Group Presentation - 2/2

4th class summary

EE Traps 21 to 24  talks about defensive traps. Trap 21 is about Anger as the way to annihilate the guilt. Author argues that hostility and anger are two ways to squelch empathy and guilt. Enron case is used as an example. Trap 22 talks about going numb to hide emotions and reject any feelings towards subject. Trap 23 talks about use of alcohol to suppress emotions and avoid facing the problem or guilt. Trap 24 is abut desensitization by repeating the issue on hand.  Trap Traps 25 to 32 talks about minimizing - for example, trap 25 "reduction words" give an example from Martha Stewart case where she defended her action by saying that the issue on hand was minor compared to her overall wealth. Trap 26 "renaming" is about the use of benign words to replace words that have negative feelings. For example, marketing strategy was quoted as being the replacement of lying. Trap 27 and 28 talks about Advantageous comparisons and zooming out to lesson ones guilt by comparing against something worst. Similarly, zooming out is to justify action comparing against larger view. Trap 29 justify wrong action as "everybody does it" trap. Trap 30 talks about the risk of getting caught is inversely correlated with chance of wrong doing. Higher the risk, lower we tend to abide by law and ethics. Trap 31 "we didn't hurt them that bad" is justifying act by minimizing amount of harm occurred. Trap 32 is about "self-serving bias" by justifying that the wrong doing that the subject was not directly involved. This defense act is often associated by our tendency to blame others. Trap 33 is about "Addiction" trap that most people become addicted to an activity because of short-term benefits.  We often tend to get addicted on maiming immediate goal getting out-self trapped into "addiction" trap. Trap 34 is about " coworker reaction" trap that  we tend to continue and accept unethical behavior if none condemn such actin, for example,by coworker, immediate manager etc. Trap 35, 36 and 37 are defensive traps such that we tend to stick with our "established impressions" even the result and evidence contradict with our impressions. Similarly, "contempt for the victim" trap let us follow unethical behavior the more we tend to dehumanize others.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

Libertarianism

     Higher taxes on the wealthy to help the poor? Not according to libertarian philosophy.  The libertarian philosophy believes that taxing the wealthy to assist the poor is a violation of individual liberty and human freedom. (Sandel)

     Libertarianism is a political philosophy that has liberty as the primary objective.  While there are varying degrees of libertarianism, there is a shared belief to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice.

LIBERTARIANS OPPOSE:

  • Government regulation- belief that government's role should be to protect our Constitutional rights.
  • Laws to protect people from harming themselves (i.e. seat belt laws, helmet laws)
  • The coercive force of law to promote notions of virtue or to express the moral convictions of the majority.
  • Any law that requires some people to help others (i.e. taxation for the redistribution of wealth)

LIBERTARIANS SUPPORT:

  • Believe in the fundamental right to liberty.
  • Minimal state limited to enforcing contracts to protect people against force, fraud and theft.
  • Self-ownership

A FEW LIBERTARIANS IN BUSINESS TODAY

  • Jeff Bezos- Amazon CEO.  Calls himself a Libertarian and recently contributed 2.5 million to support Washington State's gay marriage law in 2012.
  • Patrick Byrne- Overstock CEO.  Self-described libertarian and 2011 supporter of Occupy Wall Street.
  • John Mackey- Whole Foods CEO.  Self-described libertarian and known for opposition to President Obama's Healthcare reform.

Source: http://www.benzinga.com/general/entrepreneurship/1...

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THOUGHT?

  • How would your current role change if you approached your business from a libertarian perspective?
  • Is Libertarian Philosophy relevant to business today?
  • Who do helmet laws ultimately effect and who should decide? (Click button below)

Comment Stream

2 years ago
0
2 years ago
0

Introduction:
There is a lot of controversy over the requirement to label genetically modified foods in the US. It has been proposed to make labeling Genetically Modified (GM) foods a requirement, but the proposals have never been implemented.
The European Union has required all GM foods to be labeled, and some countries have even banned them.
Today, a large majority of the foods Americans consume are made with genetically modified organisms. Soy beans and corn are almost all GM and we find these ingredients in most of the items on our shelves today. Many do so without the awareness, they just don’t have the knowledge and the labeling is not clear or present.
At this time, many argue that the health risks are substantial,, more research is needed, and further government regulation is required. But those arguing against the labeling requirement happen to have a lot of funding to argue against these initiatives.
You might ask, why not just go ahead and label them all? What’s the harm?
One argument is that the costs would increase for the GMO food companies, and they would have to pass these costs on to the consumer, no longer being able to offer the lower price, and no longer being competitive to the higher cost option of organic food. Another concern is that the customer perception would be to no longer purchase these products and stores would end up eliminating these foods from their shelves.
So then, what are some of the concerns with leaving these foods unlabeled, or with otherwise deceiving labels?
Consumers have a right to know what they are putting into their bodies. After all, what you put in your body closely affects your health. Having labels, will help those to easily avoid types of foods in which they don’t prefer to eat, for health reasons or religious beliefs.
Source:
http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09371.html

Monsanto is one of the leading makers of GMO’s, they are quickly owning the supply chain through their genetically altered, and patented, seeds. Monsanto has spent a great deal of money on efforts to silence the requirement for labeling on foods, with the concern that it could increase their costs and hurt their business.

Here’s an example of an ethical dilemma on this subject: “In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration - which is supposed to protect the public from unsafe foods and drugs - is being run by ex-Monsanto executives. Can you say 'conflict of interest'?”
Source: http://www.naturalnews.com/041559_Monsanto_GMOs_lies.html#ixzz3QYCCQM8p

Another concept to consider, if not just the GMO it in food itself, but the adverse effects of the creation of foods with GMO’s and impacts it has to our environment and our animals. Much so, like the oil drilling laws in Ecuador, our US laws are potentially not mature enough to really understand and regulate GMO’s to help keep our world safe from these impacts.
“The genetic modification of the plant leads to the concurrent genetic modification of the flower pollen. When the flower pollen becomes genetically modified or sterile, the bees will potentially go malnourished and die of illness due to the lack of nutrients and the interruption of the digestive capacity of what they feed on through the summer and over the winter hibernation process”
Source: http://www.globalresearch.ca/death-of-the-bees-genetically-modified-crops-and-the-decline-of-bee-colonies-in-north-america/25950

Open in New Window
2 years ago
0
2 years ago
0

"I522 trails in all but 4 counties"
Initiative 522, a proposal to require labeling of some genetically modified foods, was trailing in first night returns in all but four counties.

2 years ago
0
2 years ago
0

From the result above, it looks like that majority people in Washington are not willing to support the I-522, but that it is not the truth.

2 years ago
0

As we know political is a money consuming game, who gets more money always has a stronger voice. In this case, the "No" campaign raised $22 million donations. But only $550 of total amount are from Washington state residents. $500 is not even 0.01% of the total amount. Most of the donation are coming from company or organization that all heavily invested in genetically engineered crops. Are they really care about people's health? Or they just don't want to lose their money. Today, no one can really say that Genetically engineered produced are good or bad, why those company can't just let their product to prove for themselves, if they think their food is as health as normal food. Those company should respect people's right to know the truth, and never lie to customer.

2 years ago
0

In contrast to the "No" campaign, the "Yes" campaign looks more like the voice form state residents. Almost 70 percent of the funding for "Yes" campaign are from out of state business, they don't have economic relate to this. For "Yes" campaign there are also about 10,000 individuals which majority are Washington residents. People are not saying that no one should never eat genetically engineered produced food, they just want their right to know what's in their food.

2 years ago
0