Guided Response:

Guided Response:
Respond to at least two of your fellow students’ posts in a substantive manner. Some ways to do this include the following, though you may choose a different approach, providing your response is substantive:

Review the initial posts made by your peers, and note whether the responses relied upon a different section of the Constitution or amendment than your response.

If your peer chose to focus on a different section of the Constitution or amendment than you did, discuss how that section of the Constitution relates to any example of a business situation from your professional life (past, present, or future).

If your peer chose to focus on the same section of the Constitution or amendment that you did, then compare and contrast the different applications of that section of the amendment to your respective examples from your own professional lives.

Suggest analytical differences that could lead to different outcomes. Point out ways in which the Constitution or its amendments might limit or protect business that your peer did not already identify.

 

1. Amendment I of the Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  In the business world corporations exist less in the commercial world and more as public figures, and as such have affected public affairs, harbor political opinions, engage in influencing public policy, and have reputations (Desai, 2013).  This fine line causes confusion and blurring when corporations seek to separate themselves in a commercial world and public figure scrutiny, in which trademark laws and consumer-protection create paradox between the political and commercial world (Desai, 2013).

Commercial speech is limited to ensure the protection of consumers, but does not necessarily suppress all inaccurate messages.  The law in this respect aims mostly to ban information that deceives the public and remove information that is misleading. 

Protection of corporations and businesses under the first Amendment is evident in the example of Chik-Fil-A company president Dan Cathay denounced same sex marriage based on his religious beliefs.  Many politicians wanted to block Chik-Fil-A openings in their districts but ultimately backed off when they realized Chik-Fil-A is protected under the first amendment (Hill, 2012).  If Chik-Fil-A were, practicing discrimination in their operations or hiring then a basis for a lawsuit would be lawful, but found no such evidence. 

I believe the first amendment protects businesses.  The Chik-Fil-A case is a good example of this protection.  Corporations and businesses, intensely governmentally regulated, that freedom of speech has become a way for businesses to survive, to some degree, in this anti-business environment.  The freedom to voice a belief, an opinion, or a political stance whether you are a corporation, a small business, or individual is the basic of all rights we have as Americans.  Moreover, the courage to do it and possibly suffer ‘blow back’ is admirable.

Desai, D. R. (2013). Speech, Citizenry, and the Market; A Corporate Public Figure Doctrine. Minnesota Law Review, 455-510.

Hill, K. (2012, July 27). Politicians Can’t Block Chik-Fil-A Openings Based on its Same Sex Marriage Stance. Retrieved from Forbes Magazine: www.forbes.com

2. The fourth amendment of the United States Constitution states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath of affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” (Seaquist, 2012).

 

 

 

The fourth amendment limits businesses  by allowing authorities to possibly search without a warrant.  If authorities feel that they have probable cause they can search businesses immediately without a warrant.  However, the fourth amendment protects businesses by ensuring that their privacy is not violated without reasonable cause.  Authorities must have sufficient evidence and cause to obtain a warrant to search businesses.

 

 

 

I work for an insurance company and we have access to personal information such as social security numbers, date of birth, and medical history for our clients.  Authorities must obtain a warrant to search our records; and the warrant must specifically request records for a particular client.  The authorities are not allowed to view the information of clients that are not listed on the warrant.  The fourth amendment definitely protects our business and clients personal information.

 

 

 

Seaquist, G. (2012). Business law for managers San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.  

 

Guided Response: 
Respond to at least two of your fellow students’ posts in a substantive manner.

Apply a different ethical theory to the examples identified by your classmate. Discuss the difficulties faced by persons in the workplace who view business situations from different ethical perspectives. Suggest ways that those differences can be overcome while still ensuring the actions of the business are legal.

 

1. Use three philosophical theories from Chapter 4 to analyze whether it is more important for a business to be ethical or lawful. Provide one example of a situation in which it seems to be more important for a business to be ethical rather than lawful, and one example of a situation in which it seems more important for a business to be lawful rather than ethical.

