mencari dan berbagi pengetahuan apapun

sumber :

• What is “business ethics”?
• What are the six stages in building a moral?
• Should the moral standards applied in business?
• When a person is morally responsible for wrong deeds?

There is no best way to start a review of the relationship between ethics and business other than by observing, how real companies have actually tried to implement ethics into the business. Company Merck and Company in addressing the problem of “river blindness” as an example;
River blindness is a disease so unbearable that reach 18 million poor people in remote villages on the outskirts of the river Africa and Latin America.
Parasitic worms cause disease by this move from the body through the bite of black flies. These worms live under human skin, and reproduce by releasing millions of offspring called microfilaria that spreads throughout the body with moving under the skin, leaving patches, causing blisters and itching extremely unbearable, so that victims sometimes sometimes decide to commit suicide.

In 1979, Dr. William Campbell, a research scientist at Merck and Company, American drug companies, found evidence that one of the veterinary drugs are sold well from the company, Invernectin, can cure the parasite that causes river blindness. Campbell and his research team appealed to the Director of Merck, Dr.. P. Roy Vagelos, in order to allow them to develop the drug for humans.

Merck managers realize that if successfully developed the drug, patients with river blindness are too poor to buy it. Though the cost of medical research and large-scale clinical tests for human medicines can spend more than 100 million dollars.
In fact, if the drug terdanai, it may not be able to distribute it, because people living in remote areas. If the drug resulted in side effects, adverse publicity will have an impact on sales of Merck drugs. If the drug cheaply available, the drug can be smuggled into the black market and sold for the animals, thus destroying Invernectin sales to the vet who had been profitable.
Although Merck’s sales reached $ 2 billion per year, but net income declined due to rising production costs, and other issues, including the USA congress is ready to ratify Drugs Act Regulations which will ultimately have an impact on corporate earnings. Therefore, Merck managers are reluctant to finance expensive projects that promise little benefit, such as for river blindness. But without medication, millions of people imprisoned in painful agony. After much discussion, came to the conclusion that the benefits of medicines for human river blindness is too significant to ignore. The advantage this humane, morally obligatory mengenyampingkanbiaya companies and small economic returns. In 1980 disetujuilah Invernectin big budget to develop the human version.
Seven years of expensive research done in many clinical trials, Merck managed to create a new pill that is taken once a year would obliterate all traces of the parasite that causes river blindness and prevent new infections. Unfortunately no one wants to buy a wonder drug, including advice to the WHO, the U.S. government and governments of the countries who have contracted the disease, want to buy to protect 85 million people at risk for this disease, but none responded to the request. Merck finally decided to give away for free drug, but no distribution channel to distribute to residents in need. In collaboration with WHO, the company finance committee to distribute the drug safely to third world countries, and ensure that drugs are not diverted to the black market and sell it to animals. In 1996, the committee distributes drugs to millions of people, which effectively change the lives of patients suffering extremely, and potential blindness from the disease. Merck invested a lot of money to research, create and distribute a drug that does not make money, because according Vegalos ethical choices are expanding, and the third world population will remember that Merck helped them and will remember in the days to come. Over the years the company learned that such action has the advantage of long-term strategic importance.

The experts often joke, that business ethics is a contradiction in terms because there is a conflict between ethics and personal interest in the quest for profit-oriented. When there is conflict between ethics and profit, business ethics rather than profit.
Business Ethics book takes the view that ethical action is the best long-term business strategy for the company – a view that is gaining acceptance in recent years.

According to the dictionary, the term ethics has a variety of different meanings. One meaning is “the principles that govern the behavior of individuals and groups”. The second meaning according to the dictionary – more importantly – ethics is “the study of morality”. But although the ethics related to morality, but not exactly the same as morality. Ethics is a kind of review, both the review and the review of the activity itself, whereas morality is a subject.

A. Morality
Morality is a guideline of the individual or group about what is right and wrong or good and evil.
The guidelines include moral norms that we have about the types of actions which we believe is right or morally wrong, and values ​​we apply to objects which we believe to be morally good or morally bad. Moral norms such as “always tell the truth”, “killing innocent people is wrong”. Moral values ​​are usually expressed as statements that describe the objects or features of objects of value, a kind of “honesty is good” and “terrible injustice”. Moral standard was first absorbed when childhood from family, friends, social influences such as churches, schools, television, magazines, music and clubs.

