4Share All 4Stealing Your Money

Ethical Case Controversy

            In June of 2019 New IT Solutions was caught in a huge case.  They were making purchases with customers cards without them knowing.  They were very sneaky with how they did it too.  They hired a coding company from Honk Kong called Elephant Data who specializes in coding apps for a ton of companies.  Both companies have been around for a while and have made countless apps that millions of people use every day.  This new app that has caused the problems is called 4Share.  It’s a file-sharing app that has over 100 million downloads and gets used every day.  New IT Solutions paid Elephant data to go in and add a hidden third-party code into the background of the app.  What this code did was bring up invisible adds they made purchases within the app on customers cards without them even knowing it was happening in the first place. They then went in again and put in a second code to make sure the same phone never got hacked twice to make sure now red flags were risen.   They knew exactly what they were doing and didn’t decide to stop.  Right after all of this information came out the app was removed from the Google Play store since they just wanted no part of this case.  Since there were around 10 million everyday users of 4Share it was too late to take off the store, people were already being hacked for purchases.  The company said that they were “unaware” of the hacking going on but once they were questioned, they immediately cut all contact with Elephant Data.  Elephant data was also asked multiple about this whole case and had no response to any of the questions.  Thanks to Secure-D more then 114 million transactions made by 4Shared were stopped before they could be completed.  Secure-D is a cyber security company based out of London that is the only reason people are not being hacked by 4Share any more.  If it wasn’t for Secure-D more then 150 million dollars in charges would have went through and been charged to people’s credit/debit cards. Once this data was all found another London company called Upstream also did some work and found out all about the secret third-party codes that were going on in the background and charging people without their consent.

Stakeholders

            The main stakeholders in this case are the company, New IT Solutions, Elephant data and the people getting hacked.  Some other players in this are the Google Play store, Android app store, government, and the rest of the world.  The first three are directly in contact with the problem.  New IT Solutions made the app with Elephant Data who decided to add in third party code to create this whole problem about making purchases without getting’s people consent first.  The two app stores that put this app on the market also have to be blamed a little since they should have ways to check if an app is safe or not.  I am not sure on the technicality’s that go into making an app, but these stores should be able to check if an app is safe.  The government now has to deal with this since it will be a huge lawsuit to get the people their money back and make sure that measures are put into place to protect people in the future.  The final player is the rest of the population since this is a scary thing since they have apps just like it that could possibly getting hacked as you are reading this. 

Individualism

            Individualism is the simplest theory that we will be going over.  Its right in the name, it’s all about the individual’s gain. No matter the outcome the individual must come out with as much profit as possible within the limits of the law. New IT Solutions followed the first part of this theory perfectly with trying to make as much profit as possible, but they forgot the very important second part, within the limits of the law. They place third party code into their app to allow it to go into people’s phones and make purchases without there consent.  This means the company was making huge amounts of profits each and every day, but they were going about it completely illegally.  The app was making purchases with people’s credit or debit cards without them ever knowing it was happening. Since they didn’t follow the laws at all then this whole case is unethical.

Utilitarianism

            The main idea of Utilitarianism is that no matter what you must bring happiness to the biggest number of people you can.  In this case New IT Solutions really made their investors and their pockets happy but decreased the happiness in their company a lot more. They also didn’t make the app stores they are a part of very happy, since having an app on your store that can hack some one’s phone doesn’t make your store look safe.  The big question is doing they know about this third-party code.  The answer is absolutely, there is no way they would have hired Elephant data if they didn’t want this third-party code in the app in the first place.  Both companies are to blame, and both should be held equally responsible for this hacking.  They shouldn’t be happy with themselves by going behind peoples backs to make a profit either.  Especially now with the repercussions of this backlash they will be getting.  No knowing person will download any of their app that come out now, so in the long run this really will end up hurting their overall profits since the best customers are return customers, and after this they won’t be having many of those return customers anymore.  This action was totally unethical and wound up hurting both companies in the end.

Kantianism

            Kantianism is all about doing what’s right no matter the gain or loss.  The profit you make and the people you make happy don’t matter like in the previous two cases but doing what’s right is all that matters.  In this case with the app making purchases that customers were unaware of is not doing the right thing.  Yeah, they made tons of profit and made their investors happy but what they did was flat out wrong and illegal.  The worst part is they knew what they were doing the whole time. They added in a third-party code into the background of the app for it to make purchases without users’ consent. On top of that they added more code so that it never hit the same customer twice to make sure no red flags were risen in the process of collecting the money.  Nothing that New IT Solutions did could be deemed ethical under the rules of Kantianism. 

