I think corporations should have moral obligations and responsibilities in the sense that they should not be intentionally causing harm or knowingly aiding in harming society. It’s hard to expect them to do the right thing, because the law doesn’t even expect individuals to always do the right thing, it just expects them to avoid doing certain wrong things. In the end it’s going to come down to what leadership and board members of these corporations value and find the most important. If their main focus is profits and they break the law to work towards their goal, then they should be punished by the government. However, if they reach their goal through morally questionable, but legal, ways, then it’s going to be up to the consumers and employees of the company to push back in the ways they can impact the company. We see this today through customer boycotts and employee petitions/resignations. The reality is that corporations are going to pursue their financial interests, and if we end up being in the leadership positions that make us a part of that conversation, then we should ensure that such pursuits are ethical. Even if we are not in that position, whether we are a consumer or an employee, we can still make our voices heard.
The government needs to enforce fair play and competition between corporations. First the main concern is financially abusing the consumer. We don’t want a case where a single company can drive up the prices of their products without concern because they have no competition. That would be awful, especially if it’s for something that people really need. Therefore, the government always needs to monitor that. Also, corporations should not be able to abuse the positions they are in to unfairly target competition. That means using whatever leverage you have to hide a competitor's product from the consumer is not right. Consumers should have the fair choice of the product they prefer. This ensures better overall customer satisfaction and encourages each competitor to produce the best product they can, thereby winning over customers through quality and not through other tactics. This is harder for the government to monitor, as it would take more investigation, but unfair tactics to attack competition need to be recognized and punished. Corporations needs to accept the fact that if they want their products and services to succeed, then that is going to depend on the quality they are providing. I know this idealistic, but I think the examples we have gone over in class have shown us that companies do play better when they are forced to suffer consequences for unfair play. These companies that break the rules, their main goal is to grow, and if the government punishes them to a point where that hurts their growth, then it will be in their best interest to run and compete fairly. The government must be involved for the sake of consumers, smaller companies, and quality products. As we’ve seen, the US and EU have made some effective moves in this regard, hopefully this positive trend continues.
0 Comments
I think national security becomes a concern when its efforts bring fear to those they are trying to protect. I understand that there is a certain degree of surveillance that is effective in keeping us safe and I believe people are approving of that. However, there is a point when a Big Brother dystopia is a concern. I do not believe that narrative is not complete paranoia, as countries like China seem to be heading towards that direction, especially with the way they collect data and their new social credit score system that they are going to be implementing next year. When a government continues to grow in surveillance power, there seems to be no going back as governments are typically reluctant to give up power. One can argue that currently our central government is the strongest it’s ever been in terms of have power over the country, which can be due to increased technology as well as evolving political ideologies. Yes, while we may currently be in a state of concern for our national security due to countless tragic events that have occurred in this century in this country, we need to be careful how we react to such events in terms of giving our government more power. We need to consider the reality of the power that is given will likely difficult take back, and that can be a problem in the case that our government becomes influenced by troubling ideologies. For example, currently our government seems to have troubling anti-immigrantion sentiments and a lot of technology has been used to deport many innocent migrants. History shows that any group of people can be the target of the government. I like how Seun mentioned how the FBI worked against the Black Panther party, as this is an example of how the government can abuse their capabilities to harm Americans. I think more needs to be done, like possibly making another amendment, to draw a line for the protection of our privacy. I’m not sure where that line should be drawn, but I think it should prevent our government from using technology to know everything possible about us. If this is a democracy, then I would say privacy needs to be paramount, because losing privacy takes away the power of the people and it can suppress the voice of the people. Without protection of privacy, the power goes to those who are able to infiltrate people’s privacy, and if the government has that unlimited ability, then we may find ourselves under a totalitarian regime. I think it’s good that our country has this back and forth on the issue. Everyone has different perspectives and many make fair points. We may never get it just right, but the important thing is that we avoid the extremes of either total lack of privacy or complete ignorance in terms of national security. Our government has a fair need for gathering intelligence, they just have to be kept in check, as all parts of our balanced government should be.
The main point of whistleblowing is to provide a service for the common good. There was no guarantee that it would turn out well for Roger Boisjoly or Chelsea Manning, but how speaking up impacts the person who blew the whistle shouldn’t determine its value. Rather it should be valued based on how the common good benefited from it. Knowing about the issues with the Challenger was important because it made many more engineers and businesses aware of the severe consequences that arise when certain risks are ignored. I do think that tech workers should speak the truth when the common good needs it. Of course it is hard to analyze whether one is truly helping the common good through speaking up, so it would take a lot of contemplation of the situation before committing to such a major action. Nevertheless, people must be proactive in their judgement and not simply be blind followers of whoever they are under. History does not look well upon people who were complicit in wrongdoing. If one has any sort of power to stop or expose such wrongdoing, then one should be willing to act. Of course it is a difficult decision to make, as it could cost one everything, as in the case of Roger Boisjoly, but the unfortunate reality is that can be the cost of doing the right thing. This reminds me of the slogan from Colin Kaepernick’s Nike commercial: “Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything.” I guess it is important to note that everything in this context is restricted to more worldly desires. Kaepernick may have lost his football career for what he did but he may have gained a lot more value on a personal level. Same with Roger and Chelsea, they lost a lot, but maybe they gained more in the intangibles. If we want to use a Christian lens, all the past martyrs lost the physical world through death, but they have glory in heaven. In the end it is all about standing up for what you believe is right, many can go their lives without encountering a situation where they have to make huge sacrifices for what is right, but some face such a scenario in the most grandest terms, and the sacrifices they will make will have unbelievable impact. Given the large influence technology is having on the world, speaking up in this industry can be huge. Of course, people must use their best judgement when speaking out. If there are internal protocols for addressing a grievance, those proper channels should be taken. The goal shouldn’t be to take someone down, but rather to fix what is wrong, and speaking out to the public should only be done when it is clear that this is the only reasonable way to fix that wrong. In most cases it won’t come to this, as most people are reasonable and will be willing to work with you. It is only in the extreme cases were drastic measures have to be taken, and that is when people need to rise to the occasion. When done right, speaking up can be one of the greatest things a person can do.
|
AuthorMarcos Salamanca Archives
October 2019
Categories |