear that business owners and other high-level executives “win” in such circumstances (minimum costs, maximized profits), it is equally clear that employees, communities and even countries “lose”.

Outline of the paper:

I. Introduction and thesis

A. The popular view of globalization: everybody wins
-the argument (see above)
B. The authors’ reply and thesis: (see above) No. It leads to a “race to the bottom”
C. Examples of the manifestations of the race to the bottom:
i. The BMW case:
ii. The British Department of Trade case:
iii. The London International Group P.L.C. case:
iv. The Nike case:
v. The Johnson Tombigbee case:

II. The New World Economy (aspects of globalization)

A. The rapid change from a nation-based to a global economy
i. Companies are no longer based in, or identify with, any particular country
ii. Advanced technology (computer, communications, transportation) and low tariffs foster the globalization process
B. The bulk of the world’s wealth and natural resources are owned by a handful of multinational corporations
C. Alliances of corporations internationally: giant international conglomerates
D. The “global factory”: international division of labor for products
E. Globalization of capital and financial markets
F. The rise of international economic institutions: The International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, the European Union (EU), and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)
i. Have powers formerly reserved for countries
ii. Largely beyond the control of national governments
G. Disempowerment of national governments with respect to controlling multinational corporations, their own economies, etc.
H. Economic globalization as part of a wider trend: “The growth of a realm beyond the control of individual nations”.
i. Pollution
ii. Massive immigration
iii. Satellite and international media/communications
iv. Multinational corporations
I. A worry: the loss of democratic control with respect to this “realm”

III. Downward leveling

A. Benign downward leveling (BDL): The lowering of prices of goods and services via improved efficiency, as a result of free market competition. (p. 19)
B. Malignant downward leveling (MDL): “…when corporations and governments lower costs by reducing environmental protection, wages, salaries, health care, and education…” (pp. 19-20)
i. The avoidance of accountability of corporations by moving or threatening to move
1. E.g., the defeat of labor unions and the consequent inability of workers to defend themselves against unfair treatment: corporations can resist such demands by moving elsewhere to do business.
2. “Workers, communities and countries then seem to have little choice but to compete for corporate favor…” (p. 20)
ii. The negative affects also apply to higher level jobs
iii. The negative effects apply to people in all parts of the world: no one is immune
iv. A summary of some of the negative effects of MDL:
1. loss of job security in the U.S.
2. growing unemployment in Europe
3. increasing poverty in third world countries
4. decreasing standards of living in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union
5. lack of human and labor rights in most of Asia
6. Quote from Princeton economist William Baumol: “It is not that foreigners are stealing our jobs, it is that we are all facing each other’s competition.” (p. 21)
C. The major symptoms of MDL
i. The race to the bottom
1. Definition: “the reduction in labor, social, and environmental conditions that results directly from global competition for jobs and investment.” (p. 22)
2. Three major driving forces of the race to the bottom:
a. Corporations: threatening to move if workers and/ or governments accept their conditions. (close paraphrase, p. 22)
b. Governments: e.g., diminishing job security regulations to make its workforce more appealing to corporations. (close paraphrase, p. 22)
c. International financial institutions (e.g., IMF, World Bank): denying loans to desperate countries unless they agree to reduce minimum wages and raise food costs as a part of a “structural adjustment program””. (close paraphrase, p. 22)
3. effects in “1st-world” countries
a. decreased wages, salaries and total household incomes
b. drastic reduction in quality of medical benefit packages
c. increased individual employee labor
d. decline in job promotion opportunities
e. loss of job security
f. Slashed social benefits, such as publicly subsidized housing, transportation, education, and health care. (close paraphrase, . 23)
g. Increase in sub-contracting and “flexibility”
h. the replacement of permanent jobs with a cheap “temp” work force: with this also comes the increased likelihood of discrimination and mistreatment of the poor, immigrants, the elderly and women (i.e., the people who make up the temp workforce.)
i. even the permanent jobs that remain require a substantially increased workload for substantially decreased pay
j. mass increase of illegal employment of children under 14
k. drastically reduced health and safety conditions on the job, due to de-regulation
4. effects in “3rd-world” countries
a. 1.3 billion people live in absolute poverty (“too poor to provide the minimum diet required for full human functioning”): globalization isn’t positively helping their condition at all. Quote: “A study sponsored by the International Labor Organization found that in Indonesia – now a favorite spot for companies like Nike and Reebok – 88% of women earning the Indonesian minimum wage were malnourished.” (p. 24)
b. Objection: what about the “success stories” of 3rd-world countries that have benefited from globalization?
c. Reply: Yes. It has helped a handful of elite corporate executives. All others are being exploited, and the environment in such countries is being diminished at levels that aren’t sustainable
5. effects of the race to the bottom on the environment
a. unsustainable destruction rates
b. greenhouse gases
c. ozone depletion
d. toxic pollution
e. over-fishing
f. major source of solid waste
g. over-cutting of forests
h. destructive use of land
i. in general: “over-harvesting of natural resources”; degradation of the world’s air, land and water
j. Example: The Philippines
ii. The Downward spiral:
1. The logic of the downward spiral: downward leveling: gives rise to (a) the necessity of countries, communities, workers to become “competitive” by reducing wages and social and environmental overheads; this leads to (b) reduced public and private spending, less buying power; which leads to (c) recession, stagnation, unemployment; which leads to (d) accumulation of individual and national debt; out of the necessity to pay off such debt, we arrive back at (a). The circle from (a) through (d) and back to (a) repeats over and over without stop. A vicious circle.
2. The effects of the downward spiral are reflected in the exponential slowing of the global GNP growth.
3. A common means by which corporations stay “competitive”: corporate downsizing
a. Massive layoffs
b. This is even true of corporations that are hugely successful, and are undergoing tremendous growth
c. Examples: AT&T, Sears, B of A, GE, Xerox, Proctor and Gamble
d. “loyalty takes a back seat to survival and personal achievement”
4. More education no longer ensures permanent employment at good-paying jobs: 20% of college grads take non-college-level jobs
5. Unemployment on the rise
6. The effects of the downward spiral are global in scope
7. other manifestations of the downward spiral: especially in Eastern Europe/former Soviet Union, Latin America and Africa:
a. higher death rates
b. lower birth rates
c. lower living standards
d. widening inequalities
e. decreased health spending
f. decreased education spending
g. undermining of human relations, traditional life-ways, and social values
h. increased crime
i. social decay
iii. Polarization of the haves and have-nots: depressed wage growth for low-wage workers; increased wage growth for high-level executives
1. in the U.S.
2. in other parts of the world
3. “debtor countries”: make higher debt payments, yet their total debt is increasing exponentially
iv. Loss of democratic control
1. Governments and individuals can’t pursue goals of public goods, because of the threat of corporations to pick up and leave
2. Political movements aimed at furthering the Corporate Agenda: dismantling government institutions for regulating national economies. (close paraphrase, p. 24)
3. Trade agreements (NAFTA, GATT, etc.): further restrict what governments can do.
4. countries no longer have control over their own economies. In effect, they are governed by the actions of the multitude of currency traders around the world. These traders shape and control the monetary and fiscal policies of governments.
5. It’s even worse in 3rd world countries. The IMF and the World Bank “provide” them with “structural adjustment programs”. In response to seeming economic relief, these countries must strictly adhere to a huge list of policies, which amount to (i) turning their economies into capitalist free markets, (ii) allowing the corporations loved by the IMF and World Bank to buy and control all of their natural resources at “bargain basement” prices, and (iii) drastically reducing government “interference” with the market.
6. Such things add up to a near complete lack of individual and government control of their countries – a complete undermining of democratic institutions.
v. Uncontrolled global corporations
1. such corporations are now the most powerful economic forces in the world
2. no real accountability of global corporations
3. no laws or regulations apply to them (or, the few rules that do apply are virtually impossible to enforce with real consequence)
4. corporate scandals and criminal corporate activity
vi. Unaccountable global institutions
1. Growing concentration of power with the IMF, the World Bank, and GATT
2. Powerful organizations with no significant accountability
3. Their decisions have a huge impact on the global ecology
vii. Global conflict
1. trade wars and “global rivalries”
2. corporations using (e.g.) GATT to impose open markets on rivals
3. construction of regional blocs (EU, NAFTA) for corporations and conglomerates to compete against each other
4. these conflicts can easily become militarized
5. The “U.S. empire-building” example: this sort of behavior has led to world war in the past

Notes on Capitalism: Marx on Capitalism and Alienation

Notes on Marx


Preliminaries:

Two different economic theories

-Capitalism: the means of production (raw materials, industries, etc.) are privately owned.

