GOV 120 Lecture Notes - Lecture 4: Hegemonic Stability Theory

Read or listen to Morals in Business: Walter Pavlo Share your thoughts and opinions regarding this real life situation. Be sure to include your ideas about what businesses can do to avoid similar problems.

https://spotlightenglish.com/listen/morals-in-business-walter-pavlo

Transcript Voice 1 Hello. I’m Marina Santee. Voice 2 And I’m Ruby Jones. Welcome to Spotlight. This programme uses a special English method of broadcasting. It is easier for people to understand, no matter where in the world they live. Voice 1 Would you consider stealing six million [6,000,000] dollars from a company, if you had the chance? Most people would immediately answer “no” to this question. The majority of people consider themselves to be good, honest citizens. Walter Pavlo used to describe himself like this. Walter was a young, successful business man. He studied hard. And he worked hard. In time, he got a good job at an international communications company called MCI. MCI managed billions of dollars each year. Walter’s office was a highly pressured working environment. Walter worked hard to meet targets and goals. If someone had asked him back then - would he steal six million dollars from the company? He would have answered, “No way!” Yet only a few years later, Walter went to prison for stealing money from MCI. What made this good man turn to crime? Here is his story. Voice 2 Walter Pavlo was born into a good family. His parents taught him Christian values. He said; Voice 3 “I was taught, ‘do not steal’; ‘do not cheat’; ‘be honest’; ‘be truthful in everything that you do.” Voice 2 Walter held these values for a long time. However, slowly, other values in the business world began to influence him. At the age of thirty-two, Walter was a senior manager at MCI. He managed millions of dollars. His job was very pressured - and difficult. Then, for the first time in his life, it looked like Walter would not meet his targets. He had to do something. He asked a co-worker for advice. His friend told Walter to cheat a little. He told him that everyone else was doing it. It was normal. Voice 1 Pavlo looked around him. It seemed that his friend was right. The world of business was full of successful cheats. Maybe a little dishonesty was not so bad. In his mind, Walter rationalised cheating. He made it seem reasonable. Voice 2 Pavlo learned how to hide customers’ debts. He made small changes in the company’s financial books to make them look better. This meant that Walter kept his good record of achievement. And it meant that the company’s records looked good to investors. Voice 1 However, this led Walter to a bigger temptation. Why not use the same method of dishonesty to enrich himself? Again, Walter rationalised his plan. He said later; Voice 3 “To me it looked like everyone was cheating. And I joined in. It did not seem that bad. Customers were getting richer. And I wanted my share.” Voice 2 Something else was happening inside Walter. He was becoming hostile in his heart. All around him were lies and cheats. He saw that people only cared about themselves. He saw the company and customers making themselves richer. He said, Voice 3 “I hated the customers. I hated the company. And then, I hated myself. Then, nothing mattered anymore.” Voice 1 And so, Walter set up a secret bank account in the Cayman Islands. Customers with debts paid money directly into this bank account. Then, Walter made their debt disappear on MCI’s records. Over a six month period, Walter and a co-worker took six million dollars! Voice 2 However, as time passed, Walter became afraid. He lived in fear of getting caught and arrested. The lies and secrets created much pressure. Walter said he became emotionally unbalanced. He came to believe that he would surely be caught - it was only a question of when. Voice 1 After a few months, MCI noticed a series of payments going into a Cayman bank account. They questioned Walter about it. Walter remembers; Voice 3 “I just said I did not want to talk about it. In a way I could not avoid uncovering my secret, because I was no longer able to hide what I was doing.” Voice 1 Walter resigned from MCI. He hoped that the investigations would stop. But they did not. MCI called in the police. Voice 2 Pavlo admitted his crime. His punishment was a prison sentence of three years and five months. He would also have to sacrifice some of his future earnings - over the next twenty-seven [27] years. Voice 1 In prison, Pavlo learned a lot about himself. He looked at the process that resulted in such severe crime. He said; Voice 3 “I do not think of myself as a bad person. For me to do something bad, or illegal, I have to make myself believe it is not bad. I rationalised, reasoned, what I was doing. I did this so much that I became far removed from reality. I told myself things like - everyone else is doing it, I need to get by, my family deserves this - and so on. This is what happens to a lot of people. They will rationalise in order to do something wrong.” Voice 2 Walter finished serving his difficult sentence in 2003. Life outside of prison was not to be easy either. His wife had divorced him. His friends had disappeared. No one wanted to employ the man who had stolen millions. However, people did want to hear about it. Voice 1 Many businesses saw the power of telling such a story. It could prevent their employees making the same mistake. Business schools and universities wanted their students to hear Walter’s story. Voice 2 And so Walter decided on a new kind of work. Today, he goes into business schools, companies and universities. He tells his story. He warns people of the easy path that leads to crime. He gives this message to business students: Voice 3 “The chance of you facing a difficult moral decision at some time in your business life is one hundred percent. It will happen. There is no way round it...” “You will never know what your values are worth until the test. The things that your parents have taught you, the things that you learned in school. What about them? When you are tested, what will you do?” Voice 1 Walter Pavlo’s values had not survived this test. However he hopes that his weaknesses may strengthen others. He hopes that his story will strengthen people’s values. And then, when they are tested they will not fall. Voice 2 The writer and producer of today’s programme was Marina Santee. All quotes were adapted for the programme. The voices you heard were from the United Kingdom and the United States. Computer users can hear our programmes, read our scripts and see our word list on our website at http://www.radio.english.net. This programme is called, ‘Morals in Business: Walter Pavlo’ Voice 1 You are welcome to comment or ask about today’s programme. You can e-mail us at radio @ english . net. Thank you for joining us today. Until next time. Goodbye.