Virtue Theory

            Virtue Theory is the final ethical theory that I will be taking a look at for this case. There are four main parts to this theory.  They are justice, self-control, courage, and honesty.  In order to be deemed ethical by the virtue theory.  All four of these parts are not followed by New IT Solutions making this a very unethical move by them.  They had zero self-control and were just blinded by the money they were making to see that what they were doing was wrong.  Since they were hiding this from the public and going behind their backs to make the money then you could say they were as dishonest as possible.  The addition of the code to make sure no phone was hacked twice was even more dishonest because they were trying even harder to hide what they were doing.  They also knew everything that they were doing which makes this whole situation worse.  It’s not like someone hacked them and added the code, they added the code on their own to try and make more profit. It takes a lot of courage to do the right thing and make money the right way and no courage at all to do something illegal. Since none of the four parts of the virtue theory were passed by this case then it has to be deemed unethical. 

Justified Ethics Evaluation

            After reading through this case and dissecting it with the four ethical theories I just talked about you can really see how unethical this case is.  Just by reading the title of it I’m sure most people can gather that it is unethical to begin with, but when you dive deeper and find out what really happened, they you might think twice about downloading one of New IT Solutions apps in the future.  Although they thought that they could make some quick profit by cheating the system and hacking people’s phones in the end it wound up hurting their company name tenfold. They won’t be getting many return customers and that will hurt them more than the quick profit they made is helping them.  This was extremely unethical, and the companies involved should really take a hard look at their values. 

 Zac Nussbaum

References

121kiwi. “File Storage App 4shared Caught Serving Invisible Ads and Making Purchases without Consent.” 121 News, 2 July 2019, 121private.home.blog/2019/07/02/file-storage-app-4shared-caught-serving-invisible-ads-and-making-purchases-without-consent/.

“Secure-D Uncovers Another Popular Android App with 100 Million Downloads as Suspicious.” AFP.com, www.afp.com/en/news/1316/secure-d-uncovers-another-popular-android-app-100-million-downloads-suspicious-201907050051401.

“Slashdot.” File-Storage App 4shared Caught Serving Invisible Ads and Making Purchases Without Consent, it.slashdot.org/story/19/07/03/1738253/file-storage-app-4shared-caught-serving-invisible-ads-and-making-purchases-without-consent.

Das, Judhajeet. “File-Storage App 4shared Caught Serving Invisible Ads and Making Purchases without Consent.” MyDroidDoes!, 2 July 2019, mydroiddoes.info/file-storage-app-4shared-caught-serving-invisible-ads-and-making-purchases-without-consent/.

Spadafora, Anthony. “Popular Cloud Storage App Hides a Rather Nasty Surprise **Updated with Comments**.” TechRadar, TechRadar Pro, 3 July 2019, www.techradar.com/au/news/popular-cloud-storage-app-hides-a-rather-nasty-surprise.

Fair Oaks Farms Animal Abuse (2019)

Ethics Case Controversy

Fair Oaks Farms was put under investigation when videos from an undercover investigation showed multiple accounts of abuse with the treatment of the calves on the farm. The Animal Rights Mission investigator had stated that they had collected over 100 hours of footage regarding actions of cruelty towards the calves on the farm. Since the June 4 release of the first of three Animal Recovery Mission’s undercover footage, handfuls of stores have pulled Fair Oaks products off of their shelves. The owners of the farm had said that “he had no choice but to admit had happened on an operation he’d created to be a window into a model dairy farm” (Bangert and Hwang). Fair Oaks Farms was also put on probation by the National Milk Producers Federation. Farms are put on probation until it is proven that the corrective actions to correct the issue, otherwise they will be removed. In Mike McCloskey’s response video to the public, he had mentioned that there were five total employees that were conducting the abuse towards the calves. Between the animal rights protests and the overall reaction from the public, it is fair to say that not many people were okay with the actions taking place and it requires some change. Coca-Cola, one of their main business partners, has also taken action regarding this topic and had started an investigation of their own and looking at the other farms where they get their milk from for the Fairlife dairy products. 

Stakeholders

The owners, Mike and Sue McCloskey, are the main stakeholders involved in this case because they are the owners of Fair Oaks Farms. Also, their business partners, Coca-Cola are big stakeholders involved along with the employees at Fair Oaks Farm, the families of the employees, the Animal Rights Mission, the animals that were being abused, and the consumers of Fair Oaks dairy products are some more of the main stakeholders involved in this case.

Individualism

According to individualism, business actions should be made to help maximize the profits of the business. It is their responsibility as a business to engage in activities that are designed to help a company increase its profits legally. The actions taken by the employees in the several videos posted by Animal Rights Mission showed actions that did not lead to any profit for the company. Also, animal cruelty can be charged as a misdemeanor offense, which is an illegal action, making an individualist agree that this case is unethical.

Utilitarianism

According to the Utilitarianism Theory, this case is deemed unethical because the actions of the employees were not aimed at the maximization of happiness for all the beings involved. This includes the animals that are residents on the farm and since they were not only harmed, but killed, that is the worst possible outcome that could have happened. The guilty employees may have not been affected by their actions, but the responses from the owners and all other stakeholders were far from displaying happiness. 