-Socialism: the means of production are owned by the workers/the collective public.

Karl Marx was a socialist. He realized that capitalism and socialism couldn’t co-exist. So, he argued against capitalism.

Marx divided the members of a capitalist society into two classes: the capital and the labor. ‘Capital’ were the wealthy business owners (i.e., those who owned the means of production), and ‘Labor’ referred to the working class.


The main ideas:

Summary: Capitalism is, by its very nature, dehumanizing and unnatural. For it alienates people in a variety of ways. First, it alienates the laborer from whatever they produce by the work of their hands. Second, it alienates them from the actual act of labor. Third, it alienates them their creative side, which is what separates them from other animals (since things like assembly line work prevent them from using their creativity in their work). Forth, it alienates them from other people (the conflict of purposes between the laborer and owner of capital (for example, the boss)).

Criticism of Locke: Didn’t account for all of the land being acquired.
-This has happened!
-But if so, then the only thing left for the laborer to “own” is their labor!


Alienation:

-From labor:
-Business owner (“capital”) controls how you work
-He controls when you work
-He controls the terms under which you work
-He controls the price/rate you receive for your work
-Your labor is turned against you: the harder you work, the more you produce (i.e., the total supply of the product increases). But in a free market capitalist economy, as the supply of a product goes up, the demand for that product goes down. And if so, then the price for the product goes down as well.

-From product of one’s labor: Owned by whoever owns the materials from which it was made

-From one’s species-kind (our humanness): The distinctively human part of people is their freedom and creativity in producing things. But (for example) assembly line work prevents the worker from expressing their freedom and creativity. Therefore, such work prevents the worker from expressing what makes them distinctively human. But if so, then they are reduced to an animal existence.

-From other people
-From other laborers: In a capitalist market, workers are in constant competition to get and keep a job.
-From the business owner: Your interests conflict with his.

Notes on Globalization: T. Friedman vs. Palast vs. Stiglitz

Notes on Globalization

Globalization: Globalization has several major aspects, each having to do with the constancy (or frequency) and ease of interaction among all the regions of the globe, and the influence and consequences (positive and negative) of this interaction. The major aspects of globalization are:
-international communication and travel
-multinational corporations
-economic globalization (EG): robust interrelations between national economies
-mainly brought about by (i) the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the World Bank
-You should know the basic facts about these three organizations (i.e., a little about their history and major functions). See, especially, (i) Stiglitz=s paper, pp. 10 (bottom paragraph) - 16 (up to the 1st full paragraph); (ii) Prof. Page=s notes, Nov. 19, pp. 2-3.

The three authors we read on the topic of EG: basic, preliminary points to know:
-defenders (to varying degrees) of EG:
-Thomas Friedman
-Joseph Stiglitz (although he thinks EG needs to be radically reshaped)
-opponent of EG
-Greg Palast:

Main points of each of the authors:
-Thomas Friedman: Extreme free market capitalism is now the only viable economic system for obtaining a high standard of living. For:
-While other systems may be better at distributing income more equitably, no other system is sufficiently efficient at generating income. But since the former is useless without the latter (you need to have income, and lots of it, before you can distribute it equitably to all of your citizens) no other economic system is viable, as has now been demonstrated historically (with the collapse of other countries that utilized them).
-But once a country realizes the force of this point, and joins other countries in the global free market, this amounts to Aputting on@ Athe Golden Straightjacket@ (GS).
-Putting on the Golden Straightjacket consists in a country doing the following things (which amount to a minimization of government involvement in one=s market):

-(1) making the private sector the primary engine of economic growth, (2) maintaining a low rate of inflation and price stability, (3) shrinking the size of its state bureaucracy, (4) maintaining as close a balanced budget as possible, (5) eliminating and lowering tariffs on imported goods, (6) removing restrictions on foreign investment (7) removing quotas and domestic monopolies, (8) increasing exports, (9) privatizing state-owned industries and utilities, deregulating capital markets, (10) making its currency convertible, (11) opening its industries, stock, and bond markets to direct foreign ownership and investment, (12) deregulating its economy to promote optimal competition, (13) eliminate government corruption, subsidies and kickbacks as much as possible, (14) opening its banking and telecommunications systems to private ownership, and (15) allowing its citizens to choose from an array of competing pension options and foreign-run pension and mutual funds. (p. 87, near verbatim quote)
-The benefits of wearing the GS: increases the average household income, and standards of living generally.
-The costs of wearing the GS: (a) It hurts many people and nations (at least in the short run), and (b) it strips much of the power of governments: politicians have to make decisions that don=t conflict with the smooth operation of the global market. For if they do, then (e.g.,) international credit rating agencies will warn multinational corporations and investors of this, and the latter, foreseeing the negative financial impact of such political decisions, will withdraw from the country.
-And this will, of course, have devastating social and economic consequences for the country.

-Joseph Stiglitz: Two main points:
-The negative point: the WTO, IMF and World Bank are, currently, greatly harming other countries, due in large measure to a number of factors
-Faulty ideology (see esp.: p. 220, 3rd full paragraph-221, 1st full paragraph; p. 222, top): roughly, the extreme free market view: an unrestricted market will solve all the problems; and even if it can=t, nothing else can.
-counter-evidence to the ideology:
-countries that are worse off after IMF, World Bank intervention (p. 209)
-countries that are better off, even though they refused to follow the extreme free market view (e.g., the Far East) (p. 221).
-The people of the Aaided@ countries are not well-represented (see esp. pp. 40-43).
-Quote 1: A But the IMF is not particularly interested in hearing the thoughts of its Aclient countries@ on such topics as development strategy or fiscal austerity. All to often, the Fund=s approach to developing countries has had the feel of a colonial ruler.@ (p. 40)
-Quote 2: AThe message conveyed was all too often clear: in the best of cases there was a member of an elite B a minister of finance or the head of a central bank B with whom the Fund might have a meaningful dialogue. Outside of this circle, there was little point in even trying to talk.@ (p. 41)
-catering to the interests of multinational organizations (see esp. pp. 206, bottom paragraph B 1st half of 208)


-The positive point: Although the WTO, IMF and World Bank are, currently, greatly harming other countries (due in large measure to their catering to the interests of multinational organizations), these organizations are capable of great good in helping other countries, if GE is reshaped in certain ways.
-Quote: AI believe that globalization can be reshaped to realize its potential for good and I believe that the international economic institutions can be reshaped in ways that will help ensure that this is accomplished.@ (p. 215, bottom)
-There is a spectrum of different versions of the market system, ranging from little government intervention to fairly substantial government intervention.
-A number of countries with market economies (e.g., Japan, Sweden, Germany) have much more governmental intervention in their markets than the U.S., and yet:
(i) they lack such problems that plague the U.S. (for the points here and following, see esp. pp. 217-218)
-they have outstanding, universal health coverage
-they have excellent unemployment insurance
-they have superior retirement benefits
(ii) they are thriving economically
(iii) Athey are every bit as successful, even in terms of the innovations associated with the ANew Economy@.@ (p. 219)
-What=s the lesson? Government should play a larger role in EG, to ensure social justice and economic prosperity.
-Quote: AI have advocated a balanced [my emphasis, F.L.] view of the role of government, one which recognizes both the limitations and failures of markets and government, but which sees the two as working together, in partnership, with the precise nature of that partnership differing among countries, depending on their stages of both political and economic development.@ (p. 219-220)

Greg Palast: EG doesn=t/won=t benefit most people. Rather, it benefits corporations, and countries like the U.S. and the rest of the G-7 (Japan, Germany, etc.), and this is no accident. The structural adjustment programs, imposed upon needy countries by the IMF and World Bank (usually by bribing a government official with a huge sum of money), are supposed to help those countries. Instead, they are used as tools to drain the cash and natural resources out of the countries and into multinational corporations and affluent countries.

Palast: the A4 step program@ of Country Assistance Strategies (pp. 50-52) :
4) Privatization, i.e., sell industrial state assets (e.g., utilities). Officials bribed to sell these industries at ridiculously low prices.
5) Capital Market Liberalization: deregulate the markets. Often leads to the money being drained out of the country.
6) Market-Based Pricing: raising the price on staple goods like food, water, and gas. Predictably leads to riots.
7) Poverty Reduction Strategy/ Free Trade: opening the country=s markets to global trade, while reducing tariffs.

