Tik Tok causes a National Security Scandal and US Government tries to Shut Down the App 2020

 Tik Tok, formally known as Musical.ly which is owned by ByteDance is being accused by the US government that the app is a national security issue, and they want to ban it from use in the United States.

             TikTok is a wildly popular social media app that is owned by the Chinese company ByteDance. The US government sees this as a national security threat due to the fact that the Chinese government could use its “2017 national intelligence law” to demand the data from the 100 million US TikTok users. President Donald Trump issues an executive order on August 6^th, 2020 beginning to ban the app from use. This idea of banning the app is a serious issue for the users because many of the users use this app as a platform for promoting small businesses, talking about important issues and bringing awareness to different things, and so much more. The US government also has reason to believe that there were other reasons for worry with this app due to some manipulation with the 2020 election information. Another thing that they are worried about in the theme of national security is the algorithm which is what decides what videos you see on your for you page, they are concerned that this idea of the Chinese policy of “military-civil fusion” could potentially transfer this AI technology over to the Chinese government.

            Overall, the US government has a very deep fear that TikTok could be a threat to national security and more due to the fact that it is owned by a Chinese company. Something that could potentially solve this problem would be if it was owned by a non Chinese company, which we will later see in the paper see that it is a possibility for an American company to come in and save TikTok.

Figure 1 This photo shows the news talking about banning TikTok from Fox News and CNN

 

Ethics Case Controversy

In August of 2018, the app called Musical.ly which was taken over by the Chinese company called ByteDance decided to change Musical.ly into the now popular TikTok. (Influencer Market, 2020) By doing this, they moved all the Musical.ly users over to TikTok and turned an app that was mainly about lip syncing to songs into something much more powerful. Overall, TikTok is a video sharing app that allows the creators to make a 15 or 60 second video about whatever they want. They can play music or sounds in the back, add filters and much more. This is different from Musical.ly because that form of the app was focused more on lip Synching to songs, where TikTok is a  much more broad platform, where you can sing to music, but also do other things such as share information about your business, talk about politics, make funny clips with fun filters, and so much more. Another feature that they added when they switched over was the ability to react to other people’s clips and share your reaction side by side with the original video. The app has reported 500 million monthly active users and it has been downloaded 80 million times. Another thing that makes this app so popular is the fact that many celebrities have chosen to use this app, for example in the article they talk about Jimmy Fallon being one of the people interested in the app and he used it to start challenges that other people can try to do themselves for fun, which is now something that is widely popular and it seems like there is a new challenge every day. So there is currently many influencers using this app for millions of people to see.

            According to (Yurong, 2020) “In July, the Trump Administration officially signaled a potential ban on the company in the U.S., alleging concerns over national security because of the company's Chinese ties.” However, they also say that this was not the first time that TikTok had been involved in issues of national security. In late 2019 the CFIUS investigated TikTok. In the article by the Washington post, they explain in depth more about why this social media app is such an issue in the eyes of the US government. They go over the security and privacy concerns and point out that they collect more data than some other popular platforms. They are worried about locational data and data on children that TikTok have that they are worried could pose a threat. The government is worried that the Chinese government could use its “2017 national intelligence law” to demand the data from the 100 million US TikTok users. Another thing that they are worried about in the theme of national security is the algorithm which is what decides what videos you see on your for you page, they are concerned that this idea of the Chinese policy of “military-civil fusion” could potentially transfer this AI technology over to the Chinese government. (Danzman, 2020)

              In another article by CNN, they share some other reasons that TikTok is a national security threat. Some of the members of the government such as Chuck Schumer (Senate Minority Leader) as well as Tom Cotton (Arkansas Republican Sen.) called for the intelligence community to take a look into the risks that may be associated with this application. The article says that TikTok states that these claims are “unfounded” and that TikTok had recently hired an American CEO and claimed that they have never given any of the users data to the Chinese government and that even if they were asked to, they would not. However, the worry is that the company that owns TikTok, ByteDance could be forced into handing over user data. There is the argument that even if China was looking into TikTok, it may not really be any use to them. It says that even if TikTok was able to collect the type of data that would be useful to China’s government, there is still not a guarantee that they could be giving access to it. This article also goes over some security flaws with TikTok that can also be seen as concerning, some user information can be changed, privacy settings can be changed and they could even post videos and get some information about the users. Another issue this article brings up is that some workers of TikTok have said that they were pressured to interfere with videos that relates to politics. They have also become a major platform for misleading speech which is something else that they fear. (Fung, 2020)

Figure 2 Shows the TikTok logo

 

            Issued on August 6^th, 2020 Donald Trump has declared an Executive Order in regard to information and communications technology and services supply chain, which he later says that this order is due to one app in particular, TikTok. He says that it is causing threats to national security, foreign policy, and the economy of the united states. He says This mobile application may also be used for disinformation campaigns that benefit the Chinese Communist Party, such as when TikTok videos spread debunked conspiracy theories about the origins of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus.” So he shares exactly what the risks of this app are. He also says that for many places such as Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration and US Armed Forces have banned the use of TikTok on government phones.

              Finally, the Washington Post says on September 23^rd, 2020 that a deal has been made that would hopefully solve the issue of national security. They said, “On Friday, the U.S. government announced that it would pull the popular video-sharing app from U.S.-based app stores. The next day, President Trump announced a deal that seemed to give TikTok a reprieve, by partnering in the United States with Oracle and Walmart.” (Danzman, 2020)