The nature of moral standards:

1. Moral standards relating to issues that we think will be hurt seriously or will actually benefit humans.
2. Moral standards can not be set or changed by the decision of the board of certain authoritative.
3. Moral standards must take precedence over other values, including (especially) self-interest.
4. Moral standards based on impartial consideration.
5. Moral standards associated with specific emotions and specific vocabulary.
Moral standards, thus, is a standard relating to the issues that we think have serious consequences, based on good reasoning rather than authority, beyond self-interest, based on impartial consideration, and the offense is associated with feelings of guilt and shame and with emotion and specific vocabulary.

B. Ethics
Ethics is the science that explore individual moral standards and moral standards of society. He questioned how the standards applied in our lives and whether the standard is reasonable or unreasonable – standard, namely whether the reasoning is supported by good or bad.
Ethics is the study of moral standards, moral standards inspection process or the public to determine whether the standard is unreasonable or not to apply in concrete situations and problems. The final goal is to develop building moral standards of moral standards that we think makes sense for adopted.
Ethics is the study of moral standards that explicit purpose is to determine the correct standard or supported by good reasoning, and thus try to reach conclusions about the ethics of a true moral right and wrong, and moral good and evil.

C. Business Ethics
Business ethics is a specialized study of moral right and wrong.
This study concentrates on moral standards as applied in policies, institutions, and business conduct.
Business ethics is the study of formal standards and how standards are applied to the system and organization of modern society that is used to produce and distribute goods and services and applies to those that exist in the organization.

D. Application of Ethics in Corporate Organizations
Get a moral sense such as responsibility, wrongdoing and liability apply to groups such as businesses, or in person (individual) as a real moral behavior?
There are two views that appear on this problem:

* Extreme first, is the view which argues that, because the rules are binding, the organization will allow us to say that the company acted as an individual and has a deliberate purpose for what they are doing, we can say they are morally responsible for their actions and that actions they are moral or immoral in the same sense that humans do.
* Extreme second, is the philosopher who held that view is not unreasonable to think that business organizations are morally responsible because he failed to follow the moral standards or to say that the organization has a moral obligation. Business organizations like machines whose members must blindly obey formal rules that have nothing to do with morality. As a result, more is not unreasonable to assume the organization morally responsible because he failed to follow the moral standards rather than criticize organizations such as the engine that failed to act morally.

Therefore, the company’s action comes from individual human choices and actions, indivdu-are the ones who should be seen as the main guardian of moral obligation and moral responsibility: individual human beings are responsible for what the company because the company’s overall actions flow from their choices and behavior. If the company acted erroneously, a mistake was caused by the choice of actions performed by individuals within the company, if companies act morally, it is caused by individual choices within the company to act morally.

E. Globalization, Multinational Corporations and Business Ethics
Globalization is a process that covers the whole world and cause economic and social system states to be connected together, including goods, services, capital, knowledge, and cultural heritage that is traded and each move from one country to another. This process has several components, including the reduction of barriers to trade and the emergence of open world markets, the creation of global communications and transportation systems such as internet and global shipping, the development of world trade organization (WTO), World Bank, IMF, and so forth.
Multinational enterprises are the core of the globalization process and is responsible in international transactions that occurred today. The company is a multinational company engaged in the produce marketing, service or administrative operations in several countries. Multinational companies are companies that perform production, marketing, services and operates in many different countries.
Because of this multinational company operating in many countries with diverse cultures and different standards, many claim that the company violated several norms and standards that they should not do.

F. Business Ethics and Cultural Differences
Ethical relativism is the theory that, because different societies have different ethical beliefs. Whether the action is morally right or wrong, depending on the view that society. In other words, moral relativism is the view that there is no ethical standards are absolute right and that applied or should apply to companies or people from all communities.
In one’s moral reasoning, he should always follow moral standards prevailing in any society where it is located.
Another view of ethical relativism critics who say that there are certain moral standards that must be accepted by the members of any society if society is to continue and if members want to interact effectively.
Ethical relativism reminds us that different societies have different moral beliefs, and we should not simply ignore the moral beliefs of other cultures when they are not in accordance with our moral standards.