Notes on Employee Rights:Lippke's Stuff

Notes: Lippke’s “Privacy, Work and Autonomy”

The nature of privacy: two key features:

1 – Some control over information about ourselves
2 – Some control over who can experience/observe us (Lippke, 80)

N.B.: Notice that Lippke agrees with D&D that what counts as private depends upon the kind of relationship that exists between two (or more) people. (Lippke, 80)

Why is privacy valuable?

-Because autonomy is valuable, and violation of our privacy undermines our autonomy, as well as our ability to develop our autonomy (and our ability to conceive of ourselves as autonomous) (Lippke, 80-81). Conversely, if we protect the right to privacy, then we will give people the idea that they are autonomous, thus realizing the conditions for people to actually behave/act autonomously.

-What is autonomy? It’s a kind of independence, in particular, independence from other people in making one’s own decisions. It is the ability to control certain aspects of one’s own self (e.g., one’s beliefs, thoughts, and actions). The current edition of Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines autonomy as “self-directing freedom”.

-Two degrees of autonomy: minimal autonomy and full autonomy.

-Minimal autonomy: Conceiving of oneself as autonomous: seeing oneself as someone who can, if she so wishes, control one’s thoughts, beliefs, and actions. It may also involve the actual control over some of our beliefs, thoughts and actions (Lippke, 80).

-Full autonomy: the actualized/realized ability to critically reflect on one’s deepest convictions and life plans (close paraphrase of Lippke, 81).

-Again, Lippke’s main point here is that privacy is valuable because autonomy is valuable (it’s necessary for human flourishing), and violation of privacy can undermine both our minimal and full autonomy. And providing an environment in which our privacy is respected gives us the necessary conditions to develop and utilize our minimal and full autonomy.

-Lippke’s summary: Three important connections between privacy and autonomy: Respecting people’s privacy gives them idea that


1 – they are able to act autonomously

2 – they are worthy of acting autonomously

3 – they are entitled to act autonomously (Lippke, 83)



First set of criticisms of D&D’s arguments for the right to privacy with respect to DT: (N.B.: these criticisms have to do with D&D’s responses to the Productivity Argument for DT)

-The general criticism: D&D wrongly argue against DT on the grounds that the knowledge it provides is not job relevant. From this point, they argue that since the ER/EE relationship is that of a contract, and since such a contract limits the ER’s knowledge to that which is job relevant, the requesting and demanding of DT is a violation of EE privacy rights. But arguing on the basis of job relevance is a failure.

-Support for the general criticism: Three arguments:

-A precautionary note: Lippke wants to protect this information as much as D&D do. However, he thinks that they can’t successfully defend such information on the basis of job (ir)relevance.


1 – Contrary to what D&D claim, the kind of information that they try to protect is, in fact, job relevant. But if so, then the argument for protecting such information because it is not job relevant is unsound.
2 – D&D argue that EEs are not required to perform at an optimal level. Rather, they are only required by their contracts to perform at a satisfactory level. Thus, since drug use would only rule out optimal – but not necessarily satisfactory – job performance, the information provided by DT isn’t job relevant. But this argument is very bad. For it only works so long as the EE and ER stipulate in the contract that merely satisfactory job performance is required. But there is no reason why the contract couldn’t stipulate the requirement of optimal performance. And if that happens, D&D’s argument here will no longer go through.

3 – D&D argue that knowledge of the underlying causes of poor job performance is not job relevant. Rather, only the information that the EE is performing poorly is relevant. But this argument is extremely weak. For we can easily argue that since the information gathered about an EE’s drug use will help the ER predict the performance level at which the EE will likely perform, then such knowledge is obviously job relevant.

4 – The means used by ERs to get the information (e.g., drug testing) is job relevant, contrary to what D&D claim

Second set of criticisms of D&D’s arguments: (N.B., these have to do with D&D’s responses to the Harm Argument for DT)

-Preliminary: Lippke’s concedes all of D&D’s points about restricting DT to certain job types, and to only certain individuals who occupy such jobs.

-D&D wrongly argue that the most important issue for determining whether ERs have a right to the information provided by DT is whether or not issues of safety outweigh considerations of EE privacy. But this is a shallow analysis of the problem. The deeper issue is providing social conditions in which EE’s wouldn’t even consider use drugs on the job. If EE’s were treated as autonomous agents, then drugs use on the job would be greatly reduced.


Lippke’s positive argument for EE privacy: DT, in most cases, is wrong, not because the information it provides is not job relevant, but because it undermines the EE’s minimal and full autonomy.

Notes on Employee Rights:Maitland's Stuff

Notes on Maitland’s Article

>EE= = Employee
>ER= = Employer

Preliminaries:
-Examples of EE rights:

-The right to meaningful work: the idea is that it is dehumanizing, degrading, and therefore wrong to make EEs do work that is trivial and repetitive. For example, consider EEs who work on an assembly line. The workers can=t take pride in their work, nor can they express their true creativity and talents by working on an assembly line.

-The right not to be fired at will by an employer: (without good reason or explanation). It=s claimed that it=s wrong for an employer to fire it=s employees without sufficient cause. This is supposed to be some kind of unacceptable mistreatment. So, for example, if you are a hard working and honest employee, then you invest your best efforts, indeed, you very life, in your work. This may have required things like moving to a new location and building a life with one’s wife and children in a new community, all for the sake of the company for which one works. But if so, then it doesn=t seem right for your ER to have the power to fire you for no good reason (such as poor performance), and without warning.

-The right not to have one=s place of work closed down without notice: It seems unfair for an ER to know months in advance that they will close down a plant, and yet not tell the EEs about this. For then they will not have time to look for employment elsewhere, and so they may have to endure some time of unemployment. This can lead to disastrous consequences for the former EE. For example, they may thereby be unable to pay bills, and even be thrown out of their house or apartment.


-Many people have argued that EE rights such as these should be legally enforced.

-However, Maitland is arguing AGAINST these people. He=s arguing that worker=s rights SHOULDN=T be legally enforced. This doesn’t mean that he thinks it=s OK to mistreat EEs. Indeed, he argues that the best way to treat EEs with respect is to keep these EE rights laws from being enforced. For if we REALLY respect EEs, then we will allow them the choice FORFEIT these rights if they want to.


-Why would EEs want to forfeit their rights?

-***Because they might get something they value more highly in exchange***. For example, they might forfeit their right to meaningful work in exchange for a bigger paycheck.


-But why would they need to exchange one for the other? Why can=t they be ensured of getting BOTH (say) a higher paycheck AND all meaningful work?

-Because **ensuring EE rights is expensive**. For example, it may require radically re- designing a factory in order to ensure that every employee has meaningful work. For example, what if ensuring meaningful work required eliminating human assembly lines? That would cost the company A LOT of money (costs involved in redesigning, reconstructing, re-training EEs, loss due to massive decrease in production, etc.).

-So, with the previous point, we see that there are necessarily going to be **trade-offs**: For example, trading the loss of some EE rights for higher wages, or trading the loss of some wages for more EE rights.

-But if we don=t enforce these rights by making a bunch of laws, then won=t the ERs exploit the workers, so that they won=t have any of their rights?

-No! If we don=t legally enforce EE rights, then our capitalist free market, all by itself, will ensure that EEs will get the rights they want and choose.

-We can see that this won=t happen if we consider all the possible things that could happen if an ER respected a particular EE right. It will either lead to an increase in profits, the profits staying the same, or a decrease in profits.

-If it leads to an increase in profits, then the ERs will make sure that such rights are respected, out of a motive of self-interest.

-If it leads to profits staying the same, then ERs will still be motivated to ensure these EE rights. For ERs are in competition with other ERs for good EEs. So if they don=t want to lose their good EEs to other ERs that are willing to ensure EE rights, they will ensure that their EEs get such rights.

-Finally, if it leads to a decrease in profits, then someone has to pay for it: Either (i) the ER, (ii) the EEs (by a decrease in their paycheck), or (iii) the customers (by paying for it through an increase in the price of the ER=s product).
-An ER can=t pay for it, for they will lose in the economic competition with other ERs who don=t ensure such rights. For these other, non-rights-enforcing ERs, won=t lose any of their profits that the rights-enforcing ER are losing to the costs of EE rights enforcement. But if not, then the rights-enforcing ER will go out of business.
-And the customers won=t pay for it. They are going to buy a cheaper version of the product. This, again, will lead to the ER going out of business.
-Therefore, if an EE wants a right enforced at work, then the EE is going to have to pay for it by a decrease in their paycheck.