Figure 3 Shows the relation to TikTok and the Chinese Brand ByteDance

Stake Holders

              In this situation, the stakeholders are, The United States Government because there is a national security risk that could happen, which would have an impact on them, as well as the mention of the issues with the elections, so if  TikTok were to be giving out information to the Chinese government, it would impact them in a negative way. However in their case, banning TikTok would not be a good thing for them as well because many the users who are using this app as an important platform will be upset because the government is taking away this from them. So unless they could come up with a solution other than letting information being given out or banning the app, they will be in a very bad place. The American people because they are very interested in this app which is shown by the number of active users, many people use this app as a platform and it impacts them because if the app is banned by the government, they lose this platform. This is bad for the users because their information would be given out to someone they didn’t approve of, or they get something they love taken away, so unless they can find a way to fix this, they are also in a bad spot within this situation. Within the American people I would like to be a little more specific and mention the small businesses that use this app as a platform as well as the celebrities who use this as a platform as well. It is an easy way for these influencers to get messages across to all types of people who use the app, so that will have an impact on them as well. Another stake holder would be the company ByteDance because this app could have been banned to all of America which would have had a negative impact on their company because they would be losing a significant amount of their users and something cool about this app that everyone appreciated was that it was a great way to get in touch with people all over the world, and if the US cannot participate, that would severely impact them. Finally, I would like to mention the American people as a whole, and I mean everyone in the whole country because national security is an issue that has an impact on everyone within the country. Regardless of if you are a user of the app, if the app is causing issues with national security, then that has an impact on everyone. So when it comes to thinking how the app should proceed, everyone in the country, not just the users of the app, should be taken into consideration.

Individualism

              Individualism in ethics states a “business’s actions should maximize profits for the owners of the business, but do so within the law” (Salazar, 2014) In this case of TikTok and the security scandal I think that the important thing to think about from this perspective is the idea of “within the law”. President Trump was concerned with the fact that the owners of TikTok were going to share the information from the US users, which is why he was considering banning the app. Earlier, I had mentioned that “The government is worried that the Chinese government could use its “2017 national intelligence law” to demand the data from the 100 million US TikTok users” (Danzman, 2020) . Because the Chinese government has a law in place, that could require them to hand over the information, technically if they were asked to hand it over that would be within the law. However, if they were asked to hand over the information and refused to give it up, then they would be breaking the law. If they were to give out this information, then the US would ban TikTok, which would be bad for their business because they have a lot of users who are in the United States.

            Due to the fact that they sold TikTok over to the US companies, Oracle and Walmart, the issue of TikTok having to give out information to stay within the law was mostly solved,  however, some of TikTok is partly owned by ByteDance, which some of the articles said that Donald Trump was still not fully supportive of the app and still has concerns. Overall, the main worry in this case is that they were potentially going to hand out US users information, which for the Chinese would be within the law, but because that would cause the US to ban the app, it would not be what it best when it comes to maximizing profits if they were to lose all of the US.

Utilitarianism

              Utilitarianism ethics perspective states that “Business actions should aim to maximize the happiness in the long run for all conscious beings that are affected by the business action” (Salazar, 2014) In this case, the maximum happiness would be the piece of mind for the users to use the app and be able to use this as a platform for whatever they like, without having to worry that there is going to be a national security issue because of the app. It is also in the apps best interest to still have all of the US users because a lot of the users come from the US. Since this is such a widely popular app right now, people do not want to have it banned, and the owners of the company do not want to see the app lose a lot of its users. So the best case for this situation would be for the security threat to be diminished so that everyone, including the app owners, the US government and the apps over 100 million users, may use and run the app in a safe way that will not impact the security of their country. The users also trust that their personal information is not being used for anything other than the outlines purposes of the application. If the users were to find out that their personal information was being sold or shared with someone that they did not approve of, that would not be in their best interest and they would not be happy about this. If the US government began having issues with China because of the information being share from this app, that would not be in the best interest of the government, which would have a negative impact on the government,  but also the citizens of the US, regardless of if they use the app or not. If the company found out that TikTok was being banned by the whole country (US), then that would not be the best thing for them because a large population of the apps users would be gone, making it not the best move from a business stand point. So overall, Utilitarianism point of view would say that the maximum happiness in this case would be to find a way to fully diminish any national security threat to the US.

Kantianism

The Kantianism prospective says that one should “always act in a way that respect and honor individuals and their choices. Don’t lie, cheat, manipulate or harm others to get your way. Rather, use informed and rational consent from all parties.” (Salazar, 2014). Kantianism would not approve of what is going on with TikTok and the ByteDance company because they specifically mention that you should honor individuals and their choices, however, by potentially giving out personal information to someone they have not authorized, is definitely not respecting the individual. It also says to not harm others or lie, or cheat or anything of that nature, and by giving away information that is personal and could impact the national security of a country, is not a honorable and rational choice. Kant would also want them to be respecting the choices of people, and by not giving them the choice to keep their information safe, they are not following and respecting the law of Kantianism by any means. However, I also wanted to add, in this case, the US government also may be going agiasnt Kant because they were planning to ban the app for everyone in the country, which many people did not want, and did not understand what their fun 60 second videos had to do with national security. This is going agiasnt what Kant says because Kant states that you have to respect the individual and their choices, and if they want to have the app, they should be able to make that choice on their own and the US government should respect that choice.

Virtue Theory

            The virtue theory wants everyone to “act so as to embody a variety of virtuous or good character traits and so as to avoid vicious or bad character traits” (Salazar, 2014). Some of the good traits that the company used in this case were honesty, in many of the articles summarized in this paper, they specifically said that they thought the accusations were uncalled for and untrue. They proved to be honest in their saying of this by deciding to sell the company to the Walmart and Oracle. That was a rational choice to make that overall, was going to benefit all of the stakeholders in this case. Sometimes in cases of businesses, they can be greedy, dishonest or selfish in order to get what they want and in the case of TikTok, because they were able to make this deal, which like I mentioned has a benefit to all parties, is a good thing. If they had given out the user information like they were being accused of, then that would not be a good trait, so they should not be a company that is trusted with your personal information. As users, when we are putting our information into these apps when we sign up and when we use it, we expect that the company holding this information will not be dishonest with it, by sharing it with people we do not approve of or use it in ways that are wrong or illegal. Some of the main virtues that the owners of TikTok should have specifically to be able to ensure trust within their users are, courage, honesty, temperance and justice. All of those things and more are wildly important when running a company because to be a good company, you want to be trustworthy. And in this case, TikTok was and potentially still it not something that people can just blindly trust anymore. The accusations, if they were true or not, still bring up the issue that they are not trust worthy and there for are not a virtuous business. In order to make their business better, they need to look at what their traits are and fix them in order to be able to ensure to their users that their information is safe and that they are not going to be risking their security within their country in order to use the application.