As a human being the emotions that are connected to everything we say and do would drive us to say that being ethical is more important than being lawful. However, in society all laws are not made under ethical standards. So because it is the law but it is unethical should we break the law and suffer the consequences? Or, do we become unethical and remain in the good graces of the law. I say neither of these is correct. There should never be a time that a person has to decide on whether they should be ethical or lawful but it happens.

Putting two of the philosophies together we can relate the business of the police department. In matters of criminal activity there are times that it is their duty to kill the bad guys. United States law says that murder is against the law. Deontology is a duty-based ethical theory that focuses on individual rights and good intentions. In this school of thought, an act’s morality depends on the actor’s motive, and the only unconditionally good motive is duty. Therefore, for an act to be moral or good, it must be undertaken out of a sense of duty (Seaquist, 2012). Since it is there duty it is okay for the police to break that law in order for the United States’ citizens to be safe. There are millions of Americans and just like any other country, the United States has police to govern their city streets that want to keep their citizens out of harm’s way. Utilitarianism has as its ethical basis the assignment of value to actions based on their outcome. Under utilitarianism, the ultimate good is defined as actions intended to bring about the greatest utility for the greatest number of people (Seaquist, 2012). I am thankful that they do break that law sometime; but is it ethical for me to be happy that the police killed the bad guy and be upset when they shoot an innocent child in the street on accident?

Moving on from the police example the media is another business that is always affected with decisions of ethics and law. Although it will be interesting to record the fight that is taking place, is it ethichal for the media to film instead of contacting the authorities. Unlike utilitarianism, however, the yardstick by which to measure the morality of an act is not the common good but rather the circumstances that surrounded the person committing an act at the time it was committed. It is a precept of this philosophy that a person’s actions cannot be judged other than by placing oneself in the same situation that the actor faced at that point in time (Seaquist, 2012). By the theories standards it would be wrong to continue to watch the fight and not contact the police.

Seaquist, G. (2012). Business law for managers. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.

2. Laws have to do with the concept of right, wrong, the judicial system, ethics is the concept of morality. 

Everyone should have ethics in order to practice the laws that regulate our behavior to a certain point. 

There are three philosophical theories of ethics, it is very helpful with business,life when we have to determine whether its the law and the ethical thing to do.

1. Ethical Absoulism: Which is the concept of right, wrong and their circumstances,

Using this concept at work we had five employees and the supervisor had to make a decision to send two of them home.. However three of the employees were great friends with him. However the next day the supervisor had made his decision to send two of his friends home because its was the most ethical, practical thing to do. On the other side, he could have kept all of three of them because he did not want to break the law. Although, he did not have to defend his decision.  

2. Religious Fundamentalism: They believe that living a moral life and a strict adherence to religious principles and values. (pg. 48). 

Within our business we have a diverse number of employees. Also we have lot of employees that believes very heavily in their religion. 

For instance we have couple of Muslims , during Ramadan they want to perform their native ceremony, a lot of the employees for some reason begins to get offended, they ask the management to put a end to what they are during. 

Businesses need to make sure that they do not offend anyone’s  religion because that could put you in a bad situation. What our business had decided to do was to  accommodate everyone by letting the attend the different religious celebration for a two hour period. And because of this plan everyone are happy.

Dentology: which focus on individuals rights, good intentions. A good example of this is when business relocate to a poor country overseas, they pay the workers a lot less than what thye should recieve. 

All newly built businesses abroad know what the right thing to do but for some reason they get caught up with  greed , corruption. However at the beginning that was their intentions. The right thing do is pay the employees the right amount  to avoid issues.

When it comes to stop businesses that their will be times for making the right decision, or an illegal one, you hath to make a decision. But a business can never go wrong as long as its has good ethical values, practice those values.

Seaquist, G. (2002). Business Law for managers. San Diego, CA: Bridgeport Education, Inc.