-But different EEs want different things: Some are willing to forfeit some of their EE rights in exchange for other goods, such as a bigger paycheck. Other EEs are willing to have a smaller paycheck for the enforcement of some of their rights (e.g., meaningful work).

-But if so, then due to the competitive nature of our free market economy, these different EE preferences will ensure that there is a Amarket@ for different AEE packages@. To continue with our current example, some ERs will offer higher wages and less EE rights; other ERs will offer lower wages in exchange for more EE rights.

-And since this is so, EEs won=t be exploited in a free market capitalist system, even if their rights aren’t legally enforced. For they will be allowed to freely choose which rights they want enforced by choosing which ER to work for.

Therefore, concludes Maitland, EE rights shouldn=t be legally enforced. For (i) our free market capitalist system will ensure that no EE is overly mistreated, and (ii) EEs should be able to choose to forfeit their EE rights if they choose (for example, if they can get something that they want more in exchange, such as higher wages).

Notes on Employee Rights:Desjardins and Duska's Stuff

Notes: DesJardins and Duska

D & D’s thesis: “…it is rarely legitimate to override an employee’s or [job] applicant’s right to privacy by using such tests or procedures [i.e., drug tests].”

Preliminaries:

-‘Employee right’ defined: “a presumptive moral entitlement to receive certain goods or be protected from certain harms in the workplace.”

-Such rights provide a “prima facie obligation on the part of the employer to provide the relevant goods or refrain from the relevant treatment.”

N.B.: A prima facie obligation is an obligation that one must carry out, except under certain overriding circumstances. For example, one has a prima facie obligation to respect the right to free speech that we share with other citizens. However, if (say), that person yells “Fire!” in a crowded theater (and he or she knows that there is no fire), then, under those circumstances, we do not have an obligation to respect their right to freedom: it is permissible to stop them from shouting “Fire!”.

N.B.: Notice that D & D’s definition of rights and duties include both negative and positive duties. (Cf. Duska’s paper, “Employee Rights and Duties”, for this point, as well as for several of the following points)

-Recall that every right creates a corresponding obligation/duty: if Smith has a right to (say) free speech, then others have an obligation/duty to respect Smith’s right to free speech.

-Positive rights and duties: If Smith has a positive right to X, then someone has a duty/obligation to see to it that Smith gets X (e.g., adequate housing)

-Negative rights and duties: If Smith has a mere negative right to X, then no one has a duty/obligation to see to it that Smith gets X. Rather, they are only obliged to refrain from preventing Smith from having X.

-The role that employee rights play: prevent EE’s “from being placed in the fundamentally coercive position where they must choose between their job and other basic goods.”

-The kind of relationship that exists between two (or more) people determines the kinds of things that are impermissible, permissible, and obligatory for the people in that relationship.

-The kind of relationship that exists between EE and ER, according to D & D: a contract.

-The only kinds of obligations that apply to people in a contract are those mutually and voluntarily agreed upon by the people involved in the stipulations of the contract.

-The fact that the EE/ER relationship is a contractual one implies that the EE retains the right to privacy with respect to certain kinds of information. (Is this a positive or a negative right?)

-The right to privacy defined: A three-place relation between a person A, some information X, and another person B.

-Recall the point above about how the kind of relationship between two (or more) people determines the kinds of things that are impermissible, permissible, and obligatory for the people in that relationship. Now consider the three-place relation mentioned above. With these two points in mind, we see that what counts as private information will depend upon the kind of relationship that exists between the two (or more) people.

-For example, suppose that A and B are neighbors. Then A and B have a neighbor relationship. But the neighbor relationship is not the kind of relationship that allows (say) one neighbor to enter the other’s house and look around when no one is home. That is, B has a right to privacy from A with respect to B’s house and it’s contents (B’s house and it’s contents stand for the ‘X’ in the definition of the right to privacy above), and so A has a negative duty/obligation to respect that right.

-The conditions under which an employee’s right to privacy is violated: (i) B comes to possess some information X about A, and (ii) no relationship exists between A and B that would make it right for B to come to know X about A.

-But there are certain kinds of information about the EE, such that, given the contractual nature of the relationship between ER and EE, it would not be right for the ER to request or obtain such information about the EE.

-Thus, if an ER requests or obtains information about an EE that is not job relevant, then that ER does so without right or justification..


The Master argument of D & D’s paper:

1. The ER/EE relationship is contractual.
2. A contractual ER/EE relationship (as opposed to, say, the parent/child relationship) limits the kinds of information that the ER may rightfully request or obtain about the EE to that which is job relevant.
3. Information about whether the EE uses drugs is not job relevant.
4. Therefore, the ER cannot rightfully request or obtain information about whether the EE uses drugs.


Two arguments for the right of ERs to request or demand drug testing (DT) of EEs, and D & D’s replies to them:


I. The Productivity Argument:

1. EE drug use negatively affects the EE’s job performance.
2. If EE drug use negatively affects the EE’s job performance, then this will, in turn, decrease the productivity of the ER’s business.
3. If EE drug use lowers the productivity of the ER’s business, then if requesting/demanding DTs can
stop or prevent such loss in productivity, then requesting/requiring DT of EEs is job relevant.
4. Requesting/demanding DTs can stop or prevent such loss in productivity.
5. Therefore, requesting/requiring DT of EEs is job relevant.


-D & D’s responses:

-Response 1: D & D think that premise (3) is false. That is, they think that even if drug use lowers the productivity of the ER’s business, it doesn’t follow that DT is job relevant. It would follow that DT is job relevant if (and only if) the EE were required to give the ER optimal performance. But the EE is not required to give the ER optimal performance. Rather, (s)he is only required to give satisfactory performance (i.e., (s)he must exert only as much effort as it takes to do the job in a reasonable amount of time). Thus, if drug use doesn’t affect the job performance of an EE to the point that (s)he can’t do a satisfactory job, DT is not job relevant.

-Response 2: Even in cases where drug use does affect the job performance of an EE to the point that (s)he can’t do a satisfactory job, it still doesn’t follow that DT is job relevant, although it is justifiable to discipline the employee. Notice that the basis for discipline is poor performance, not drug use. But if not, then knowledge of drug use is unnecessary/irrelevant, and so we don’t have justification for overriding the EE’s prima facie right to privacy.

-The moral: The real job-relevant information is information about an EE’s job performance, not it’s underlying causes.

Therefore, the Productivity Argument is a failure.

II. The Harm Argument:

1. EE drug use is known to be a key contributor to much avoidable harm (e.g., to other EEs, to ERs, and to consumers (imagine flying in a plane that’s just been fixed by a person on LSD!).
2. If ERs request/demand DT, then they can prevent such harm.
3. If ERs can prevent such harm by requesting/demanding DT, then DT (and the information obtained by using it) is job relevant.
4. Therefore, DT is job relevant.


-D & D’s responses:

-Some concessions to the Harm Argument:
i. ERs really do have an obligation to prevent avoidable harm. They are also responsible if any such harm occurs.
ii. ERs may even have a right to reduce unreasonable risks.
iii. Therefore, D & D concede that there is at least some justification for requesting/demanding DT, (at least in some cases. See below for an explanation), if such testing is really the best way of preventing such harms (again, see below for an explanation).

-Four criticisms of the Harm Argument:

N.B.: These four criticisms amount to pointing out the need to qualify premise (3) so that it limits the job relevance of DT to a limited number of EEs and job types.

-The basic objection behind the criticisms: just because some EEs use drugs, and just because some kinds of jobs of some such EEs can affect the safety of others, it doesn’t follow that DTs are job relevant with respect to all EEs, working at every kind of job.

-Criticism 1: Drug testing should be limited to those kinds of jobs at which there is a clear and present potential for harm (e.g., pilots, bus drivers, etc.)

-Criticism 2: Drug testing should be further limited to the EEs at the jobs just mentioned who have (say) a dubious employee record, or who show visible signs of (say) intoxication.

-Criticism 3: Even in cases where the above two qualifications apply, the EEs should be informed beforehand (i.e., at the time of the origination of the ER/EE contract) that they will be tested for drug use.

-Criticism 4: EEs should be involved in the development of EE policy on DT.