Justified Evaluation

            In my personal opinion, I think that the company ByteDance, would be in the wrong if they were to give out the users information because that would not be a respectable choice because none of the users came onto this app to want to worry about their personal information being share to the point that it causes issues with national security. I think that because this app is used by such a large range of people that TikTok should be respectful of the people who have chosen to use this platform and not be sharing their personal information. However, the US planning to ban the app all together, I do not think was a smart or fair choice as well. Because so many people use this as a platform for many different reasons, I think that getting rid of the app for something that is at this point in time only theoretical, and no major harm has been caused would be very hasty. In some of the articles I read, it seemed like the national security threat was not the only reason that President Trump wanted the app shut down. Things like the algorithm causing issues with things being posted about the 2020 election seemed to be an issue in the Presidents eyes.

 I think that the owners of the app could potentially have been taking advantage of the diverse and large platform they have created with TikTok, which is wrong, but by selling to Walmart and Oracle, making them the majority owners, was the right thing to do to prove that they were not out to give anyone’s information away. I think that they were in a tough spot because of the law mentioned earlier, if their government asked for the TikTok information, they would have to give it up, but by selling it to someone who is not controlled by the Chinese government was the right thing to do and the best choice across the board.

As a whole, I think that threatening to ban the app was a sad thing because there are so many users who have benefited from this app. For example, many small business owners were able to share their products without having to pay for ads, and reach people not only all over the country, but all over the world. So it had a major benefit to those smaller businesses. Some other people that it had an impact on were people who are minors. On this app many minors who still want to be able to find a way to participate in US government, but cannot legally vote yet, were able to share thoughts, information, and opinions on voting. It is a great way for young people to get involved and informed about our country. However, the list of ways it has benefited people is not short by any means. However, I had mentioned earlier, we cannot just think of the users of the app, but the whole country, because people should not have to worry about their national security at risk. So, I understand, but I think that there could have been a different way of handling the situation. But overall, by selling to American companies it basically solves the problem. But if there is issues with this app, how can we as users and Americans be sure that our information is not being given out, because Walmart and Oracle do not own 100% of the business. Because of this issue, I wonder if there is a different way that they could handle this app, other than just having an American company partially take over.

Company Action Plan

When it comes to handling this TikTok National Security threat in the way that is best for all of the stakeholders. First of all, if we look at the company Byte Dance, they should be taking a look at the way they are running their company to see if there is any way that they can make sure no one is questioning any of their morals. To do this, some things that they can do is, potentially take less information from the users. If there is not much information coming from the users, the information they have may be useless if the Chinese government asks for it. Another thing that they could do as a company is become less of a Chinese company if they want to have their apps and other products used around the country, they could do this by finding representatives from the countries they want the app used in, so all the countries have an inside idea of what is going on with their apps. Another thing that they could do, is decided to not share their products outside of the country. This would not be ideal from a business standpoint, however, it would stop any accusations that are risen about the risks of national security in other countries. In this specific situation of TikTok, they did sell part of the app to Walmart and Oracle, however, this is just one of the things the company owns, so there could be other issues that arise within the company specifically. By selling TikTok though, the company does still own a small portion and I did mention earlier, that if the US government is still worried about the app giving out information, something that they could do in this specific situation is to sell the rights to the app, so that a fully American company could buy the idea of the app and recreate it, so there is full control and no need to worry about the Chinese government getting involved in any way. It has been made clear that none of the stakeholders would be in the best interest with the app shutting down or getting banned, however, just simply adding in American countries, does not really stop someone from giving out information in secret. But if the app was something new, with the same features and ideas, then that would be the best for all the stakeholders because the owners of TikTok would make a profit, the new company that remakes the app would make a profit and the US people and government would have piece of mind when it comes to using the app they love. It would be a lot of work to make this happen, however, if they want this app to not be banned, shutdown or being accused of stealing and giving away information, this is one of the only things they can to do give piece of mind.

Conclusion

Overall, this TikTok situation, was handled to some extent due to its sale with the American companies Oracle and Walmart. However, it has been made clear by the President that he is still not fully convinced that this is not still an issue. However, as of right now, there does not seem to be any immediate national security threat now that it is mainly owned by American companies. This whole situation was not ethically moral and there was some serious issues in the way that the company was running the app. So to conclude, there is many ways that ByteDance would better handle the situation with TikTok and make the popular app safe for everyone to use

 

Work Cited

Danzman, S. (2020, September 22). Analysis | The U.S. government thinks TikTok is a national security threat. So why can't the government decide what to do? Retrieved November 12, 2020, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/23/us-government-thinks-tiktok-is-national-security-threat-so-why-cant-government-decide-what-do/

Fung, B. (2020, July 09). TikTok is a national security threat, US politicians say. Here's what experts think. Retrieved November 12, 2020, from https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/09/tech/tiktok-security-threat/index.html

Influencer Market. (2020, October 26). What is TikTok? - The Fastest Growing Social Media App Uncovered. Retrieved November 12, 2020, from https://influencermarketinghub.com/what-is-tiktok/

Salazar, H. (2014). The Case Manual (pp. 1-24, Rep.). Springfield, MA: Heather Salazar.

Trump, D. (2020, August 6). Executive Order on Addressing the Threat Posed by TikTok. Retrieved November 12, 2020, from https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-addressing-threat-posed-tiktok/

Yurong, C. (2020, September 24). Timeline: How TikTok struggled with Trump's political attacks. Retrieved November 12, 2020, from https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-09-24/Timeline-How-TikTok-struggled-with-Trump-s-political-attacks-TYnT698NzO/index.html

Smith & Wesson Agrees to Gun Reform Bill with U.S. Government (3/17/2000)

 

            Smith & Wesson for years has been one of, if not the most successful gun manufacturers in the United States. It was formed in 1852 and has found its success in manufacturing guns while constantly innovating and updating design to appeal to it’s audience.