G. Technology and Business Ethics
The technology developed in the late decades of the 20th century transformed the society and business, and create the potential for new ethical problems. The most striking is the revolution in biotechnology and information technology. Technology led to some radical changes, such as the rapidly growing globalization and the loss of distance, the ability to discover new life forms are the advantages and risks are not predictable. With this rapid change, business organization faced with a stack of exciting new ethical issues.


A. Development of Moral
Psychological research shows that, can change a person’s moral development as adults. As children, we honestly say what is right and what went wrong, and obey to avoid punishment. When it grew into adolescence, the conventional moral standards are gradually internalized. Moral standards at this stage is based on meeting the expectations of family, friends and surrounding communities. Only some people are rational and experienced adults have the ability to critically reflect on the moral standards that inherited the conventional family, friends, culture or our religion. Moral standard that is not impartial and that more attention to the interests of others, and to adequately balance the attention of others with attention to yourself.
According to psychologist, Lawrence Kohlberg, with his research for 20 years, concluded, that there are 6 levels (consisting of 3 levels, each 2 stages) identified in a person’s moral development to deal with moral issues. Stages are as follows:

1) Level one: Stage Prakonvensional
In the first stage, a child can respond to rules and social expectations and can apply labels good, bad, right and wrong.
Stage One: Punishment and Obedience Orientation
At this stage, the physical consequences of an action is fully determined by the goodness or badness of the action. The reason for doing a good child is to avoid punishment or respect the authority of physical force is greater.
Stage two: Instrument and Relativity Orientation
At this stage, the right action is that can serve as an instrument to satisfy the needs of the children themselves or the needs of those who cared for the child.

2) Level two: Stage Conventional
At this level, people are not only reconciled with expectations, but showed loyalty to the group and its norms. Teenagers these days, can see the situation from the perspective of others, from the perspective of social groups.
Stage Three: Conformity Orientation on Interpersonal
At this stage, doing what good is motivated by the need to be seen as a good actor in his own views and the views of others.
Stage Four: Orientation on Law and Order
Right and wrong at this stage of a more conventional adult, is now determined by loyalty to the state or the surrounding communities is greater. Law is not obeyed except in accordance with other social obligations that are obvious.

3) Level three: Phase Postkonvensional, Autonomous, or Principled
At this stage, one is no longer simply accept the values ​​and norms of the group. He’s just trying to see the situation from a perspective that is fair to consider the interests of others. He questioned the laws and values ​​adopted by society and redefine the notion of self-chosen moral principles that can be rationally justified. Legal and proper value is in accordance with the principles that motivate rational people to run it.
Stage Five: Orientation to the Social Contract
This stage, one becomes aware that having a diversity of views and personal opinions to the contrary and emphasizes the fair way to reach consensus with the understanding, contracts, and processes mature. He believed that the values ​​and norms are relative, and in spite of all democratic consensus be tolerated.
Stage Six: Orientation on the Universal Principles of Ethics
This final stage, the right action is defined in terms of moral principles chosen because of comprehensiveness, universality, and consistency. The reason for someone to do what is right based on a commitment to moral principles and he saw it as a criteria to evaluate all the rules and moral order to another.

Kohlberg’s theory helps us understand how we evolved moral capacities and shows how we become more experienced and critical in using and understanding the moral standards that we have. But not everyone is experiencing growth, and some stopped in the early stages of his life. For those who remained on the stage prakonvensional, rightly or wrongly defined in terms of continuous self-centered to avoid punishment and do what is said by the powerful authority figures. For those who reach the stage of the conventional, but never advanced again, right or wrong is always defined in terms of the norms of their social group, or the law of the State or their community. However, for those who reach level postkonvensional and take a reflective and critical of moral standards which they believe, is morally right and wrong are defined in terms of moral principles which they choose for themselves as a more rational and adequate.

