Debate the ethics of doing business in countries with totalitarian governments looking for holes and inconsistencies. Attempt to answer any arguments that are presented against your side of the argument.
Please tell us your ideas and we'll be glad to discuss them with you.
MS. sur i don't have any idas if you could just give me a place to start that would help just stuck not sure why but i am every time i come back to this my mined gose blank. thanks joni
Check these sites for ideas.
http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/09/27/40OPreality_1.html
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061114181307AALdLgO
http://www.business-ethics-pledge.org/
When debating the ethics of doing business in countries with totalitarian governments, it is important to consider various perspectives. Here are some ideas to help you get started:
1. Economic Engagement and Human Rights: One argument in favor of doing business with totalitarian governments is that economic engagement can bring positive change. By investing and operating in these countries, businesses can promote economic development, create job opportunities, and foster a middle class, which may eventually lead to demands for political reform. This argument suggests that engagement can be a more effective strategy than isolation in improving human rights in the long run.
Counter-argument: Critics argue that this perspective is overly optimistic and fails to acknowledge that businesses may indirectly support and legitimize oppressive regimes. They argue that economic engagement can perpetuate human rights abuses, as resources and profits may be misused by authoritarian governments to consolidate power and suppress dissent. Critics also question whether the potential positive changes outweigh the immediate harm caused by doing business with oppressive regimes.
2. Cultural Relativism and Non-interference: Another argument is based on the principle of cultural relativism and non-interference in a country's internal affairs. Proponents argue that each country has its own cultural, historical, and political context, and outsiders should respect their sovereignty and avoid imposing their values or systems of governance.
Counter-argument: Critics contend that this argument neglects the universality of human rights and the responsibility to protect individuals from harm. They argue that there are certain fundamental rights, such as freedom of speech and assembly, which should not be compromised for cultural or political reasons. Critics also highlight the moral duty to stand up against human rights violations, even if it means challenging a country's sovereignty.
3. Long-term Business Benefits: Some argue that doing business in totalitarian countries can provide economic advantages due to lower labor costs, access to resources, or emerging markets. They argue that these benefits can enhance the competitiveness and profitability of businesses, ultimately benefiting shareholders and employees.
Counter-argument: Critics raise concerns about the long-term risks and reputational damage associated with doing business in oppressive regimes. They argue that companies may face boycotts, divestment campaigns, or legal consequences due to associations with human rights abuses. Moreover, the ethical implications of pursuing short-term economic gains at the expense of human rights and democracy may overshadow any potential benefits in the long run.
It is important to approach this debate with a critical mindset and consider both sides of the argument. Taking into account the moral, political, economic, and social factors involved can lead to a more well-rounded understanding of the ethics of doing business in countries with totalitarian governments.