            Smith & Wesson, along with other gun manufacturers were under a lot of heat in 1999, as they were catching the blame for gun violence being at an all time high in the country. All the companies were facing many lawsuits, which Smith & Wesson escaped by agreeing to a settlement with the government to reform guns. The way their guns would be manufactured and distributed would now have to be done with much less freedom. This agreement did not make the National Rifle Association (NRA) happy in the slightest. They immediately published an article bashing Smith & Wesson for their decision. This led to a massive boycott of Smith & Wesson, rapidly driving them out of business. Their owners had to sell the company just a year later. If they approached this a different way, it is possible they could have kept their business alive.

This controversy can be analyzed differently by all the ethical theories of individualism, utilitarianism, Kantianism, and the virtue theory. Using components from each of these, I have created my own opinion on if I feel the controversy was ethical or not, which I found it to be unethical. I also created an action plan on my opinion of what the company should have done immediately following the controversy. The action plan would help them remain profitable, while also following ethical criteria.

 

 

Controversy

          Smith & Wesson (S&W) was formed way back in 1852, when Horace Smith and D.B Wesson had decided to form a partnership to manufacture a firearm that had the ability to fire a fully self-contained cartridge. They have always been known for being able to create some of the most reliable and high-quality products, while seemingly always innovating their designs to fit public interest. From here, the business had come an extremely long way, as it grew into what is the largest, and the oldest, gun manufacturer in the United States. Smith & Wesson headquarters are currently in Springfield, MA, and the brand has an estimated net worth of approximately 1 billion dollars. Yet, success wasn’t always an absolute given within this company, as they nearly went bankrupt just 19 years prior in 2001, large in part because of a major disagreement with the NRA.

            Both sides of the disagreement, being the NRA and Smith & Wesson, had partaken in very controversial actions. The decisions made on both sides were controversial on an ethical level. The case of controversy had started on March 17, 2000, when current president Bill Clinton had announced a settlement made with Smith & Wesson. This settlement that Smith & Wesson had agreed to was pertaining to gun reform. They had agreed to a long list of voluntary reforms regarding the protocol in which they had to manufacture and distribute guns moving forward. These reforms of manufacturing guns included the need for child safe locks coming with each gun, a second, hidden, serial number on their guns making it harder for criminals to scratch off, and also implementing what was called “smart gun technology”, which would only allow the authorized gun owner to fire the weapon. In terms of distribution, the reforms included a “code of conduct”, where Smith & Wesson could only sell their guns at gun shows if the buyer had a background check done. They also had a rule put in place to try to help with gun trafficking, where if a client had purchased more than one gun from them, they could only bring one home that day, and would have to return 14 days later to obtain the rest of them. They had agreed to this long list of reforms because it allowed them to escape many of the lawsuits that were being put into effect after the Columbine shooting in 1999, which was the deadliest high school shooting the country had then seen. After this shooting, gun control activists saw this as a prime opportunity to enforce gun control, so 30 different state and city governments had threatened to sue Smith & Wesson on the grounds of negligent business practices, and holding them liable of violent crimes committed with their products. Yet, because of the reforms Smith & Wesson had agreed to, 15 of the 30 lawsuits had been dropped.

            After the news of this game changing settlement was announced, the NRA took quick action against Smith & Wesson. Just three days after the announcement, on March 20, 2000, the NRA wrote a statement called “The Smith & Wesson Sellout”.  A quote from the statement reads, “Smith & Wesson, Inc., a British-owned company, recently became the first to run up the white flag of surrender and run behind the Clinton-Gore lines, leaving its competitors in the U.S. firearms industry to carry on the fight for the Second Amendment.” (NRA). Along with saying this, they also stated how their move was solely based on cowardly self-interest. The statement then just went on the explain the term of the settlement and what it would mean for the gun industry, urging other manufacturers not to join. Being such a powerful group that the NRA is, no other groups joined, leaving S&W as the sole gun manufacturer to agree to a settlement with the government enforcing gun control. In processing the previous sentence, it is certainly to no surprise that Smith & Wesson was now viewed as an enemy to the gun industry altogether. Starting as soon as a week after the NRA’s statement, many gun wholesalers and retailers, along with individual gun owners, had began to boycott Smith & Wesson. One of these wholesalers, RSR, had reportedly accounted for 25% of S&W’s sales. (Gunowners.org). This alone can already foreshadow the severity of the loss of sales in which S&W would encounter. Along with all the boycotting, S&W’s previous law firm had decided to drop them as clients, and some shooting match organizers told S&W they were not welcome to their events. Because of all of this going on, there was investigations of an illegal antitrust movement happening against S&W. Yet, all parties had claimed that they made their decisions solely out of their business’s best interest. From all of this, S&W went on to see sales drop insurmountably, forcing them to sell their business, which they did in Spring of 2001, selling it to an American Startup for $15 million, when it was once worth over $112 million.

Stakeholders

            The stakeholders and key decision makers in this controversy include Smith & Wesson, the NRA, the government, the gun wholesalers/retailers, and the Pro-Gun public. The national government made the key decision of offering the settlement of gun reform to Smith & Wesson, and certain state and city governments made key decisions of agreeing to drop their lawsuits on S&W, if they agreed to the settlement. Smith & Wesson then made a very key decision of the controversy by agreeing to this gun reform settlement the government offered. They were in turn, impacted from this controversy by losing an extreme amount of business because of the key decisions made by the NRA, wholesaler/retailers, and the Pro-Gun public. The NRA made the key decision of writing about Smith & Wesson’s settlement deal and slandering their business. This led to many wholesale and retail companies to drop S&W products, and also for the pro-gun public to boycott their products as well, which was basically both their key decision, and the way they were impacted. The usual consumers of S&W products, whether it be on a wholesale, retail, or individual level, all had to find a new manufacturer to go to in order to replace/ purchase new  products.