1. Whistleblowing in the private employment sector in the United States typically is

Not protected by a uniform federal law

Protected under some state whistleblower protection statutes

Usually protected by the law if the disclosure is made to the media since the disclosure will be widespread and thus do the most good

Never required morally pursuant to Kantian ethics since the consequences for the whistleblowing employees usually are harsh, for example, loss of employment.

2. Advocate Antonio believes that corporations should not only be held accountable for their financial states, but also for some level of charitable and community and civic involvement. Antonio's beliefs would most likely be defined as:

A code of ethics

A social responsibility view

A corporate moral audit

A distributive justice legal theory.

3. What did Kant mean by the "Categorical" part to his Categorical Imperative?

You must act legally, period, because the "law is the law."

You and your company must act in a socially responsible manner if you and your company want to be placed in the "good corporate citizen" category.

You must act morally if the consequences are definitely good for you and your firm.

You must act morally based on what your reason informs you is the supreme ethical principle and the correct moral course of action regardless of consequences.

4. As to why a company should be a socially responsible one and get involved in civic and charitable affairs, Socrates would likely argue:

Justice is the will of the stronger.

Money comes from virtue.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Virtue comes from money.

5. Happy Feet manufactures shoes in Country Y for sale in the United States. Happy Feet's president discovers that the Country Y workers' average age is sixteen and that they work on average of 13.2 hours per day in a 90 degree warehouse with insufficient safety precautions, all of which practices are legal in Country Y. The president of Happy Feet decides to improve the working hours and conditions of the company's workforce, even though these actions will be more expensive for the company. The president's decision is best described as

Lawful profit maximization

Moral profit-making

Illegal since the shareholders of Happy Feet might be harmed

Social Darwinism.

6. Which of the following statements is most accurate?

Morals are legal minimums.

Morals are legal maximums.

Laws are moral minimums.

Laws are moral maximums.

7. International Sales Corporation, like other business, has enforceable duties prescribed by

Ethics and the law

Ethics only

Neither ethics nor the law

The law only

8. Which is an accurate statement about the modern business corporation|

The corporation, once approved by the state and given a corporate charter, is a legal actor and artificial "person" endowed with legal and certain constitutional rights.

According to the traditional, conservative, Milton Friedman, organizational view of the corporation, it is only a legal actor and has no moral or social responsibility and just must obey the law and pay taxes.

A true corporate code of ethics today must have some provisions that go "above and beyond" the law; that is, an ethics code cannot be a mere "restatement" of the law.

All of the above.

9. A problem with the Last Resort principle when applied to business is:

Does business have the capability to help and to aid the community and local charities?

Is business the last real alternative to help and to aid the community and local charities?:

Are there potential legal liability issues for helping, aiding, and rescuing?

All of the above.

10. A spray paint company discovers that its products are being misused by children and young people, who get "high" sniffing the fumes. There are no warning labels on the spray paint cans. The company would be best deemed to have what type(s) of obligation and duty to take steps to protect children and young people?

An ethical obligation but not a legal duty

A legal obligation but not an ethical obligation

Both an ethical obligation and a legal duty

Neither an ethical obligation nor a legal duty.

Brief and detail

If relativism is true, can you ever judge something as being morally wrong? Consider some really horrible actions,  genocide, murder, slavery, torture or add your own. If you feel a relativist could say that these things are actually wrong, what gives them this ability? If they can't, why not?

Agree or disagree

Similarly to what I said in the first discussion on what morality means to us, I think everyone has their own set of moral principles and obligations. So I do think that relativism is true, to a point however. I used Adolf Hitler and the Nazi empire as an example in the first discussion so I will use that here. Hitler knew in his brain that what he was doing was good for his nation and arguably the world. Now, as a modern day society we can agree that was wrong. For him, it was good. In his own mind, he is right. But it is relative to the person. Generally speaking we all have similar notions of what is right and what is wrong. Most people would say that going out of your way to help someone else is a morally good principle. Selflessness in society is seen a good thing by the vast majority of people. When I say that relativism is good to a point, I mean that there is a general basis in society that deems actions as good or bad. And since most of us would all agree that hitlers actions were bad, then we say that he had bad moral principles, even though to him, they were good. It’s a little confusing even for me to put into words. Basically, if you actions are generally viewed in society as good, then you have good moral principles even if they vary from person to person. No one will have the exact same moral standards, but generally they all are very similar in society. So relativism is true until the point where the majority of society would deem your actions and wrong. I hope this makes sense. 

Agree or disagree

If relativism is true, I don't think judging something as morally wrong is possible. Because the definition of ethical relativism is the moral standard only being correctly relative to each person/society, this means that the moral standard is created by you and/or the society you identify with and therefore eliminate the existence of an absolute moral principle. Since the moral standard is different for every individual, we cannot say that someone is morally wrong. If relativism is applied, that is. If a relativist were to say that they could judge someone as morally wrong, then that would contradict the main component of being a relativist. That every moral argument of yours is correct, therefore everyone else's is also correct. Quite problematic but that is my understanding on the matter