Kantianism

The main ethical rule of Kantianism is “don’t lie, cheat, manipulate or harm others to get your way” (Salazar 20). It is making decisions off of your “Good Will,” or, using a good intention and reasoning to come up with a conclusion rather than making your conclusion based on the consequences. “Kant tells us that we should act only according to those maxims that could be universally accepted and acted on” (DesJardins 38), which is the main rule with Kantianism. It is the question one should ask themselves before they make decisions. The Formula of Humanity is that “it is wrong to use people as a mere means to get what they want” (Salazar 22). The employees did not use rational decision making when deciding to abuse farm residents. The employees decided to become violent towards the animals when they did not cooperate as easily as they wanted them too and because of this, the Kantianism Theory would also declare that this case is unethical.

Virtue Theory

According to a Virtue Theorist, their primary ethical rule is 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 The Case Manual 17). The 4 main virtues of character are courage, honesty, temperance/self-control, and justice/fairness. Firstly, with courage, it is risk-taking and willingness to take a stand for the right ideas and actions. In relation to the case, the employees did not show the right kind of “risk-taking” that would necessarily benefit the company in any way. Also, the videos never showed anyone trying to stop the abuse from happening. The next virtue is honesty. This is the agreement to be truthful and honorable with employees, customers, and other business partners. The public and business owners were not made aware of the issue until the Animal Rights Mission released the videos on June 4th. Since there was video proof of the employees abusing the livestock, the owners of Fair Oaks had to be honest to their stakeholders when discussing the issue. Next is temperance which is a company’s desires and expectation. The company’s expectations of its employees after this incident most definitely changed or probably made more specific to prevent the abuse to continue.  Finally, the last virtue would include justice and/or fairness. This would include the company to be hard working, provide quality products and ideas, and also, conducting in fair practices. The employees failed at handling their livestock in a fair manner. All in all, with all the virtues combined in analyzing the ethical outcome on this case in the perspective of a virtue theorist, this case would be unethical. 

Justified Ethics Evaluation

In my opinion, I agree with all of the theories and how they all believe that these actions were wrong. As a family business becomes larger and has more collaborations with other companies, of course, the size will grow but also the family piece of it will become much smaller as well. When this happens, it becomes much harder for a business to maintain its ethical values. The employees are very much in the wrong for their actions and their release from the company is justified. Overall Fair Oaks Farms have shown continuous growth since the incident and they are committed to being honest and transparent with the public in relation to the issues and how they are working on making things better.

Monique Lemire

References

Bangert, Dave, and Kellie Hwang. “Fair Oaks Farms Abuse: Ethical Questions Come from All Directions in Undercover Videos.” Journal & Courier, Lafayette Journal & Courier, 16 June 2019, www.jconline.com/story/news/2019/06/14/fair-oaks-farms-abuse-ethical-questions-come-all-directions-undercover-videos/1443129001/.

DesJardins, Joseph. An Introduction to Business Ethics. New York City: The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc, 2014.

The Coca-Cola Company. “Taking Action to Address Animal Abuses at Fair Oaks Farms.” The Coca-Cola Company, 6 June 2019, www.coca-colacompany.com/press-center/company-statements/coca-cola-company-statement-regarding-fair-oaks-farms.

“Enhancing Our Commitment To Animal Welfare.” Fair Oaks Farms, fofarms.com/progress/.

Mack, Justin L., et al. “New Video Shows Animal Living Conditions at Fair Oaks Farms, More Videos Coming.” Indianapolis Star, Indianapolis Star, 12 June 2019, www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2019/06/12/fair-oaks-farms-abuse-new-video-animal-recovery-mission-indiana-dairy/1429703001/.

Salazar, Heather. The Business Ethics Case Manual. n.d.

Siano, Nick. “Fair Oaks Farms: Sheriff Investigating after Undercover Video Shows Animal Cruelty.” Journal & Courier, Lafayette Journal & Courier, 7 June 2019, www.jconline.com/story/news/2019/06/05/fair-oaks-farms-indiana-undercover-video-animal-cruelty-founder-admits-fairlife/1347588001/.

NY1: Ageist and Sexist Lawsuit? (June 2019)

Summary-

NY1 may be the first thing viewers see when they wake up and the last thing they listen to when they fall asleep; but behind the scenes is where the actual news can be found. On June 19, 2019 five former female anchors of NY1 sued Charter Communications (the station’s parent company) for age and gender discrimination. They claim that the station prefers the presence of men and younger women on their channel. The five women range in ages of forty to sixty-one are Roma Torre, Kristen Shaughnessy, Jeanine Ramirez, Vivian Lee, and Amanda Farinacci.Women in broadcasting are not usually likely to openly complain about discrimination, especially while still having employment at the station. These women are being very open about their case and requesting a trial by jury to bring awareness to the mostly male leadership that suffocates women in the workplace. They have banded together has five individual women that want to represent women all over the industry who have been hushed into settlements.