-The basis for criticisms 3 and 4: (i) Recall that an EE/ER relationship is contractual. But something is a contractual relationship only if the people who bind themselves to its demands do so via informed consent. For this is the essence of a contract. But if EEs are subjected to a DT in a way that is not fully free and informed, then such subjection is in violation of the contract. (ii) If EEs are not allowed to help create DT policy, then there is a risk that the ERs will create the policy in a way that is abusive to EEs. (iii) If a contract is to be genuine, and not a mere “pose”, then the EE and ER must treat each other as equals. But if so, then if EEs aren’t allowed to participate in developing DT policy, then the balance of power, and hence the equality of treatment, could be lost, thus violating the contractual nature of the ER/EE relationship.

-The main objection to the Harm Argument: a counter-argument:

If (a) the knowledge obtained by DT doesn’t help prevent harm, or (b) the testing doesn’t provide the relevant knowledge, or (c) other, more effective, methods of obtaining the relevant knowledge exist, then DTs aren’t justified. But clauses (a) – (c) are true. Therefore, DTs aren’t justified.


-Support for (c):

-Other tests are faster, more effective, and more reliable (e.g., dexterity tests, psychological tests of judgement, perception, memory, etc.). ERs can request that some EEs take such tests before they start the job for the day.

-Support for (b):

-Even if the DTs were fast enough, still, the information they provide isn’t relevant. The relevant information has to do with whether their job performance is hazardous or otherwise unsatisfactory. This information can be obtained by dexterity and aptitude tests. Information about the underlying causes of such behavior, on the other hand, isn’t job relevant.

-The information supplied by DTs is relevant only if it’s been shown that there is a causal link between drug use and harmful behavior, which hasn’t been clearly shown.

-Even if an employee tests positively for being on drugs, such knowledge is relevant only if the use of that drug on that occasion was really a contributor to the performance problem(s).

-Support for (a):

-DTs are too slow in getting the relevant information. The harm is often done before the DT results can be obtained.


-A final concession: DT is, to some extent at least, effective as a deterrent to EE drug use:

-Most effective way to apply the test: random and regular testing.

-If DTs are carried out in this way, then they will prevent harm by:

A. Enabling the ER to discover and fire the chronic user.
B. Deterring the occasional user.

-Even though DTs, when administered in the way just suggested, can prevent harms in the ways mentioned, still, such testing is morally unacceptable. For it violates the privacy rights that apply to the EE/ER relationship. For, by the very nature of the case, random testing is done without probable cause. But then such testing clearly violates EE privacy rights. Compare: Random searching of the homes of American citizens for drugs without probable cause. Clearly, this would violate our right to privacy. But if so, then what’s the relevant difference between random testing of citizens without probable cause on the one hand, and random testing of EEs without probable cause on the other? There is no relevant difference, and so such testing is an unjustified violation of EE privacy.

-Also, it’s not a cost-effective method of preventing harm in the workplace. Dexterity tests, as well as the other tests mentioned, are much cheaper and faster.

Notes on Corporate Social Responsibility: Evan and Freeman's Stuff

Notes: Evan and Freeman’s “A Stakeholder Theory of the Modern Corporation: Kantian Capitalism”

Main Idea: Managerial capitalism (“stockholder” theory) is now seen to be inadequate on legal and economic grounds. We must now develop and implement a Stakeholder theory of the contemporary corporation.

Thesis: “We can revitalize the concept of managerial capitalism by replacing the notion that managers have a duty to stockholders with the concept that managers bear a fiduciary relationship to stakeholders.” (p. 77)


The article has two main parts: (i) a critique of managerial capitalism (to be explained below), and (ii) a positive development of an alternative view: Stakeholder theory (to be explained below).

But first, we should get clear on some key terms and concepts of the article.

Key terms and concepts:

-Stockholder: A person or group who own a portion of a corporation, usually for the purpose of making a profit.

-Stakeholder: Groups that have a stake or claim in the firm (quote, p. 77). That is, groups and individuals who benefit from or are harmed by, and whose rights are violated or respected by, corporate actions (quote, p. 80)
-Wide sense: Any group or individual who can affect or is affected by a corporation (quote, p. 80)
-Narrow sense: Those groups who are vital to the survival of the survival and success of a corporation (management, owners, employees, suppliers, customers, local community) (quote, p. 80)

-Managerial capitalism: In return for controlling the firm, management vigorously pursues the interests of the stockholders. Includes the idea that management can pursue market transactions with suppliers and customers in an unconstrained manner.(Quote, pp. 77-78) Corporations are primarily responsible to their stockholders, and therefore should be run solely in the interests of the stockholders in the firm. The concerns of other groups of people are marginal at best, and should play no important role in the decisions of a corporate manager.



Main Sections of the paper:

I. The Critique of Managerial Capitalism: pp. 77-79.

A. The Legal Argument

The “Anti-Managerial Capitalism” Part of the Argument
The corporation is a legal person. But if so, then the laws that apply to persons also apply to corporations. And if this is so, then to the extent that such laws limit what corporations can do, to that extent they are limited to what they can do to maximize the profits of stockholders. These laws have become increasingly demanding in recent years. Unfortunately, managerial capitalism requires that the corporation be able to maximize the profits of stockholders without constraint. For such constraints often lead to a loss (or at least the prevention of the maximization) of profits. For example, a corporation that manufactures a product is liable for any damage or harm caused by their products, even if they have done everything they could think of to prevent it. This has led to massive lawsuits and recalls of products, which in turn has often led to severe decrease in profits (cf. The example in the article, where a U.S. car company recalled more cars in 1980 than it produced!). Therefore, recent legislation has rendered managerial capitalism an inadequate model of the contemporary corporation.

The “Pro-Stakeholder Theory” Part of the Argument
The laws mentioned above - the ones that constrain corporations - all have something in common: they protect and give rights to the groups that directly affect, and are directly affected by, the activity of corporations (i.e., employees, the communities that host corporations, suppliers, stockholders, and management. See the article, pp. 78-79 for examples of laws that give rights to each of these groups of stakeholders). In other words, they give stakeholders of corporations some influence over the ways in which such corporations conduct their business. These groups include employees, the communities that host corporations, suppliers, stockholders, and management. But this is exactly what Stakeholder theory recommends. But if so, then current law lends some support to Stakeholder theory.


Here’s the “bare bones” of the argument (logic buffs, please forgive the imprecision!):

1. The corporation is a legal person.
2. So, the laws that apply to persons also apply to corporations.
3. But if so, then to the extent that such laws limit what corporations can do, to that extent they are limited to what they can do to maximize the profits of stockholders.
4. But managerial capitalism requires that the corporation be able to maximize the profits of stockholders without constraint, since such constraints can lead to a decrease in profits (cf. The “massive car recall” example above).
5. Therefore, managerial capitalism is an inadequate model of the contemporary corporation.
6. The corporation-constraining laws mentioned above give some power to stakeholders to influence the decisions of corporate managers (although their influence is indirect: they “influence” manager decisions in the sense that such managers, when making decisions, consider the legal repercussions of violating laws and other regulation that protect them).
7. But this is just what stakeholder theory recommends.
8. Therefore, current law gives some reason for corporations to adopt the Stakeholder Model.

B. The Economic Argument

According to managerial capitalism, the corporate manager can best pursue the wishes of stockholders (profit maximization) only if it is unconstrained. The unconstrained operation of the corporation - in other words, a totally de-regulated free market economy - is also, according to managerial capitalism, supposed to bring about the best results for society. But such real-life phenomena as the free rider problem1 and the tendency of corporations to avoid competition (by creating miniature monopolies or oligarchies) show that unconstrained corporations have unacceptable negative consequences for others outside the corporation. Therefore, corporations must have constraints placed upon them. Therefore, we see once again that managerial capitalism can’t meet it’s desiderata of satisfying the wishes of stockholders by maximizing their profits. For they are constrained from doing so in various ways.



II. The Development of an Alternative Theory: Stakeholder Theory: pp. 79-84.

Stakeholder Theory: Corporations are not just responsible - or even primarily responsible - to their stockholders. Rather, corporations are responsible to a variety of groups of people, viz., stakeholders. Each of these groups of stakeholders have in common the fact that they directly affect, or are directly affected by, the corporation (management, owners, employees, suppliers, customers, local community. Read pp. 80-82 for the role and importance of each of these groups of stakeholders). No group’s needs/wishes are to be treated as more important than those of any other. The function of the corporation is to serve as a forum for the competing needs and claims of each group of stakeholders. And the corporate manager’s primary responsibility is to look after the health of the corporation by balancing and coordinating the competing needs/claims of these groups. This responsibility requires him or her to run the corporation in such a way that it benefits each group of stakeholders. For (i) as we have seen, each group is vital to the success and existence of the corporation, and (ii) failure to meet each group’s needs will result in substantial legal consequences. The legal consequences are justified, for no group (e.g., the stockholders) of stakeholders is privileged. Just as stockholders can legally retaliate against a corporation under certain circumstances (they are mistreated by the corporation in substantial ways, e.g., misappropriation of their funds), so can any other stakeholder (e.g., the local hosting community can legally retaliate if the corporation contaminates their water supplies). No stakeholder can be treated as a mere means to corporate ends (quote, p. 79), but each person must be treated as an end in themselves. This is the justifying (Kantian) moral principle of Stakeholder theory.