B. Moral Reasoning
Moral reasoning refers to the process of reasoning in which behaviors, institutions, or policies considered appropriate or violate moral standards. Moral reasoning always involves two basic components:

1. An understanding of the required, prohibited, judged or blamed by the moral standards that make sense.
2. Evidence or information indicating that the people, policies, institutions, or certain behavioral traits have moral standards that require, forbid, judge, or blame.
3. Analyzing Moral Reasoning

There are several criteria used by ethical experts to evaluate the feasibility of moral reasoning, namely:

* Moral reasoning must be logical.
* Factual evidence cited to support the assessment must be accurate, relevant and complete.
* The moral standard that involves a person’s moral reasoning must be consistent.

Many have objected to the application of moral standards in business activity. This section discusses these objections and see what can be said with regard to kesetujuan to implement ethics into the business.
Three objections to the application of ethics in business:
The people involved in the business, said they should focus on finding financial benefits to their business and not to waste their energy or resources companies to do “good works”. Put forward three arguments to support this company:

First, some argue that in a perfectly competitive free market, profit-seeking by itself emphasizes that community members to function in ways that most socially beneficial. To be lucky, each company must produce only what is desired by members of the community and must do so in the most efficient available. Members of the public will be very lucky if the manager does not impose values ​​on the business, but devoted himself to the quest for profit-focused.
That argument hides a number of assumptions which are: First, most industries are not “perfectly competitive”, and as far as far as the company does not have to compete, they can maximize profits even if production is not efficient. Second, the argument assumes that any steps taken to improve profitability, need to be socially beneficial, even if in reality there are several ways to increase profits that actually hurt the company: let pollution, advertising copy, hide defects, bribery. Avoid taxes, etc.. Third, the argument assumes that the public wants to produce any buyers, the company produced what is desired by all members of society, when the reality of desire most members of society (the poor and disadvantaged) need not be filled because they can not participate in the market. Fourth, the argument was essentially making normative judgments.

Second, sometimes put forward to show that business managers should focus their pursuit of corporate profits and ignore ethical considerations, which by Ale C. Michales is called “argument from a loyal agent”. The argument simply is as follows:
As a loyal agent of the employer’s managers have an obligation to serve his employer when the employer wants to be served (if the employer has keakhlian agent).
Employers want to be served in any manner that would advance its own interests. Thus, as a loyal agent of the employer, managers have an obligation to serve his employer in any way that would advance his interests.
Loyal agent argument is wrong, because “in determining whether the client orders to the agent makes sense or not … business or professional ethics must take into consideration “and” in any event stated that the agents have an obligation to not carry out illegal acts or unethical “. Thus, the duty manager to serve the employer, is limited by the boundaries of morality.

Third, to be ethical enough for business people just obey the law:
Business ethics is basically obey the law.
Sometimes we are wrong look at the legal and ethical looks identical. True that certain laws require the same behavior is also required our moral standards. However, laws and morals are not always similar. Some laws have no connection with morality, even breaking the law so contrary to the moral standards of morality, such as slavery laws that allow us to treat slaves as property. It is clear that ethics can not simply follow the law.
But ethics does not mean not having to do with the law. Moral standards we are sometimes incorporated into the law when most of us feel that moral standards should be enforced with the power of the legal system on the contrary, the law has been criticized and written off when it clearly violates moral standards.
Cases in business ethics
Ethics should be applied in business by showing that the ethics governing all deliberate human activity, and because the business is a deliberate human aktitivitas, ethics should also play a role in the business. Another argument holds that, business activities, as well as other human activities, can not exist unless the people involved in the business and surrounding communities adhere to minimal standards of ethics. Business is a cooperative activity which requires the existence of ethical behavior.
In a society without ethics, as written by the philosopher Hobbes, unbelief and self-interest is not limited to creating a “war of humans against other humans,” and in a situation like that life would be “dirty, brutal, and shallow”. Hence in such a society, may not be able to conduct business activities, and business will be destroyed. Katena business can not survive without ethics, the interest of most major business is to promote ethical behavior of its members and also the wider community.
Ethics should be applied in business by showing that ethics consistent with business objectives, particularly in the search for profit. Examples Merck is known for its ethical culture that had long held, but he remains a company that is spectacular to get the most benefits of all time.
Is there any evidence that ethics in business are systematically correlated with profitability? Is that ethical companies more profitable dapripada other companies?
Some studies show a positive relationship between behavior that is socially responsible with profitability, some do not find a correlation that business ethics is a burden on profits. Other studies look at, the company is socially responsible trading in the stock market, earn a higher return than other firms. All studies show that ethics does not reduce the overall gain, and looks instead contribute to profits.
In the long run, for the most part, it’s better to be ethical in business from the unethical. Although it is not ethical in business is sometimes successful, but this unethical behavior in the long run, tends to be a defeat for undermining long-term cooperative relationships with customers, employees and members of the society in which success depends disnis.
Finally we need to know there is much evidence that most people will judge unethical behavior by punishing those who they perceived to behave unethically, and appreciate who they perceived to behave ethically. Customers will be against the company if they perceive the injustice done in other business enterprises, and reduce their interest to buy their products. Employees who feel the injustice, will show absentisme higher, lower productivity and higher wage demands. Conversely, when employees believe that the organization fair, would love to follow the manager. Do whatever the manager said, and looked at the manager’s decision invalid. In short, ethics is a key component of effective management.
Thus, there are some strong arguments, which support the view that ethics should be applied in business.