 Stakeholders-

There are many stakeholders that businesses interact with. These include employees, business’ vendors, customers, and members of community/society. Due to the interactions, businesses have a social responsibility to each stakeholder as explained by each of the ethical theories below. In this case of gender and age discrimination, the five news anchors (Roma Torre, Kristen Shaughnessy, Jeanine Ramirez, Vivian Lee, and Amanda Farinacci) are the first and most important stakeholders. Also, it is believed that the young girls that watch and follow this news station are second-handedly affected. This is because they must know that influential women in the broadcasting profession are the target of discrimination. Lastly, the individuals that work at NY1 that are being thrown into the mix of a hostile and discriminatory workplace.

Individualism-

Ethical Individualism (aka Economic Theory) is a philosophy of egocentric ideals. These include the right to make individual choices and have individual precedence over the social responsibility.Individualism in this controversy would side with the decisions of the company. They first and foremost owe their obligation to themselves and the organization. Under this morality spectrum, it is believed that the women are pawns in the game of the corporation as long as their profit continues within the law. As of current, the courts have not decided whether or not this is a violation of anti-discrimination laws, so they can continue to run their broadcast in their best interests. They have every right to make changes based on what is best for the company and will keep them in the running for a high-rated television newscaster. However, the women are also coming from an Individualistic standpoint because they are looking out for their own best interests rather than what is making the most money for their employers and the company they continue to work for.

Utilitarianism-

Utilitarianism is a moral theory that believes actions are morally permissible if they produce as much happiness as any other available action. If an action does not bring the most happiness to those affected, it is considered morally wrong. People who value the utilitarian framework would find that the actions of NY1 and Charter were unethical to those whose happiness was jeopardized by said actions. The five anchors who were affected by the discrimination did not end up happy as their male counterparts and younger female coworkers were promoted. In fact, the actions of NY1 negatively affected all those involved including the company. They are now receiving a negative viewer response on their channel and must face the consequences of their immoral actions. 

Kantianism-

Kant and the ethical framework that follows his beliefs, would feel that NY1 selfishly manipulated the stakeholders in order to transform the face of their on-air news talent. Kant (the German philosopher) believed that there is a higher principle of morality that he called ‘The Categorical Imperative (aka the formula for humanity). This lawsuit under the microscope of Kantianism does not fulfill the duty. The actions of Charter and NY1 to slowly demote the five anchors are unjustified because it overturns their positions and the hard work they had given the channel for so many years. There is no grey area when it comes to the rights and wrongs of the Categorical Imperative. (Bayer, P. B. 415) Even though Charter had a spokesperson (who so conveniently happened to be woman) speak out about the rationality of their actions and the justification of the discrimination, it does not dismiss the immorality of their sexism and ageism. It does not matter that Charter believed it best to slowly replace these women with younger versions or male coworkers because nobody should be manipulated to benefit someone else. The station tried to counter the accusations by claiming they had motivation by “giving a chance” to a younger generation and increasing their views daily, but it is invalid if others are still being mistreated or harmed due to the actions. 

Virtue Theory-

Virtue theory focuses mainly on the characteristics of the person rather than the actions they perform which can help to find the definition of what makes someone a good or bad person. In order for someone to determine whether something is a good or bad it must first be determined what it means to be a virtuous person rather than focusing on their actions. There are moral virtues that can one can inhabit to maintain over their lifetime of virtuous human function: Courage, Truthfulness, Friendliness, and Generosity. Virtue theory ethical rule states "Act so as to embody a variety of virtuous or good character traits and so as to avoid vicious or bad character traits." (Salazar. 22) When it comes to courage, NY1 was lacking because the way they handled their affairs such as demoting the women was in a cowardice way. Instead of openly telling them what the plan was, they gaslighted and humiliated the women. Having their spokesperson openly say they are concerned about the accusations against them, shows a lack of truth. If the channel cared so much, they would have truthfully made statements about the p

ay gap between the men and women anchors at NY1.

When the women filed their suit against Charter, the company made claims that the women are often “hard to work with”. This is not a virtuous trait portrayed by the company. Not only did they discriminate against the five older women for their gender and age, but they wrongfully began to slander them to other journalists (eventually reaching the press). Lastly, the lack of generosity on the part of the broadcasting station is something to be harsh and cruel. They simply cut the women out of their positions without any prior knowledge. After all their years of commitment and hard work, they were cast aside without any explanation.

REFERENCES:

BAYER, P. B. (2015). Debunking Unequal Burdens, Trivial Violations, Harmless Stereotypes, and Similar Judicial Myths: The Convergence of Title Vii Literalism, Congressional Intent, and Kantian Dignity Theory. St. John’s Law Review, 89(2/3), 401–497. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.wne.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=115108977&site=ehost-live

DesJardins, J. R. (2020). An introduction to business ethics. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.