Individualism

            Within the individualism theory of ethics, the goal is to maximize the profit for themselves and their stakeholders and make actions that work in their best interest, while being in line with the law. Based on this theory, the major decisions made by both Smith & Wesson and the NRA would be viewed as unethical. When Smith & Wesson decided to make this deal with the government to reform guns, they anticipated that it would help them save money. They felt that obtaining the ability to get a lot of the lawsuits they were facing to go away, then that would help them save a lot of money. Yet, what they didn’t consider enough, was the way that the NRA and the rest of the pro-gun community would respond to their agreement. Their response, being the mass boycott of all Smith & Wesson products, had led to Smith & Wesson’s sales plummeting and driving them close to bankruptcy, ultimately forcing the owners to sell the company. From an individualistic perspective, it would likely be seen that maximizing profit was not the entire motivation behind the choice made by Smith & Wesson by agreeing to the gun reform deal with the government. If they were solely concerned about profit, it can be argued that they would just continue to make new products that appeal to the community who buys your weapons, rather than the community who disagrees with what your company does, and likely still would even with these reforms made. This choice of gun reform was in part motivated by feeling responsible for the gun violence occurring in the country. According to Milton Friedman, who has initiated the idea of individualism, claims that “business should not attempt to be ‘socially responsible’”. Smith & Wesson being the only company to agree to this settlement to reform guns, in the midst of all gun violence happening at an extremely high rate in the country, shows that Smith & Wesson felt socially responsible, which is against the idea of individualism.

Utilitarianism

            The rule of utilitarianism is that “business actions should aim to maximize the happiness in the long run for all conscious beings that are affected by the business action.” (Salazar 19). It is also stated that the basic method of utilitarianism is to analyze the costs and benefits that would likely come from making the decision. The “likely outcome” has a lot to do with the evaluation of a decision from a utilitarian standpoint. 

 With that stated, this case would be deemed unethical. This case had ultimately brought happiness to no one in the end. It is quite clear that Smith & Wesson did not analyze the costs and benefits of making this decision of agreeing to a gun reform settlement, which already goes against utilitarian beliefs. Smith & Wesson making this choice of agreeing to the gun reform settlement had also brought unhappiness to all parties, which is exactly the opposite of what utilitarianism values. Their agreement made the NRA very unhappy, as they felt like they had been betrayed by one of the top gun manufacturers in the country, who had also been one of their top supporters The NRA felt that Smith & Wesson was making a very selfish move as well. All the wholesalers and retailers, along with individual that are gun consumers who had purchased and used Smith & Wesson products were now unhappy with the company, as they were all supporters of the 2nd amendment, which they felt Smith & Wesson was violating. In the end, Smith & Wesson’s choice didn’t lead to much happiness or them either, since their sales plummeted quickly forcing the company to get sold for a fraction of the price that it was once worth.

Kantianism

          The basic principles of Kantianism include acting rationally, respecting people’s individual needs and differences, and also being motivated by good will, seeking to do what is right because it is right. Kantianism focuses a lot on the thought process of the action, rather than the result of the action, “Kantianism does not make decisions based on consequences, but rather on what Kant calls the ‘Good Will.’”( Salazar 21). Another major aspect of Kantianism is what is called the formula of humanity, which states that, “it is wrong to use people as a mere means to get what you want.” (Salazar 22).

From a Kantian perspective, Smith & Wesson’s choice would be considered unethical. Smith & Wesson’s decision to accept the gun reform agreement does not meet all the criteria of Kantian ethics. One way to show this is simply by the fact that they only made this decision of agreeing to the settlement if they got something in return. While hoping to keep society safe by increasing gun control within the company may have potentially been one of their goals, it surely was not the only one. In return for taking these gun reform measures, many lawsuits had to be dropped against Smith & Wesson, so clearly part of their motivation for making this decision was to help save their company money. This shows that they weren’t fully doing what is “right” because they felt it was “right”, they also had a selfish motivation driving their decision. This was even said by their chief executive, Ed Schultz, as he stated, “I believed we needed to eliminate these lawsuits.” (PBS Frontline). Also, their choice did not comply with the rules of the formula of humanity. Smith & Wesson had used the government just to get what they desired, which would be have the lawsuits on them dropped.

Virtue Theory

            The virtue theory values character traits that promote wellness of individuals within a society. The rule of this theory is to make actions embodying a variety of virtuous or good character traits, all while avoiding bad character traits. To answer whether or not something is ethical under the virtue theory, you must ask about the character of the person making the decision, and assess whether their character is virtuous or not. “This approach differs strongly from the previous three ethical theories because the previous three theories analyze individual actions whereas virtue theory analyzes a person’s character.” (Salazar 23). Some cardinal virtues that the virtue theory looks for are courage, honesty, wisdom, and justice.

I believe that from a virtue theory standpoint, when looking at Ed Schultz, who was the chief executive of Smith & Wesson at the time of the deal, then this would be deemed ethical. Ed Schultz had stated right after making the decision that because of the atrocities happening in the country involving gun violence, he had started to change his opinion on gun control. In an interview with Newsweek Schultz has said, “‘I changed,’ Shultz told Newsweek, as the Smith & Wesson boycotts entered their third month. ‘I said, Okay, we have to find another solution.… You can’t just say, I made it, I shipped it, it’s out of my hands.’” (The Washington Post). This quote from Schultz shows that he is making this choice out of virtuous character, as he is looking to change the way they manufacture and distribute guns to help with all of the violence. His choice also displays courage, for he is probably aware of how this could impact his company. He also mentions the Columbine shooting and another school shooting in Jonesboro, Arkansas that had previously occurred, to emphasize the fact that something needs to change. This shows how a driving factor in making this decision was to lower the amount of violence happen, while risking his personal success within his company, which embodies good character.

Justified Ethics Evaluation

            In my opinion, the decision made by Smith & Wesson was overall unethical from a business standpoint. Their decision to agree to this gun reform settlement was a selfish move to try to save money and avoid legal issues. This then also pressured many other gun manufacturers to join this settlement, because now they are facing political pressure about gun control even more than before, because Smith & Wesson had agreed to join the settlement. Many of these companies who considered joining would have very likely considered the terms of the agreement to be against those in their belief of the 2nd Amendment in the United States Constitution. Even while Ed Schultz’s decision could have very likely been in part due to him trying to help decrease gun violence, solid reasoning is also presented to allow a strong belief that a major factor in him agreeing was due to the legal trouble he could avoid, and money he and the company could save from it. Just the overall fact that Smith & Wesson went behind the rest of the gun industry and the NRA’s back seems unethical to me. If it wasn’t for the NRA putting up the constant fight against gun control, then it is likely that Smith & Wesson wouldn’t even be in business at all, most definitely wouldn’t have been as successful.

