The first two questions face anyone who cares to distinguish the real from the unreal and the true from the false. The third question faces anyone who makes any decisions at all, and even not deciding is itself a decision. Thus all persons practice philosophy whether they know it or not.
We have entered into an age of widespread investor skepticism over nearly all aspects of corporate governance. Scandals are sapping investor confidence. With the financial shenanigans at Enron, WorldCom, Global Crossing, Tyco, Adelphia, Lucent, Xerox, Qwest, Ahold NV, Peregrine and other public companies permeating the news, many are seeking ways to improve corporate governance and, in particular, Director accountability to Shareholders.
Solutions involving better disclosure and stiffer penalties miss the big picture.
The ethics he reveals have good reasoning. Helping someone in need has always been a moral in someone’s life. But now, Hardin proposes a new ethic, lifeboat ethics. “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor,” at first is a shocking piece because of the different view of ethics Hardin proposes. Dec 05, · Garrett Hardin's "Lifeboat Ethics: the case against helping the poor" (Part 1) Summary of Hardin's thesis: 1) The affluent world do not have enough resources to eradicate poverty and starvation without reducing its own citizens to abject poverty. Sydney Dymond Ta’Von Johnson Arman Ali Analysis of “Lifeboat Ethics” The concept of generosity and compassion through resource sharing fundamentally entrench themselves onto many of the world’s major religions, political systems, and moral foundations.
Tweaking rules and regulations at the margins will only minimally improve the quality of corporate governance. The powers-that-be will vigorously seek to maintain the status quo.
Almost everyone who has previously enjoyed an advantage and is suddenly forced onto a level playing field will feel cheated, treated unfairly, singled out for undeserved punishment. Shareholders put their faith in and entrust their money to directors to manage the company and counter a chief executive if need be.
But when things get tough, boards become captive of executives or bankers or they simply leave. The recent case of Dynegy illustrates this.
Rather than stay to fix the mess the directors created, the entire Dynegy board resigned when shareholders rejected its efforts to sell the company. The reasons are interrelated.
They do not own substantial stock in their companies and face no risk if things go wrong. Even if directors are given incentives to take strong action, the corporate board is not set up for this type of decision-making.
Directors work part time to manage the company. Boards thus naturally tend to rely on the top executives and advisers.
Board collegiality and friendships among directors and with the chief executive often also mean that no director takes a disruptive stance. All these factors work to prevent directors from taking charge of a company or forging their own vision, a sobering thought for those who advocate greater board power.
I think we have too much in boardrooms today a feeling that you have kind of a divine right to continue on the Board without anybody challenging that assumption.
They think they deserve their steep payouts even when their performance has been far from stellar. Yet, because CEOs have influence over who gets on the board -- the only board slate offered to shareholders is the one proposed by management -- directors are careful not to offend them. Call it the fear factor: If directors knew they stood a good chance of losing their board seats -- and the prestige and valuable business connections these provide -- unless they aligned themselves with shareholders, they might stop forking over so much and narrow the gap between what CEOs and their managers and employees get.
To get there requires changing corporate laws and practices. As a first step … shareholders gain the power to place director candidates on corporate ballots and to initiate and adopt changes in corporate charters. Under current rules, shareholders can only pass nonbinding resolutions and must wage costly proxy fights to nominate a dissident director slate.
Moreover, strong oversight by shareholders should reduce the need for regulatory oversight. At a minimum, the breakdown of board accountability has resulted in stock losses for investors.
At worst, it has contributed to corporate wrongdoing. Each member of the group tailors his or her view to fit the consensus. Signs of groupthink include the ignoring of expert opinion, selective use of evidence and the illusion of omnipotence. The price of groupthink is that, at some point, reality intrudes.
More critical eyes help root out potential problems and facilitate solutions. Janis, the Yale psychologist, explained how panels of experts could make colossal mistakes.
People on these panels, he said, are forever worrying about their personal relevance and effectiveness, and feel that if they deviate too far from the consensus, they will not be given a serious role.
They self-censor personal doubts about the emerging group consensus if they cannot express these doubts in a formal way that conforms with apparent assumptions held by the group.
From my own experience on expert panels, I know firsthand the pressures that people — might I say mavericks? I felt the need to use restraint. I did so very gently, and felt vulnerable expressing such quirky views.
Deviating too far from consensus leaves one feeling potentially ostracized from the group, with the risk that one may be terminated.
I feared criticism for gratuitous alarmism. And indeed, such criticism came. The notion that people are making huge errors in judgment is not appealing. In addition, it seems that concerns about professional stature may blind us to what We all want to associate ourselves with dignified people and dignified ideas.Machiavelli and the Moral Dilemma of Statecraft.
Kr.s.n.a replied "If he fights fairly, Bhîma will never succeed in gaining victory. If, however, he fights unfairly, he will surely be able to kill Duryodhana. Download thesis statement on Critique #3 Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against "Aid" that Harms By Garrett Hardin in our database or order an original thesis paper that will be written by one of our staff writers and delivered according to the deadline.
The NWO Globalist Agenda. The New World Order Globalist Agenda represents a plan to bring all of Earth's human inhabitants under the control of a single, global state.
Garrett Hardin in "Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against the Poor" Garrett Hardin writes about saving the poor in his essay "Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against the Poor" found in The Blair Reader. Hardin writes about how the rich countries are in the lifeboat and the poor countries are swimming in the.
Fideisms Judaism is the Semitic monotheistic fideist religion based on the Old Testament's ( BCE) rules for the worship of Yahweh by his chosen people, the children of Abraham's son Isaac (c BCE).. Zoroastrianism is the Persian monotheistic fideist religion founded by Zarathustra (cc BCE) and which teaches that good must be chosen over evil in order to achieve salvation.
English Vocabulary Word List Alan Beale's Core Vocabulary Compiled from 3 Small ESL Dictionaries ( Words).