Dobson, J., & White, J. (1995). Toward the Feminine Firm: An Extension to Thomas White. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5(3), 463–478. https://doi-org.wne.idm.oclc.org/10.2307/3857394

Hang-yue, N., Foley, S., & Loi, R. (2006). The effects of cultural types on perceptions of justice and gender inequity in the workplace. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(6), 983–998. https://doi-org.wne.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/09585190600693264

Ramey, C. (2019). NY1 Anchorwomen Sue Station for Age, Sex Discrimination. [online] WSJ. Available at: https://www.wsj.com/articles/ny1-anchorwomen-sue-station-for-age-sex-discrimination-11560966726.

Salazar, Heather. Kantian Business Ethics

Salazar, Heather. The Business Ethics Case Manual. The Authoritative Step-by-Step Guide to Understanding Ethics of Any Business.

Teigen, M. (2000). The affirmative action controversy. NORA: Nordic Journal of Women’s Studies, 8(2), 63–77. https://doi-org.wne.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/08038740050167515

WeWork Sued for Age and Gender Discrimination

Ethical Case 

When both, Lisa and Richard, were fired there was really no good reasoning behind it; hence the lawsuit. In this instance WeWork portrays a very unethical way of treating their employees. It seems as if this company does not care about there staff and is only worried about making profit. As a company you want to make sure your employees have a sense of security when it comes to their career, instead WeWork made it very clear that anyone, executive or not, can be easily replaced at any time. 

Governments have a responsibly to encourage, through such things as fiscal and monetary policy and tax incentives, private sector employment for all citizens. In this restricted sense, it can be reasonable to claim that people have a right to work. (DesJardins 126) WeWork violated this right to work when they fired Richard Markel and Lisa Bridges from their company. This interpretation holds that the right to work is not a right to a job, but the right, once hired, to hold that job with some degree of security. Once one has a job, this would be the right to keep that job or, in other terms, the right to not be fired without just and sufficient cause. (DesJardins 126) The way that WeWork went about terminating these two executives was not justified. Markel’s position was already given to a newly hired employee before they even fired him and Bridges was fired after bringing the issue of, gender discrimination within the WeWork company, to light. Individuals may not have a right to a job, but they do posses ethical rights that protect them from being mistreated once they do have a job. (DesJardins 126) Note that this does not claim companies have an obligation to provide work, only that it has an obligation to its employees— that is, those already working— to structure a workplace in ways that protect their rights. (DesJardins 

127)

Stakeholders

WeWork Cos Inc. would be the main stakeholder involved in this lawsuit. The employees are also stakeholders because whether it be that WeWorks actions are deemed ethical or not they still have to be worry about the companies past actions and how they’ve treated their employees before. Customers depending on their believes are also stakeholders because if they don’t agree with WeWorks ethical decisions, they may have to find a new company to do the same thing. 

Individualism 

Individualist believe that business actions should be maximize profits for the owners of a business but do so within law. (Salazar 17) I believe that based on the actions of WeWork, they were doing there best to maximize profits but I don’t believe they did so within law. WeWork broke the law when they did not respect Richard or Lisa’s right to work. The right to work is the right to hold a job with some type of job security once hired. Neither of these executives had job security because the company proved that anybody can be easily replaced . If WeWork could have provided a just and sufficient cause for the termination of these two individuals it would’ve been deemed ethical according to individualism.

Utilitarianism 

The ethical rule of Utilitarianism is, business actions should aim to maximize the happiness in the long run for all conscious beings that are affected by the business actions. (Salazar 19) Lisa and Richard’s happiness definitely was not the main priority to WeWork. The company made Richard move all the way across the country to San Fransisco, hired someone with the same title as him, then fired him within a year of working there with no justification as to why besides the fact that “his role was eliminated”. Obviously, Mr. Markel was angry with the actions of WeWork and that is the reasoning he is suing them. Lisa was fired for bringing age discrimination within the company, to light. This women saw that the company was paying males much more just because they were men. For a women, I bet this is definitely upsetting and degrading because you’re basically being told you aren’t worth as much as man just because you are a women. WeWork did not care about the happiness of these executives at all and because of this, these individuals have grown angry and decided to sue. If the company approached these situations with some ethical value, Richard could’ve been forewarned about his unemployment or just moved to a different position within the company so that he wasn’t without a job, and Lisa would’ve been getting paid the same amount as a man would.

Kantianism 

The believe of a Kantian is to always act in ways 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. (Salazar 20) Based on the actions of WeWork a Kantian would say that this company is unethical. In Lisa’s situation, WeWork tried to manipulate her by paying her less than what a male gets paid. Also, when she brought it to co-president, Jennifer Berrent, she insisted that the unequal pay made sense because men take risk and women don’t. (Brown) Even one of the presidents of the company tried to convince Lisa that their decision was ethical when it blatantly was not. Richard was manipulated as well, the company asked him to move across the country for their own benefit and then fired him less than a year into his job. They used Richard for their own good without any concern for him as an individual. In no shape or form would WeWork be considered an ethical company based of the ethical rule of Kantianism.