When is a person morally responsible or blamed, for making mistakes? A person is morally responsible for his actions and adverse effects that have been known;
a. Performed or carried out a person deliberately and freely
b. Failed to do or prevented and is morally wrong because the person intentionally or freely failure to exercise or prevent it.

There is general agreement, that there are two conditions that completely eliminate a person’s moral responsibility for causing harm;

1. Ignorance
2. Inability

Both are called condition due to fully forgive forgive people from responsibility for anything. If someone does not know, or can not avoid what he did, then the person is not doing it consciously, it is free and can not be blamed for his actions. However, ignorance and incompetence are not always forgive someone, one possible exception is when a person intentionally, let him not want to know the specific problem.
Inability could be the result of internal and external environment that causes a person can not do something or can not resist doing something. A person may lack the power, skill, chance or sufficient resources to act. One may be physically blocked or could not act, or psychologically disabled people’s minds, so stop controlling his actions. The inability to reduce liability because someone does not have a responsibility to do (or prohibit doing) something which he can not control. As far as the environment causes a person can not control his actions or to prevent certain losses, it is wrong to blame the person.
In addition to the two conditions that declared it (ignorance and incompetence), which completely eliminates one’s moral responsibility for mistakes, there are also several factors that mitigate, to alleviate the moral responsibility of a person who depends on the clarity of the error. Factors that mitigate include:

* Environment which resulted in people is uncertain, but not too sure about what he was doing (it affects a person’s knowledge)
* Environment that makes it difficult, but it is not impossible to avoid doing so (this affects the freedom of a person)
* Environment which reduce but not completely eliminate a person’s involvement in an action (this affects the degree to which the person actually causing harm)

It can lighten the responsibility of the wrong person for misconduct which depends on four factors, namely the seriousness of the error.
Fundamental conclusions about the moral responsibility for errors or mitigate harm a person’s moral responsibility are:

1. Individual morally responsible for the actions he is doing wrong (or that he mistakenly neglect) and on the effects of loss caused (or failed to prevent him) when it is done freely and consciously.
2. Moral responsibility entirely eliminated (or condoned) by the ignorance and incompetence
3. Moral responsibility for any errors or losses mitigated by:

* Uncertainties
* Difficulty

Involvement of small weights (although it does not mitigate the failure if a person has a special duty to prevent errors), but the extent of coverage of these things lighten one’s moral responsibility to (a) the seriousness of errors or losses. The greater the seriousness, the smaller the first three factors were able to alleviate.
The critics argue, are all mitigating factors that really affects a person’s responsibility? Some argue that, crime is never acceptable, no matter what happens to the pressure on someone. Other critics argue, passively allowing an error occurs, do not differ by actively causing an error occurs.

