It seems to be that in our current economic world, the public has become obsessed with the idea of getting ahead and acquiring money. We seem to have a distorted idea that money is necessary and essential for our well-being, and that the more money we have the better off we are. So then this raises the question of the ethical aspects in the means through which corporations, and also individuals, are making money.
Aristotle mentions that money should be used as a means and not as an end, which directly relates to an article found on The Guardian's website titled "Uganda oil contracts give little cause for optimism", written by Taimor Lay. The article speaks about the oil company's argument that their presence in Uganda will turn the country's economy around because of the large revenue that would come in. On the other hand, the article also mentions that the deals being presented by the oil companies are "designed for profit, not development..." (Lay). This contradicts Aristotle's idea of money, because these companies are aiming to simply profit and keep bringing in money at any cost, which Aristotle would say distorts and perverses the true value of money. This meaning, that these corporations and industries are willing to go to any extent to profit, even when this means that there will be harm in extracting the natural resources in the region and harming the population in the country. So, should these industries and corporations have the right to harm the overall environment and population of the country simply for their own gains?
Furthermore, Aristotle mentions that the art of acquisition should, in essence, be limited and not limitless. So, having said that, the article also contradicts Aristotle's beliefs about the limits of acquiring wealth because it mentions that "as the oil price rises, investors will make a higher and unlimited profit, taking close to one quarter of oil revenues, whether each barrel is fetching $70 or $200" (Lay). Therefore, Aristotle would say that this perverses our want to make money, because there are no limits nor boundries.
So, knowing that these oil companies will be ignoring the environmental protective measures needed, and simply are concerned with making profit, I ask, when is it safe to say that enough is enough? Since Aristotle also mentions that we should only acquire what is needed to live well, is there ever such a limit for corporations, and in particular oil companies?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Profit as an end is sadly what our economy promotes. Getting ahead is what companies today strive to achieve, and they will stop at nothing, as we have seen both in the documentary "The Corporation," where companies have built in their cost the fine for doing their business illegally versus paying more to do so the legal way; as well as on the movie "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room," where we saw how by manipulating accounting (mark to market) they were able to make money out of thin air.
ReplyDeleteAristotle's ideas for gaining wealth as a mean to live the good life, is antiquated in the eyes of today's CEOs and CFOs, I bet they would subscribe to a Milton Friedman sort of view.
I think this is a great point to bring up. The idea of such greed and lack of care for that envirnment or community around this Oil company in Uganda. It not only goes against Aristotle's ideas of greed and wealth having limits, but it also goes against his idea of the common wealth. If the Oil company were following Aristotle's belief, they would own the oil company but the use of the profits would be common. Therefore, the wealth would be spread more evenly and the community could florish. As we know today with many examples in "The Corportation," the main goal of any corporation today is to make profit. Why wouldn't their goal be to make a profit. It is not like a person eventhough we may treat it as one; It does not have feelings or care about the community around it. Who is to judge weather the oil company should be able to profit hugely off of the property they own in uganda or weather they should help the community with the profits that they earn.
ReplyDeleteThe oil company has no desire to help the current econmic state of Uganda or its residents. They are solely there because that land possesses what they need to make money. I think the statement, "designed for profit, not development..." is a perfect description of the situation. People like to think that bringing big companies into an area will be a positive move, as the company will bring stimulus and infrastructure to the region's economy. However, the corporate executives are not there to help anyone but themselves. And as soon as they have drained that region of their resources and possibly released toxic chemicals or byproducts to harm the people or ecosystem (for which they will likely take little to no accountability for), they will scout out their next location and the cycle continues.
ReplyDeleteBut, according to Friedman, the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. It is not to take interest in the well-being of others.
You make a valid regarding how much profit is enough to say ok we need to stop. Unfortunaintly corporation and stock holders don't seem to think that way; they ask themselves how can we make more money on top of the money we are making. Only thing i might have to disagree with you on is Uganda. There's also a positive side to the oil fields that are being put into use. Local economy can do well thanks to the investment being poored into the region. Remeber they need to purchases supplies, hire locals to build theses oil refinery, and also give people jobs in order to extract the oil. So as much as developed countries are taking advantage of Uganda natural resource, the country will also benefit. unfortunately not as much as they should, but they will.
ReplyDelete