Virtue Theory 

The ethical rule for the virtue theory is to act so to embody a variety of virtuous or good character traits so as to avoid vicious or bad character traits. WeWork does not posses any good traits based off of this case. They are a very unethical company with little to no morals. There employees are not treated with the simple respect of a human. In Richards case, the company shows a very shady side. I thought it was very suspicious for them to hire someone with the same title but then tell Mikel that his position was eliminated. How can it be eliminated if you just gave someone the same title and why was that person not let go as well if the position was eliminated? For Lisa’s case the company showed that they are support sexism which isn’t a good quality to possess. She found multiple examples of men getting paid at a higher wage and when she brought it to the attention of WeWork they put her on leave and moved to terminate her. (Brown) This motion against Lisa proved that they knew they were in the wrong and just didn’t want everyone else to know. In both instances, WeWork proves again and again that they do not posses good characteristics when it comes to how they treat their employees. Based off the virtue theory this company would be deemed unethical. 

Justified Ethics Evaluation 

WeWork Cos Inc. mission statement for their employees says, “Our mission doesn’t end with the small businesses and entrepreneurs that call us home. We believe in empowering our team to create their own life's work. We move fast and we challenge each other, but we look after each other and care about our culture, which makes working here extremely rewarding. There's a lot of work left for us to do, and we couldn't do it without a single member of our team.” (WeWork) Based on the two law suits still pending, involving Mr. Mikel and Ms. Bridges, it is quite clear that this is an inaccurate statement. When it comes to Richard, the company did not look after him nor did they show that care about their culture. If they did care about their culture they wouldn’t have hindered their reputation by making unethical decisions involving their employees. Also, they claim that they couldn’t succeed without a single member of there team but they fired Mr. Mikel without any hesitation. With Lisa, I believe the company looked at her as a threat because of what she could do when she found out there was many cases of sexism going on within the company; so that is why she was fired. Once again, the company did not look after Lisa, they knew that there were men being paid more than women for doing the same job which is completely unfair to them and they didn’t do anything about it. Once it was brought up that WeWork was discriminating against women I am sure that a lot of people did not want to associate with a business like that. So with that being said, in this instance, WeWork obviously doesn’t care too much about their culture or else they wouldn’t have taken the risk of looking like a sexist company.

Darius Grant

References

Brown, E. (2019, June 21). Former WeWork Executives Allege Gender, Age Discrimination. Retrieved July 29, 2019, from   https://www.wsj.com/articles/former-wework-executives-allege-gender-age-discrimination-11561082242

Grothaus, M., & Grothaus, M. (2019, June 21). WeWork is being sued for age and gender discrimination. Retrieved July 29, 2019, from https://www.fastcompany.com/90367486/wework-is-being-sued-for-age-and-gender-discrimination

DesJardins, Joseph. An Introduction to Business Ethics: Fifth Edition. Print. 

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

WeWork. (n.d.). Mission. Retrieved July 29, 2019, from https://www.wework.com/mission

What to think about when the location of where the Mac Pro is manufactured is changed....

Ethics, especially business ethics has many different ways of looking at a situation. A recent announcement by Apple has raised the ethical question of whether or not their decision to move the production of the Mac Pro back to China is ethically right or wrong. Some would argue that it is right, while others would argue that more information is needed in order to truly decide. 

Up until now the Mac Pro was the only product manufactured in the United States. The last model was built in a plant in Austin Texas, allowing each computer to have an 'assembled in the USA stamp', which was part of the company’s “$100-million Made-in-the-USA push.” Production in Texas cause many headaches; it was slowed and constrained the ability to meet demands of this computer, mainly because 80% of workers were contract employees who were paid for eight-hour days at minimum wage. They did not care about finishing the days’ work, rather they would leave and leave the lines running, causing production to stop and resume when the next shift arrived. Later in 2016, engineers proposed the idea of moving production back to Asia, because not only was it is cheaper, but the manufacturers have the skills required to build these products.  (Kubota & Mickle, 2019)

The Mac Pro is a desktop computer with the “power to change everything.” It is a computer that is marketed towards business professionals, engineers, and designers who need “ultimate in CPU performance.” Apple claims that this Mac is extreme in every way. With the greatest performance, expansion, and configurability yet. It has many industry first features including its own cooling system, not just one but two powerful graphics cards, a second connector, high-speed connections, and eight PCI Express expansion slots. It also features new software, security and storage options. These features set this computer to be priced around $6000 without any accessories and is expected to hit the market in the fall of 2019. (Mac Pro) 