Notes on Globalization: Brenkert's Stuff

Notes: Brenkert’s “Marketing, the Ethics of Consumption, and Less-Developed Countries”


I. Introduction

The “missionary” analogy: just as Christian missionaries came to the “New World” and sought to persuade and coerce Native Americans to accept what they believed was the one true religion and way of life – Christianity -- so contemporary marketers go into Less Developed Countries (LDCs) to persuade and coerce them into accepting what they believe is the one true view of the world and way of life – the contemporary West’s view of “commerce and marketing, economic development, and the consumer society.”

The shallow, indequate conception of marketers with respect to their responsibilities to LDCs: they think that the only relevant ethical issues with respect to dealing with LDCs are those having to do with things like “bribery, corruption, gift-giving, entertainment, market freedom, and international human rights”

The author’s criticism of the above conception: an adequate account of the ethical responsibilities to LDCs much go much deeper than that. It must also deal with issues regarding the influence of marketers on the culture and way of life of LDCs.

Topic: The moral responsibilities of marketers toward LDCs.

Thesis: “Marketers...have a moral responsibility to market products to LDCs in a manner that is ...appropriate to their cultural, economic, and social situation, ...[and] also meet[s] other demands on behalf of the integrity of their cultures.” (532)

Broader implications of the thesis: it has implications for the more general topic of the ethics of “the transfer of marketing practices of one society to another society, when the use of such practices is to promote consumer societies in the mode of their own society and culture.”

II. Marketing, Consumer Societies, and the Ethics of Consumption

Brenkert’s coneception of ‘Marketing’ , for the purposes of this article: advertising and other promotional components of marketing, as well as product development, research, and forms of distribution.

First key point: The techniques and concepts of the above aspects of marketing are not neutral, but are “value-laden and metaphysically charged”.
Some of the values that marketing presupposes:
-consumption is good and abstention is bad
-consumption is essential to happiness, acceptance, and status
-individual freedom is just the lack of restraint
-denying oneself of satisfying one’s desires is pointless; one should engage in instant- gratification whenever one feels like it.
-one’s behavior should be guided primarily by considerations of self-interest and the satisfaction of individual wants and needs
–people are inherently acquisitive
-marketers should pursue market growth relentlessly, even if it requires undermining social conventions and boundaries, customs, and traditions

Some of the metaphysical presuppositions of marketing:
-people are defined by what they possess and consume; a person’s “sense of self comes from what that person possesses.”
-people are essentially consumers; people can’t flourish as human beings unless they live a life of acquiring consumer goods.

Second key point: Most non-Western cultures don’t accept the above values; nor do they accept the above metaphysical assumptions about human beings and human flourishing.

For example, many cultures accept the following values:
-human fulfillment and human nature is only discovered when one renounces one’s material possessions.
-self-denial is required for living a happy, healthy life

But if so, then engaging in West-style marketing involves undermining the underlying beliefs and values of LDCs, and replacing them with the beliefs and values of the consumer-oriented societies of the West.

Consumer societies presuppose an “ethics of consumption”, which consists in the following theses:
-Products are for individual satisfaction. More satisfaction is better than less satisfaction, and immediate gratification is better than delayed gratification.
-There is a close connection between consumerism and self-esteem. A person’s identity is bound up with the products she owns or uses. Human happiness and welfare depends in large part upon the consumption of goods.
-Individuals have a right to choose freely among all the products produced. Thus, the free market plays a central role in the ethics of consumption. This implies restricted government intervention.
-Material success is a dominant goal in a consumer society.
-Products are acquired by the exchange of money. Their price captures their interchangeability. Consumers need have little knowledge of how or where the objects they consume are produced.
-The world is a collection of resources whose primary value lies in their use for consumption according to the preceding precepts.

Therefore, marketing to LDCs involves the introduction of the ethics of consumption, and its corresponding vision of “the good life” as the consumer lifestyle to such countries. Such an ethic and vision of the good life often differs radically with that of the LDCs in which it is introduced.

Thus, marketing involves modifying societies and cultures accordingly.

But if so, then the question arises: what moral responsibilities, if any, do marketers have to the societies and cultures they affect?


III. The Contradictory Positions of Business Ethicists

-The contradictory position of philosophical business ethicists:
-philosophical business ethicists tend to be ethical universalists. That is, they believe that there are moral values and principles that apply to all people. Call this the “first dimension” of ethical principles.
-However, they also allow for some moral values and principles that only apply to individual cultures, and which other cultures might reject. Call this the “second dimension” of ethical principles. Philosophical ethicists argue that marketers should respect this second ethical dimension in LDCs.
-Brenkert argues that such ethicists ignore a “third dimension” of ethical principles, viz., the effect of Western marketing and business activities on the culture and society in which they take place.
-The problem is that such ethicists argue that it is morally permissible for marketers to engage in marketing in ways that undermine an LDCs second dimension of ethical principles: they fail to see that there is a third dimension of ethics, and that it can undermine principles of the second dimension in an LDC
-Thus, they hold to a contradictory business ethic.

-The contradictory position of marketing business ethicists:
-marketing business ethicists tend to be ethical relativists. That is, they think that ethical codes vary from culture to culture, and that a person should obey they ethical code of any given society to which they go.
-Applying this to marketers, they say that marketers should engage in behaviors and activities that are consistent with the ethical code in which they are marketing.
-However, Western marketing practices tend to undermine the undermining beliefs and values that exist in the LDCs in which they engage in marketing (recall the “ethics of consumption”, and how it often conflicts with the ethics of LDCs)
-Thus, the hold to a contradictory business ethic: one which both encourages that marketers both conform to and fail to conform to the ethical codes of LDCs.

-The underlying assumption that both types of ethicisits accept, and which generates the contradiction: ethics and economics don’t overlap. But this assumption is false, as we have just seen.

IV. Criticisms of Marketing in LDCs (The Central Section of the Paper: Brenkert’s Argument)

-Preliminaries: four points of clarification
-1: Brenkert is not arguing that changing the culture and society of an LDC is inherently wrong, or that we shouldn’t bring modern goods to such societies. Indeed, marketers have positively benefitted societies in many ways. Rather, he is concerned solely with (a) the ways in which marketers transform the cultures of LDCs, and (b) the questionable ethical character of changing them in ways that conform to the Western consumerist culture.

-2: He is not arguing that marketing to LDCs is wrong because cultures are unique, and that the mere altering of a unique culture is inherently wrong. Indeed, he thinks that certain sorts of change are often desirable, and that cultures are dynamic, not static. He is also not saying that all aspects of a culture are beyond moral criticism. Rather, his focus is on LDC cultures that already conform to basic, “international moral norms, but which differ from Western consumer cultures”.

-3: He assumes that cultures are things that may be “worthy of respect, for its own intrinsic value.” Since cultures are structures in which groups of people shape and define their humanity, sense of place, and meanings, to destroy or alter a culture is potentially to destroy or alter something of inherent value. Therfore, marketers should be concerned with respect for culture.

-4: Respect for culture requires at least the following four conditions:
-i: Understanding: one can’t respect a culture that one doesn’t understand (e.g., its values and assumptions about human flourishing)
-ii. Nondisruption: Respect for culture requires that marketers not undermine or otherwise hinder important cultural values and goals.
-iii. Consideration: Respect for culture requires that marketers include values of the culture of an LDC in marketing decisions. Also, they shouldn’t make decisions that would alter or hinder such values.
-iv. Moral bounds: Respect for culture must be consistent with behavior that conforms to international moral norms.

-The question clarified, in light of the preceding: its focus is on “those marketing activities that may impinge upon and undercut the values of distinct cultures, for these affect the self-understanding and definition of people in the other society in ways that fail to show them respect.”