The decision overall lead to a general unhappiness for pretty much all stakeholders involved, whether it be Smith & Wesson themselves, the NRA, gun wholesalers and retailers, and even any previous owner of Smith & Wesson guns. Smith & Wesson’s choice was selfish, as they did not fully consider what was ethically correct in the situation by just about any means. To top it all off, they ended up losing mass amounts of money as well, which is something no business wants.

Action Plan

            This whole controversy had taken place in the very early 2000’s so Smith & Wesson is not facing the issues they once were. The owners at the time sold their business and the new owners rebuilt it back up to being very successful today. But I am going to give my company action plan on what I feel they should have done right after their gun reform decision, allowing them to not sell the business, and to grow once again.

            Therefore, the current issue would be that Smith & Wesson has agreed to a settlement with the government to reform the way they manufacture and distribute guns, and the NRA was unhappy with this, and called out Smith & Wesson for this. This had done some help in leading to a major boycott on Smith & Wesson products. The problem now is sales will start to plummet with many of our previous partners not willing to purchase out products anymore. In order to fix this issue, the first step that must be taken is to realize your situation. You must realize how difficult it will be to continue to operate as one of the largest gun manufacturers in the country, when you have the very powerful NRA against you and many of your previous distribution partners boycotting you.

Once you have done this, the next step would be to focus on scaling down. As much as a big and very successful company wouldn’t want to, it would be essential for them to begin scaling down the company right away instead of fighting to survive as a massive gun manufacturer. Sell buildings, equipment, and fire employees now when you have control to, rather than when you will be forced to. This will allow you to gain some money and reallocate these newly gained resources in other areas.

A main area it would be beneficial to use these resources would be in a really good marketing group, because the next step would be to establish a new company mission statement and create new values. A new mission statement could be, “Create and distribute safe, high quality guns in a way to help protect all.” Some core values it would be beneficial to have alongside this is innovation, public safety, and responsibility. These core values along with the mission statement shows you are now committed to taking measures where you want to keep the public safe.

This, along with a top of the line marketing team can help your company focus on somewhat of a new target market, which would be the next step. If you can convince a new audience of how improved the safety of your guns now are, along with the measures you’re going to in order to ensure of this, it can help draw in many people to the idea of owning a gun. This can lead to a whole new wave of people supporting guns that never would have before these reforms were made. This new market would fully belong to your company, as you are the only company who has agreed to take these reform measures. It could end up taking a while for this market to grow, but the scaling down would make it possible to stay afloat while this takes time to happen.

The next step would just to be focusing on growing your company to increase profit, as this new market of people supporting reformed guns grows. It has been a pattern over time for gun control to steadily increase, so over time most other companies will very likely have to take these measures that you currently are, but you would just have a head start on it. Sticking to the mission statement and core values of making proper reforms with the guns, and always having the public’s safety in mind would help keep your business profitable, as it now would likely conform better than ever with the new gun laws present. It would be beneficial as well throughout this process and in the future to just focus on having ethics in mind when making decisions. You can do so by following your mission statement and core values, and informing all employees of these, and also taking your last decision that almost destroyed your company as a well learned lesson.

 

Bibliography

Selk, Avi. “A Gunmaker Once Tried to Reform Itself. The NRA Nearly Destroyed It.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 12 June 2020, www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2018/02/27/a-gunmaker-once-tried-to-reform-itself-the-nra-nearly-destroyed-it/.

Dao, James. “UNDER LEGAL SIEGE, GUN MAKER AGREES TO ACCEPT CURBS.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 18 Mar. 2000, www.nytimes.com/2000/03/18/us/under-legal-siege-gun-maker-agrees-to-accept-curbs.html.

Childress, Sarah. “What Happened When a Major Gun Company Crossed the NRA.” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/what-happened-when-a-major-gun-company-crossed-the-nra/.

-, Law Corner, et al. “Gun Control And the 2nd Amendment of U.S Constitution.” Law Corner, 5 May 2020, lawcorner.in/gun-control-and-the-2nd-amendment-of-u-s-constitution/.

“US Gun Control: What Is the NRA and Why Is It so Powerful?” BBC News, BBC, 6 Aug. 2020, www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35261394.

Butterfield, Fox, and Raymond Hernandez. “Gun Maker's Accord on Curbs Brings Pressure From Industry.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 30 Mar. 2000, www.nytimes.com/2000/03/30/us/gun-maker-s-accord-on-curbs-brings-pressure-from-industry.html.

“History of Smith & Wesson.” Smith & Wesson, www.smith-wesson.com/company/history.

“Smith & Wesson Boycott Gaining Ground.” Gun Owners of America, gunowners.org/a032400/.

Salazar, Heather. “The Case Manual.” 2014

 

 

 

 

Myanmar Mining Risking their Workers Lives Every Day (2016-2020)

Workers in Hpakant searching for Jade.

 Controversy   

In Myanmar’s northernmost Kachin State, Hpakant, mining companies for as long as we know it have been searching for jade gemstones to generate billions of dollars a year in Myanmar. The entire jade industry is driven by a few positive outcomes because of the wealth involved in the stones. For instance, in 2014, the jade industry was worth up to $31 billion in 2014 alone.  The miners have been dragged into an ongoing cycle of environmental destruction, poverty, drug use and more because of the expectations of success in the mining industry. These mining companies are controlled by the government rule and are constantly creating suspensions and liabilities to attempt to prevent the destruction. For years there has been a present, ongoing battle with the Tatamadaw rules, or the military, and these mining companies. The nation’s government has been attempting to prevent the destruction of the land as they have seen over the years through repetitive landslides. Since 2016, the government implemented suspensions on gemstone permits exposing military-linked networks. This is because people were starting to optimize that the conflict and corruption could be reformed simply because of these suspensions. The licensing suspension showed that the military was controlling jade production proving why most of the miners do not even see the benefits of the profits they are making because the military is involved and overcoming the production before the local people even have the chance. The government and military have attempted to regulate the mining and use guidelines, such as the suspensions, to help maintain the laws and regulations. (Frontier Myanmar 2018). 