Two theories of ethics prove that this business move is ethically correct - utilitarianism and individualism. Utilitarianism ethics is theory that determines ethical significance by looking at the consequences instead of the act itself; basically, if it is generally good for the most amount of people then it is ethically right and if it does not, then it is ethically wrong. This thinking causes utilitarian’s to be more pragmatic, believing no act is ever right or wrong in every situation. Individualism is the idea that the self-interest of one person is more important that the interest of an entire group. (DesJardins, 2014)

Within the utilitarian view of ethics, it could be argued that Apple moving production of the Mac Pro to China is ethically right. By moving production to a place where there are experts in assembling these computers, it is more efficient to import parts, and employees that are dedicated to their work, it means a faster production time and less expensive prices for consumers. These reasons alone are cause to believe that this production move provides the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Individualism would also argue that this business decision to restart production of the Mac Pro in China is ethically correct. This is because within individualism, the decision maker is only worried about how this move will affect him/her, not the other stakeholders involved. This move increases profit and production time, therefor it is an ethically correct decision.

Two other theories of ethics would argue that more information is needed in order to decide if these issues are ethically rights - Kantianism and Virtue Ethics . Kantianism is a theory of ethics that requires us to treat all people with respect. Virtue ethics asks questions about the type of person someone is or the type of act they perform. (DesJardins, 2014)

Kantianism and Virtue Theorists would question this business move to relocate the production of the new generation Mac Pro. They would question the condition in which the workers at the new facility are treated. If in fact they are treated fairly, then this issue would be ethically right, but if these workers are treated so poorly as an escape then it is ethically wrong. 

Carnival Cruise Pollution Violations

(7/28/19)

ETHICS CASE CONTROVERSY

Fabricated logs, extensive research of contaminated water, numerous laws violated, and recent lawsuits surround these prestige floating vacations. As cruise ships capacity increase from nearly 5,000 passengers and staff, to 7,000 passengers and staff the concern of ocean sanitation increases. Usually coastal countries are responsible for the oceans pollution; however, these polluting vessels distribute waste to the most discrete and pristine locations that would not normally receive pollution (Earth, n.d.)

Carnival Cruise’s actions have become a nightmare and are consequently questioned. Ariana Fajardo Orshan, United States attorney for the Southern District of Florida, announced in a statement “A corporation is responsible to its shareholders and board of directors to be profitable, but not by breaking the law and destroying the very environment in which it navigates for profit,” (Mervosh, 2019). Patricia A. Seitz, the federal judge overseeing numerous cases regarding Carnival Cruise, stated she is becoming frustrated with the company (Mervosh, 2019).

An ethical perspective of the case for Carnival Cruise, and their choice to deliberately pollute the ocean, would be deemed unethical without question. The waste coming off these ships contain nitrogen compounds, graywater (waste from showers, sinks, laundries and kitchens,), sewage, bilge water ( water that collects in the lowest part of the ship’s hull and may contain oil, grease and other contaminates), and solid waste such as food and garbage. (Walker, 2019) This waste is carelessly, yet fully consciously, dumped directly into the ocean polluting the water and food chain ultimately causing devastating environmental impacts.

STAKEHOLDERS

Carnival Cruise is now the biggest stakeholder in the situation. The company has been pampered with fines that are small when compared to their annual profits. The company, along with other cruise companies, are responsible of more pollution than entire countries. Carnival Cruises actions following the most recent case should set a responsible and more ethical method of disposal for the waste accumulated on the ships. The executives, ship captains and staff are all going to have to implement changes into their operations to ensure they meet the court’s ruling. They are responsible firsthand for how the waste will be disposed and will have the option to take the correct course of action. The judges and legal professionals involved are also stakeholders to the pollution and must enforce the ruling.

INDIVIDUALISM

Analysis of the situation under the Individualism theory of ethics renders this entire situation completely unethical. The Individualism ethical theory or economic model is the most business orientated model due to its base on economic views. The most important ethical rule in the theory of individualism is that “Business actions should maximize profits for the owners of a business but do so within the law.” (Salazar) and Carnival Cruise broke many laws for years by completely ignoring rules and regulations.

UTILITARIANISM

Examination of the case with the principals of the Utilitarianism ethical theory would further conclude that Carnival Cruise’s choice to dispose the waste directly into the ocean and violate regulations and law would be deemed unethical. The Utilitarianism ethical theory values “Happiness of all conscious beings, often interpreted hedonistically as pleasure and the absence of pain, but also sometimes interpreted as the satisfaction of desires” (Salazar) following the rule to maximize happiness for all conscious beings.

KANTIANISM

A thorough assessment of the case applying the Kantianism theory reveals more unethical behavior. One of the primary values of the ethical theory promotes honesty. The Kantianism ethical theory promotes the adoption of the “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). Carnival Cruise manipulated the courts lenient fines, that barely scraped their annual profits, to evade further prosecution and executive imprisonment. By paying the fines they were able continue operations and brush off the situations and a small loss.