-The criticisms:
-1: The “homogenization” objection: Western marketing homogenizes the moral identities of LDCs, so that they all conform the Western consumerist morality (recall the “ethics of consumption”). “When these cultures are altered such that people come to see themselves as consumers whose wants and needs require Western-style products and levels of consumption, the value of their own culture wanes.”
-Marketers foster the ethics of consumption in LDCs
-The people in that culture thereby come to desire levels that are unattainable and unsustainable in their culture.
-Also, the ethics of consumption was not originally valued by the indigenous people of the LDC
-“This approach to marketing does not take seriously the people or cultures it modifies. Instead, it treats the cultures of such societies and individuals simply as means or vehicles, which may be used, or must be overcome, to promote the economic ends of marketers.”

-2: The “unfulfillability” objection: Western marketers promote “a form of society and a set of aspirations that people in LDCs will not be able to fulfill.”
-The quantity and quality of Western-style consumer goods and services cannot be universally enjoyed, since the world lack the requisite level of natural resources.
-But if so, then marketers are cultivating desires and aspirations in the people of LDCs that will necessarily remain frustrated.
-Also, , even if we had enough natural resources for everyone to enjoy the luxuries of the West, the vast majority of people will never have the requisite income or credit to enjoy such things.
-This shows disrespect to LDC cultures by failing to promote attainable forms of economic development.
-Finally,. Marketers should show respect to LDC cultures by respecting their value of frugality, and not see it as an obstacle to be removed.

-3: The “undercutting indigenous values and replacing them with questionable values” objection: When marketers promote the ethics of consumption in LDCs. They “indercut important traditional sources of meaningfulness, while offering forms of meaning in consumption that have proven to be of questionable value in the Western countries.”

-“The consumer’s fallacy”: the claim that we do not even begin to live until we have the right or approved kind of food bought in a good store, fashionable clothing, and a cave as good as our neighbors….We live when we have as many of these and other goods as our fortune will allow or our stratagems create.”

-the faulty basis of the fallacy: the assumption that “happiness is a function of the goods we possess and the things we consume.”

-why the consumer’s fallacy really is a fallacy: ordinary observation confirms that most people who pursue life with this assumption at the center are unhappy, unfulfilled, and unsatisfied.

Conclusion: “If the preceding objections are acceptable, it follows that marketers do indeed have moral responsibilities to market products to LDCs in a manner that is not only appropriate to their cultural, economic, and social situation, but which also meet other demands on behalf of the integrity of their culture(S).”

V. Implications for Marketers

-Obligation to preserve cultural values of LDCs
-Obligation not to insist on/force entry of a marketer into a culture that resists it for reasons of cultural preservation. Also, obligated to not stand in the way/interfere if a culture attempts to adopt measures to preserve their culture.
-“Marketers require an account of the compatibility (or incompatibility) of their activities with the culture of the societies in which they are active” (533) This involves:
-“identifying the essentials of that culture” (533)
-“attempting to anticipate the consequences their activities will have on them” (533)
-Marketers have an obligation to know which features of a culture are permissible to change, and which aren’t.

Notes on Corporate Social Responsibility: Bowie's Stuff

Notes: “Kantian Business Ethics”, by Norman Bowie

The basic picture: Spell out the basics of Kant’s ethical theory and apply it to business contexts. The claim is that Kantian ethics has much to contribute to business ethics.

The paper at a glance: the labels of the main sections of the paper, and the main idea covered in each such section:

-Section 1: “Background” (pp. 3-4): Discussion of some rudimentary biographical facts about Immanuel Kant, as well as the main concepts that make up the basis of his ethical theory.

-The highest good is the Good Will (i.e., acting with the sole intention (or, motive) of doing one’s duty).

-So, it is the intention, or motive, of an action, and not it’s consequences, that determine if an act is morally right or wrong.

-Preliminaries to discussion of the Categorical Imperative:

-Maxim: a principle or basis of action. Maxims have the following formal structure: “Do action A in circumstances of kind C for purpose P”. (e.g., “Make a phone call whenever you have the urge, and are not in class, for the purpose of making others think that you are usually available when they need you.” ). They therefore specify (i) an action, (ii) a set of circumstances in which the action should be performed, and (iii) a purpose or goal which your are trying to achieve by the action.

-Imperative: a command (e.g., “You ought to help elderly women cross the street.”; or, “You should not lie to people.”). There are two kinds of imperatives:

-Hypothetical imperative: a command that you should obey if doing so will help you get something you want or desire. They have the form, “If you want X, then you should do Y”. (e.g., “If you want good grades, then you should study hard”.).
-Notice that your obligation to obey a hypothetical command depends on whether or not you want the thing specified in the first part of the command: If you don’t want that thing, then you have no obligation to obey the command.

-Categorical Imperative: A command that you have to obey no matter what, even if obeying the command won’t satisfy any of your desires or wants. Categorical imperatives have the form, “Do X”: there are no ifs, ands, or buts (e.g., “don’t murder”; or “be honest when you are talking to your parents”). These are the only kinds of imperatives that apply to morality.

-The three formulations of the Categorical Imperative (‘CI’, as the teacher calls it):
-1st Formulation (“The Formulation of Universal Law” (‘FUL’)): Act only on maxims which you can will to be universal laws of nature.

-2nd Formulation (“The Formulation of Humanity” (‘FH’)): Always treat the humanity in a person as an end, and never as a means merely.

-3rd Formulation (“The Formulation of the Kingdom of Ends” (‘FKE’)): So act as if you were a member of an ideal kingdom of ends in which you were both subject and sovereign at the same time.

-Only humans can act freely: they have free will.

-This allows them to act rationally: they can freely choose to act according to the dictates of reason.

-And this, in turn, allows them to act morally: because we are rational, we can use reason to discover true, universal moral rules; and because we are free, we can choose to follow those rules.

-Section 2: “The Self-Defeating Nature of Immoral Actions” (pp. 4-7): Discussion of the 1st formulation of the Categorical Imperative, and some of its implications for business ethics.

-Preliminaries: the idea of universalizing a maxim, and the two kinds of contradictions that can be generated from a universalized maxim:

-Universalizing a maxim: taking one of your personal maxims and conceiving of a world in which that maxim become a law that everyone knew about and had to obey.

-when universalizing a maxim generates a logical contradiction: when you attempt to universalize the maxim, the key concept in the maxim becomes incoherent/logically contradictory.

-when universalizing a maxim generates a practical contradiction: obeying the maxim wouldn’t work as a means to achieve the purpose or goal in the maxim.

-The Universalizability Test implied by the FUL: Suppose you are considering doing some action, and are wondering if it is morally permissible to do that action. To find out if it really is morally permissible, try to universalize the maxim upon which the action is based. If you can universalize that maxim without generating a logical contradiction or a practical contradiction, then the action is morally permissible. But if you can’t universalize it without generating one of the two types of contradiction, then it is not morally permissible.

-Notice that saying that an action fails the universalizability test is not to say that the action has bad consequences. ***Consequences have nothing to do with morality in Kantian ethics.***

-The 1st Formulation of CI is a principle of “fair play”.

-Sample applications of the FUL to business contexts:

-Theft of company goods by employers, customers or managers: FUL says that it’s morally impermissible, since it can’t be universalized.

-Breaking contracts: impermissible, since it can’t be universalized. Generates a practical contradiction.

-An objection from Hegel and from Bradley:

-Korsgaard’s reply:

-Another objection: contract-breaking happens all the time in the business world. Yet people still engage in making contracts. But Kant’s universalizability test would seem to imply that contract-breaking would generate a practical contradiction: if we universalized the maxim of breaking contracts, then no one would enter into contracts, since they knew that no one would honor them. Therefore, Kant’s universalizability test is shown to be false and worthless.

-reply: No. The objection fails to appreciate that a threshold level of contract-breaking frequency must be reached before the act of contract-breaking won’t work as a means of achieving certain ends. But that threshold hasn’t been crossed.

-Section 3: “Treating Stakeholders as Persons” (pp. 7-10): Discussion of the 2nd formulation of the Categorical Imperative, and some of its implications for business ethics.

-Preliminaries:

-Two kinds of value: instrumental and intrinsic.

-Instrumental value: “Instrument value”, or “tool value”: If something has mere instrumental value, then it is valuable only to the extent that you can use it (as an “instrument” or “tool”) to get something else. As soon as such a thing becomes useless, it is considered worthless. E.g., cars, doorstops, and in general, inanimate objects have mere instrumental value).