            However, more recently, the government is still attempting to control and prevent the mining from destroying the communities. In July, they ordered the mines to close from July 1 to September 30^th because of the risk of landslides during the heavy rain seasons. The miners did not back down. Hundreds of illegal workers came in to keep searching for the jade instead of the regular workers from companies despite the risks. “An illegal ethnic armed group took money from the illegal miners and gave them permission to work here” (New York Times 2020). They began searching at night and out of normal mining company hours so they would not draw attention to their illegal actions that they are taking part in. These illegal miners are considered the most vulnerable and they are called the yemase. They are often addicted to methamphetamines and heroin, therefore relying on the mining sites at night. Mining is such a large part of Myanmar’s community that it is almost impossible to stop around 100,000 miners that work in the region despite the risks.

When the landslide occurred on July 2, 2020, it was not out of the ordinary. Mine collapses occur frequently in the Kachin State. Just last year more than 50 people died in a similar landslide and dozens were swept away the year before. The hundreds of workers were digging illegally near the water’s edge when the entire mining hill above a large body of water, that has gathered over time, began to slide. Mud and rainwater forcefully traveled through the mining valley below taking all of the miners in the valley with it. The workers did not have enough time to run away causing them to drown from the 20-foot wave. The government can try time and time again to prevent the miners from having to run to the hills but there are so many factors from drug use to domestic abuse that the members of this country are not willing to stop, or even take a break from mining.

Stakeholders

The miners and their families like Kai Ring represent a large number of the stakeholders. This is because they lose the most no matter what. The ongoing war has added constant stress for the villages because if they are mining illegally it's bad, but if they are mining legally its bad because the military takes all of their profit. Additionally, the Tatamadaw military and the mining companies are stakeholders and all of the countries that trade with Myanmar for their jade. The mining company has multiple workers other than those from the village and they all could be at stake.

Individualism

Individualism focuses on the importance of maximizing profit within the law. In the situation with Myanmar, individualists would consider the mining companies' actions unethical. This is because the companies are illegally mining and using extra time and demand from their workers in order to maximize their profits. Milton Friedman argued that management was responsible for maximizing business profits and any actions taken without considering profit is stealing from the owners of the company (Salazar 17). The illegal work is an exact representation of how they are not utilizing their ability to profit properly. They are breaking laws and even going against the military to get what they want.

Miners searching at night, illegally.

When Myanmar’s Parliament passed a bill preventing new licensing of mining companies, the government showed little to no involvement in restricting the amount of mining. The companies continue to illegally mine which causes a large conflict of interest. In addition, there was an attempt to reduce the size of mining block areas, but companies did not listen. Mining companies could be fifty or one hundred acres, but the law only allows three or five acres. Mining companies continue to be unethical and irresponsible because of the fact that time and time again they do not consider the factors of the workers that are expected to cover all parts of the land even if they continue to expand. Finally, Myanmar produces “70% of the world’s jade stone…but as much as four-fifths of the country’s jade is smuggled abroad” (Yeung). Not only is trade illegal but the smuggling does not benefit the country because they lose more in factors such as tax revenue which continues to show they may not even be maximizing their profits at this point and it is still illegal.

Utilitarianism

            According to utilitarianism, actions are ethical when the maximum amount of people possible are happy. Happiness is the most important factor in utilitarianism and the people of Myanmar are clearly not happy. They are being forced into working in conditions that they are not comfortable in. People are stated that they are constantly worried that they could die at any second when they are searching for jade because of the harm to the environment over the years. Not only are their lives at risk because of the environment but also people have lost their land due to the expansion of mining. As the areas of mining continue to grow miners and their family’s homes have been overcome. Families are losing their loved ones as mining disasters continue to occur causing despair. Additionally, women in Myanmar are not permitted to mine and therefore everyone in the community is not happy because women are not provided with opportunities to work other than inside their homes. Finally, there is a consistent drug use problem because heroin is sold “openly, like selling a movie ticket” (Yeung). Addiction has spread across the communities and people are losing their lives once again to more factors other than mining because the community is simply destructive.

Kantianism

            Kantianism states that rational decisions need to be ethical. Kant consists of the formula of humanity which states to treat people as an end itself and not simply as a mere means. Decisions must be motivated by your expectations and not self-interest. In Myanmar, the mining companies are using their workers to continue the company’s growth and a business is never exempt from the Kantianism rules and standards. The business should always be honest and loyal to their workers and customers. Mining companies are putting their workers at risk and lying to all of them because the government lacks the involvement, and the companies take advantage of that. If they acted ethically and followed the government’s rules, they could have saved the 200 or more lives lost from only one landslide disaster. Instead, the mining companies are acting out of self-interest and there is no one stopping them. Universal law, on the other hand, establishes a maxim that everyone will follow. The government has lacked this involvement and not established a reliable maxim for everyone to follow consistently and therefore the people are able to lie and deceit others because there is no clear universal law. If there was a consistent and enforced idea for all of the mining companies in the area, then the treatment of the workers would be more ethical. The miners do not even receive a large benefit from the mining and once again are being treated with unethical actions.

Virtuous Theory

             The Virtue theory consists of the cardinal virtues which are courage, justice, wisdom, and temperance. All of these virtues must be met in order for a business to be ethically successful. These virtues are not all equally represented in the mining companies and their actions. Once one virtue is not present then the whole system can fail because they are showing unethical qualities. Justice is hard work, quality products, and fair practices. The mining companies lack justice and honesty because they are going behind the rules and regulations implemented by the government simply to keep their business going. The miners are risking their lives every day because of their justice of working hard but the government and mining companies are unethical and do not provide the safety protection that the miners deserve. Temperance is having a realistic mindset of expectations and desires. The mining companies are showing a lack of temperance because they are not being smart and considering the factors that they are destroying the environment and lacking the prudent thoughts that can help to save the environment and future dangerous risks from happening. The mining companies’ expectations to maximize their profits have become unrealistic because they are expanding their mining areas, destroying the environment, and ruining the lives of the people. The expectations to be as successful as possible should not be so high that they overcome the land and its people.