A. Corporate Responsibility
In modern enterprises, the responsibility for the actions of corporations often distributed to a number of parties working together. Company’s actions usually consist of acts or omissions of different people who work together so that the acts or omissions they together produce the company’s actions. So, who is responsible for the actions that produced it together?
The traditional view argues that those who consciously and freely do what it takes companies, each of which is morally responsible.
Another case the opinion of the critics of the traditional view, which states that when a group organized as a company acting jointly, their company’s actions can be described as an action group, and consequently act in groups rather than individual action, which requires the group responsible for such action.
Traditionalists argue that, although we sometimes impose measures to the group of companies, legal fact does not change the moral reality behind all company actions. Any individual who joined voluntarily and freely in joint actions with other people, who intend to produce the company’s actions, would be morally responsible for that action.
However, employees of large companies can not be said to “knowingly and freely participate in joint actions was” to produce the actions of companies or to pursue the objectives of the company. Someone who works in the bureaucratic structure of large organizations should not be morally responsible for any acts he helped companies that participate, such as a secretary, clerk, or a cleaner in a company. Factors that alleviate the ignorance and incompetence in the large-scale bureaucratic organization, would completely eliminate the moral responsibility of man.

B. Responsibilities of Subordinate
Within the company, employees often act on the orders of their superiors.
Companies usually have a higher structure to a variety of agents at a lower level. So, who should be morally responsible when a supervisor ordered his subordinates to perform actions that they know are wrong.
People sometimes argue that, when a subordinate to act in accordance with the legitimate superiors’ orders, he was released from all responsibility for that action.
Only a boss who is morally responsible for the actions of a misnomer, even if the subordinate is the agent who did it. Opinion was wrong, because after all a moral responsibility requires a person to act freely and consciously, and not relevant that the act of someone who either is a free and conscious choice to follow orders. There are limits to the obligation of employees to obey his superiors. An employee has no obligation to obey the command to do anything immoral.
Thus, when a supervisor ordered an employee to perform an action that they know is wrong, employees are morally responsible for that action if he did it. Bosses are also morally responsible, because of the fact superiors using subordinate to carry out the actions that one does not change the fact that the boss did.


1. Basic Ethics is MoralApa is meant by ethics? According to the dictionary there are many meanings of ethics include:
* Principles – principles used to regulate the behavior of individuals or groups
* Lessons on morals
Morality is the definition:
“The rules that are owned by individuals or groups about what is right and what is wrong, or what is good and evil.”
While the definition of moral standards are:
“The norms that we have about the types of actions which we believe is morally right or wrong.”

2. More to the direction of individual moral
Company’s organization will exist when:
“There are individuals – individual human beings with certain relationships and the environment.”
Since the company’s actions and the actions performed by the choice of the individuals within it. Then the individuals had to be seen as a barrier and the main executor of moral duty, moral responsibility of the company.
Human individuals were responsible for what is done by the company, because the company’s action takes place because of their choices and behaviors of individuals earlier. So the company has a moral duty to do something when a member of the company has a moral responsibility to do something.

3. Tetinggi achievement of Ethics is oriented on the Universal Principles of Ethics
Final level, the correct action based on moral principles as logical, Universality and consistency.
Universality means that conscience, in terms ESQ called universal nod, which refers to God Spot.