-Intrinsic value: If something has intrinsic value, then it retains its value even if it is completely useless. In other words, it doesn’t have value in virtue of its usefulness as a tool. Kant argued that people have intrinsic value, in virtue of their possessing free will and rationality (which, in turn, enables them to act rationally, and therefore, morally). Their free will and rationality gives them inherent worth and dignity.

-treating someone as a mere means to an end: this is the same thing as treating someone as though they had mere instrumental value (“tool” value). That is, treating them as a mere thing, to be used as one sees fit, and then abandoning them when your done using them.

-treating someone as an end in themselves: This is the same as treating someone as though they had intrinsic value. According to Kant, if something has intrinsic value, then you can’t treat them like an inanimate object, to be used at your disposal. A thing with intrinsic value is priceless, and can’t be used or manipulated to suit your own ends. Rather, you must respect a bearer of intrinsic value, and seek to benefit it. Again, Kant believed that all persons have intrinsic value.

-Negative freedom: freedom from deception and coercion.

-Positive freedom: freedom to develop one’s human capacities (e.g., the capacities for rationality and morality)

-The FH implies another test for moral permissibility/impermissibility: The Respect for Persons test: If an act violates a person’s positive or negative freedom, then it is morally impermissible. But if it doesn’t, then it’s morally permissible.

-violating someone’s negative freedom amounts to deceiving or coercing them.

-violating someone’s positive freedom amounts to hindering their rational or moral development.

-Sample applications of the Respect for Persons test in business contexts:

-Caveat: Doesn’t imply that commercial transactions are immoral. For even though you treat someone as a means to an end in such transactions (e.g., to increase profits), you don’t thereby treat them as a mere means. For if the transaction is consensual and voluntary by all parties involved, then although they are being used as a means, they aren’t used as a mere means. And the respect for persons test only rules out treating others as mere means.

-Application 1: Can’t coerce or deceive an employee or boss.

-Application 2: employers can’t be secretive about the company’s financial records. Leads to an unequal balance of power, which can then lead to an abuse of power against employees. Businesses need to practice open book management. Equal access to the company’s information.

-Application 3: employers need to create work for employees that is meaningful, and which makes possible and encourages the development of their human capacities. For example:

-allow the employees to exercise responsibility, power, creativity.

-some conditions of meaningful employee work:
1) is freely chosen and provides opportunities for the worker to exercise autonomy on the job
2) supports the autonomy and rationality of human beings: work that lessens autonomy or that undermines rationality is immoral.
3) provides a salary sufficient to exercise independence and provide for physical well-being and the satisfaction of some of the worker’s desires.
4) enables a worker to develop rational capacities.
5) does not interfere with a worker’s moral development.

-managers are morally required by Kant’s ethics to provide such meaningful work, based on the 2nd formulation (FH), and the Respect for Persons test it implies.

-Application 4: downsizing and massive layoffs: permissible? An open question. Depends on a number of factors.


-Section 4: “The Business Firm as a Moral Community” (pp. 10-12): Discussion of the 3rd formulation of the Categorical Imperative, and some of its implications for business ethics.

-The 3rd formulation of CI, the FKE, implies that the rules of a business must be universally endorsable by all rational agents. This follows from the dignity and respect that applies to persons (since they have intrinsic value, due to their free will and capacity for rationality)

-But if so, then the FKE implies at least 7 principles of company organization (see text, p. 10, for the statement of the principles).

-Implication 2 of the FKE for business: the imperfect duty of beneficence and corporate social responsibility: Kant argued that someone benefits you, then you have an obligation to benefit them in return. But corporations benefit greatly from society: (i) society protects businesses by providing the means to enforce their contracts; (ii) society provides the requisite infrastructure for the normal functioning of a business (roads, sanitation facilities, police and fire departments); (iii) it provides an educated workforce (that’s you guys!) that is necessary for a successful business. Therefore, since businesses benefit from society in these ways, they have an obligation to benefit society in return. This probably implies that it should stop engaging in “creative” techniques in tax evasion.

-Implication 3: management must adopt a “Theory Y” account of human nature. Employees tend to behave according to the way they are treated, so treat them as though they were responsible, active, initiative-takers.

-Implication 4: decentralize and democratize the company’s power structure. No authoritarian hierarchy of power. All stakeholders (e.g., stockholders, employees) must participate in company decisions and policies. No blind following of orders.

-Section 5: “The Purity of Motive” (pp. 12-13): Discussion of a major objection to the application of Kantian ethics to business, as well as the author’s replies to the objection.

-The objection: If Kantianism is true, then an act is considered moral only if it is purely morally motivated: if an act is tainted by partially selfish motives, then that act is immoral. But even the most morally upright CEO makes decisions that are at least partially motivated by considerations of self-interest (e.g., profitability). But if so, then Kantianism implies that no business can be conducted in a way that satisfies the demands of morality, which is absurd.
-Reply 1: That’s right. Kant was mistaken in thinking that a moral action could contain no self-interested motives. But we can revise his account by allowing for such motives. As long as the maxim behind an act meets the demands of universalizability, respect for persons, and universal endorsibility, then the act is moral. There is no need to go further and say that the agent’s motives must be “pure” in this sense.

-Reply 2: People naively think that if a business makes decisions in order to increase profits, then it is necessarily acting according to their own self-interest. But this is false. Businesses are usually making such profitable decisions out of an obligation to stockholders, to obey contracts with the public, and to abide by charters of incorporation.

-Reply 3: It’s probably in a business’s best interest to strive for purity of motive, even if we drop it as an obligation. Businesses should abandon “bottom line” thinking: “perhaps we should view profits as a consequence of good business practices instead of a goal of business.” (p. 13)


-Section 6: “Kant’s Cosmopolitanism and International Business” (pp. 13-16): An argument that Kantian ethics, if applied to international business, will lead to a universal, minimal, “market morality”, as well as contributing to world peace.

Notes on Corporate Social Responsibility: A Critique of Friedmam

Part I: the nature of rights
-positive rights
-negative rights
-the reciprocity thesis

Part II: the rights-based defense of the extreme free market view, and the authors’ criticisms.
-the argument from the right to individual liberty
-the right to liberty is the right to be free from human interference in one’s pursuits.
-but this implies that humans are free to enter into any economic transactions that they desire.
-but then this implies that no one, including the government, can interfere with one’s entering into such transactions. Their role is limited to ensuring that no one interferes with this liberty, and so ensuring that the economic activities of businesses stay free of coercion and fraud.

-critique of the argument:
-There is no such thing as a general right to liberty
-obviously, I don’t have a right to swing a baseball bat when another human being is within the radius of such a swing!
-So there are limits to individual liberty.
-But, as stated, the argument for the extreme market view depends on the right to liberty being completely general and unrestricted. So it fails as stated.
-But even if we modify the argument so that it is only based on a specific right to liberties that are compatible with the extreme market view, those liberties would come into conflict with other rights.

-the argument from the right to private property
-The right to private property is the right of a property owner to do whatever they want with that property.
-the constraints of government regulations (and some moral constraints) interfere with such a right: they interfere with your right to do whatever you want with your property
-So, such moral and governmental constraints conflict with the right to private property, and so need to be eliminated.
-But this is just to say that the right to private property implies that the extreme free market view is justified.

-critique of the argument
(1) There are many ways in which the right to private property comes into conflict with other rights (or the rights of others!), and so there are many cases that show that there are limits on the right to private property.
(2) To find out what these limits are, we need to look at some key justifications for the right to private property. Three key arguments for the right are:
(I) Utility: Allowing people a right to private property motivates them to work hard and be productive. If everyone is highly productive, then this will create more jobs and more goods and services. And this, in turn, means that their overall standard of living will increase.
(II) Autonomy: if we can’t own land and other kinds of property, then we will be dependent on others for our well-being. But if so, then to that extent, we are not autonomous. But autonomy is a necessary condition for a worthwhile life. Conversely, if we can (and do) own property, then to that extent we are independent of others, autonomus and capable of human flourishing.
(III) Fairness: It is only fair to be able to receive the “return” or outcome of your labor.
(3) Now if someone exercises a right in such a way that the exercise of that right conflicts with the justifications of that right, then this is obviously unacceptable. But the exercise of the right to private property - when exercised in an extreme free market - can conflict with the justification of that very right.
-So if a business owner uses her company in a way that is unfair to others, then her justification for that right is defeated.
-And if a business owner uses her company in a way that diminishes the autonomy of others, then her justification for that right is defeated.
-Finally, if a business owner uses her company in a way that diminishes the overall utility in a society, then her justification for that right is defeated.