Opinion

            In my opinion, the mining companies are being very unethical towards their workers. If a company wants to be successful they must value what generates the most success; and in this case, it is their workers. Although the government attempted to put a restriction on mining, it was not enforced enough to protect its people. The government and the mining companies are both at stake for not being responsible enough. This is not the first time a landslide has occurs resulting in a large number of deaths which shows the government is not impacted by these events. If events keep occurring where large members of the community are either dying or being lost, families are, if not already, going to revolt. It is difficult to lose a loved one and if these families are losing their family members all because of events that can be prevented, they are going to start showing emotion and despair. The communities are already at risk because of the presence of poverty and their low living standards, adding illegal mining and high expectations for miners, the community risks are extreme. If people are mining they are more likely to get roped into the drug use that takes place in Myanmar which also causes more health risks. Overall, Myanmar mining and the government has very unethical motivations, and it's leading to more and more harm to every aspect of the Myanmar community.

Action Plan

Workers are constantly putting their lives at risk every day they show up. From the effects on the environment and all of the stakeholders at risk, the government and the mining companies must be aware of the constant effects they are causing. The government must become more involved by implementing stricter laws to the illegal actions that are taking place. If the government gets involved then the miners are less likely to continue expanding their mining locations and be able to prevent the environmental hazards. The miners should implement a strike in order to act against the companies that are encouraging them to continue mining in difficult scenarios. If the miners show concern for the environment and their own safety then the company should honor the fact that they should focus on their workers. Once the workers provide a reality check for the company, they should begin to monitor close workings and simply follow the government's interventions. If they simply follow the pause in working from July 1-September 30, two hundred lives could have been saved all because there should have been a pause in mining for a couple months.

Myanmar's government has yet to implement desperately needed reforms, allowing deadly mining practices to continue. Between the government and the mining companies, they should focus on a new outlook that could benefit every stakeholder ethically. My recommendation is to go by a statement to create and grow sustainable value for our stakeholders through the application of best practices in mining and our commitment to protecting the health and wellbeing of our employees and the environment in the communities where we work. This mission statement not only values the goals of the company when it comes to being successful but also it highlights the greater importance of protecting their employees as well. With this statement in mind, governments and companies can honor the safety, efficiency, and respect of every stakeholder involved reflecting the core values that they should encourage.

The mining companies and the government should much closely be monitoring all aspects of the miner’s lives. They complain about a variety of unhappy factors in their lives from mining in dangerous settings to drug abuse in their community. Therefore, as a result, mining companies must look to individualism and be certain that although they want to maximize their profit the people must be happy because they show unhappiness with companies breaking the law. The population of Myanmar and the communities within all show law-breaking events because of scenarios like drug use and sexual abuse. The company should follow through with better rule-following in order to help the company flourish after the controversy. If they begin strictly following the guidelines, such as not mining during monsoon season, then they will be better off overall. The employee’s lives will be protected and the environment will be protected as well.

Marketing aspects that will benefit the company would be a representative of direct stories or presentations from the members of the community. If their overall lives improve then there should be public documentation showing that they are happier because of the change in guidelines for mining. These stories should be shared with outside communities and especially the government. If the government can acknowledge and recognize that their people are happier then they are more likely to continue to encourage the laws that they implement. It is known that if positive results are proven from a particular change then the change should continue to stay that way. My plan will help benefit business profits because if the mining companies are forced to not illegally sell the jade then they may be able to find more successful, legal deals with other companies. Additionally, if the companies are selling legally then the employees will be treated better because they can receive a more direct benefit from the companies’ profit. Currently, they find valuable items and simply give them away for other companies or directors to manage and sell for their own benefit. The mission statement will be supported if the company is able to be successful and the employees are safe and happy. Everyone will only be happy if there is a better treatment to the environment and its people.

Resources

Beech, Hannah, and Saw Nang. “Raids Reveal Massive Fentanyl Production in Myanmar.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 19 May 2020, www.nytimes.com/2020/05/19/world/asia/myanmar-drug-raid-fentanyl.html?searchResultPosition=18.

Fishbein, Emily, and Aung Myat Lamung. “How A Beloved Gemstone Became A Symbol Of Environmental Tragedy In Myanmar.” NPR, NPR, 29 Sept. 2020, www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/09/29/915604532/how-a-beloved-gemstone-became-a-symbol-of-environmental-tragedy-in-myanmar.

Fishbein, Emily, and Aung Myat Lamung. “In Myanmar's Largest Jade Mining Town, the Semi-Precious Stone Prized by Chinese Costs More Than Money.” Pulitzer Center, 19 Aug. 2020, pulitzercenter.org/reporting/myanmars-largest-jade-mining-town-semi-precious-stone-prized-chinese-costs-more-money.

Hindstorm, Hanna. “Back to Business as Usual in Myanmar's Jade Mines?” Frontier Myanmar, Global Witness, 28 Nov. 2018, www.frontiermyanmar.net/en/back-to-business-as-usual-in-myanmars-jade-mines/?fbclid=IwAR18BvZ7JPr-IFk-B-VRStvjTeIf2W72RFLSM3fy30ncBwiW3YDIo1zLxUs.

Nang, Saw, and Richard C. Paddock. “Myanmar Jade Mine Collapse Kills at Least 168.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 2 July 2020, www.nytimes.com/2020/07/02/world/asia/myanmar-jade-mine-collapse.html?searchResultPosition=16.

Salazar, Heather. The Business Ethics Case Manual: The Authoritative Step-by Step Guide to Understanding and Improving the Ethics of Any Business. Print.

Yeung, Peter. “Lethal Landslips and Drug Addiction: Myanmar's Toxic Jade Trade.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 25 Feb. 2019, www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/feb/25/deadly-landslides-drug-addiction-myanmar-toxic-jade-trade.