VIRTUE THEORY

Promotion of wellness or the flourishing of individuals within society are primary values in the Virtue ethical theory. The Virtue theory specifics the importance of good character, asking 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). In many situations Carnival Cruise had the chance to adopt new methods of operation especially during their probation period. The company acted against the Virtue theory’s rule recommending the circumvention of vicious or poor character traits that are deemed to be unethical. Unfortunately, Carnival Cruise focused on profits of virtue to operate their company. Carnival Cruise also chose to implicate bad character traits by cheating the system and using the “magic pipe” to dispose of their waste.

JUSTIFICATIED ETHICS EVALUATION

In conclusion the actions, disregard for the law, and careless destruction of the delicate marine ecosystems result in Carnival Cruise acting in undoubtedly unethical behavior. An accumulation of broken laws, corrupted operational methods of disposal, and lack of concern for the environment render the company unethical in all perspectives of ethical theories. Carnival Cruise repeatedly ignored the law and abused the fines they were given despite multiple trials and chances to reform or recreate their waste disposal process. Even with governmental guidance from the EPA with alternatives and new suggested methods of disposal the company decided to continue their ethical behavior. As a result, Carnival Cruise displays their lack of concern for the environment, government and laws, and ethical behavior to achieve a greater profit.

Maxwell E. Godlew

REFERENCES

References

AP, L. J. (2015, February 13). China produces about a third of plastic waste polluting the world’s oceans, says report. Retrieved from South China Morning Post: https://www.scmp.com/article/1711744/china-produces-about-third-plastic-waste-polluting-worlds-oceans-says-report

Blackstone, J. (2015, February 13). U.S. polluting ocean with trash at alarming rate. Retrieved from CBS evening News: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-polluting-ocean-trash-alarming-rate/

Cruise Ship Discharges and Studies. (2000-2008). Retrieved from EPA: https://www.epa.gov/vessels-marinas-and-ports/cruise-ship-discharges-and-studies

Earth, F. o. (n.d.). EPA Report Details Cruise Ship Pollution. Retrieved from Friends Of the Earth : https://foe.org/news/2009-02-epa-report-details-cruise-ship-pollution/

Joseph DesJardins. (2014). An Introduction to Business Ethics. In J. DesJardins, Business Ethics. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Mervosh, S. (2019, June 5). Carnival Cruises to Pay $20 Million in Pollution and Cover-Up Case. Retrieved from The New York Times: Business: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/04/business/carnival-cruise-pollution.html

Press, A. (2019, June 4). Carnival pleads guilty to pollution, probation violations; cruise line fined $20M. Retrieved from USA Today: https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/1337198001

Salazr, D. H. (n.d.). The Business Ethics Case Manual: The Authoritative Step-by-Step Guide to Understanding and Improving the Ethics of Any Business.

Smith, O. ( 2017, January 2). Mapped: The Worlds most polluted Countries. Retrieved from The Telegraph: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/maps-and-graphics/most-polluted-countries/

Walker, J. (2019, June 19). Carnival Pollution Case: Why No Prosecution of the Engineers on the Caribbean Princess, Star Princess, Grand Princess, Coral Princess and Golden Princess? Retrieved from Jim Walkers Cruise Time News: https://www.cruiselawnews.com/2019/06/articles/pollution/carnival-pollution-case-why-no-prosecution-of-the-engineers-on-the-caribbean-princess-star-princess-grand-princess-coral-princess-and-golden-princess/

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjs2dTv09jjAhXbX80KHcijDZwQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fecohustler.com%2Farticle%2Fone-corporation-to-pollute-them-all%2F&psig=AOvVaw0YnVT6DFKWw7QhzcSgT4za&ust=1564438977833514



https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjCzKfZ09jjAhXHKM0KHYMsAI4QjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cruiselawnews.com%2F2014%2F02%2Farticles%2Fpollution%2Fdid-splendor-of-the-seas-or-other-cruise-ships-dump-sewage-near-turtle-beach-in-brazil%2F&psig=AOvVaw0YnVT6DFKWw7QhzcSgT4za&ust=1564438977833514






https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwj36eH609jjAhWIXc0KHUrmDpcQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wtnh.com%2Fnews%2Fcarnival-will-pay-20m-over-pollution-from-its-cruise-ships_20190604093036%2F2051014181&psig=AOvVaw0YnVT6DFKWw7QhzcSgT4za&ust=1564438977833514



https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjzlduL1NjjAhXQKs0KHXecAysQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fox5ny.com%2Flocal-news%2F400687615-video&psig=AOvVaw0YnVT6DFKWw7QhzcSgT4za&ust=1564438977833514



https://greenworldwarriors.com/2019/06/10/cruise-ship-company-carnival-fined-28m-for-pumping-pollution-into-oceans/