4. WorldCom and Enron cases
Case 4.1 WorldCom
Inside WorldCom’s financial statements, Scott Sulivan move $ 400 million from an account reserved to the “income”. He was also for many years reported trillions of dollars in operating costs as a “capital expenditure”.
He can do this with the help of accounting firm and auditors famous “Arthur Andersen”. Though Scott Sullivan, had received an award as the Best CFO by CFO Magazine in 1998.
4.2 The case of Enron
At the April 2001 issue, Fortune magazine dubbed Enron as the most innovative company in America “Most Innovative” and was ranked seventh of the companies in America. Six months later (December 2001) Enron declared bankruptcy.
This event dubbed as “the biggest accounting fraud in the 20th century”. Twelve thousand employees lost their jobs. Holders of shares of Enron lost $ 70 trillion in an instant when the value of its stock fall to zero.
This incident occurred by exploiting loopholes in the accounting field. Andrew Fastow, Chief Financial Officer in collaboration with public accountants Arthur Andersen, exploiting gaps in the field of accounting, namely by using “special purpose entity”, because accounting rules allow companies to no special purpose financial reporting entity when there are independent shareholders with a minimum 3% .
With a special purpose entity before, and then borrow the money to the bank by using Enron stock collateral. The money from the loan were used to support Enron’s business.
4.3 Case discussion
From WorldCom’s and Enron’s case above, it can be observed that although there has been a clear set of rules accounting system, but if people who had set the immoral and unethical, they will take advantage of loopholes that exist for their interests.
4.4 The view Velasquez on Business Ethics in Saudi Arabia
According to Velasquez, Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of Islam, Sunni Islam which uses as a basis of law, policy and social systems. But in Saudi Arabia is not known “basic right” (basic fairness, like there is no democracy, no freedom of speech, no freedom of the press, does not recognize the justice with the jury system, do not recognize freedom of religion and discrimination against women. Thus, according to Velasquez, in Saudi Arabia does not recognize human rights.

Velasquez states, Saudi Arabia is an example of Islamic ethics, the simple reason that Islam was born there. But he forgot that Christianity and Judaism are also not born in Europe or in America. He mengeneralisir that Saudi Arabia is Islam.
Though Saudi Arabia is not an Islamic country that exemplified depiction of the Prophet Muhammad. Within four days of the Apostle and his successors, the technical term friend of democracy and religious freedom.


1. How ethical approach to out-in or in-out
* Out-in is the process of supervision from the outside in, there must be rules or business processes clear and transparent so that business ethics can walk,
* For example, there is good corporate governance, balance scorecard, or Malcolm baldrigeIn-out is the approach of the individual business person, the perpetrator of ethics is individual and each individual should run a business ethics.
* In the case of Enron and WorldCom’s, although there has been a very good system that is organized and well defined, it is still just “unscrupulous” people looking for a gap between the rules of the game.
* How should the implementation of good business ethics, with the approach in-out, out-in, or ambivalent by applying both.

2. Is it ethical universal message horizontal – vertical obligations
* The basis of ethics is the study of morality, and morality had to ask to individuals.
* The highest achievement of the moral is the Universal Ethical Principle Orientation
* Velasquez stated that ethics is more abstract than “Ten Commandements”
* Is it a message of universal ethics horizontal (human to human) minus the value of liabilities vertical (Religion)?


* Violation of the laws of business ethics
A company X because of the condition of the bankrupt company eventually decided to Conducting layoffs to employees. But in doing layoffs, the company did not provide pesongan as provided in Law no. 13/2003 on Manpower. In this case the company x can be said to violate the principle of adherence to the law.
* Violation of the transparency of business ethics
An X Foundation held a high school education. At the new school year wearing a fee of Rp 500.000, – to every new student. This school levy was not made known to them when going to register, so that upon receipt inevitably they have to pay. Besides, there is no official information or explanation about the use of the money to the parents.
Having urged by many parties, the new Foundation provides information that the money was used to purchase seragama teachers. In this case, the Foundation and the school can be considered to violate the principle of transparency
* Violation of business ethics to accountability
A private hospital through the Board announced to all employees who will enroll in otomotais PNS declared resigned. A as one of the employees in the private hospital that ignores the announcement from the board because he thought he was appointed by the Manager in this case the director, so that all rights and obligations associated with the manager he was not the Board. Party Manager itself does not provide official circulars about the policy.
Because of her attitude, A finally declared to resign. From this case the private hospital that can be said to violate the principle of accountability because there is no clear function, implementation and accountability between the Manager and Administrator Hospital
* Violation of the principle of accountability of business ethics
A company in Jogja recruitment recruitment agency to force a baby sitter. In the announcement and the agreement stated that the company promised to send potential migrants after 2 months of the training was promised to be sent to countries of destination. Even the company’s promise that all expenses incurred will be refunded if the applicant so they do not leave your home country. B terarik with the offer directly to register and pay as much as $ 7 million for administrative expenses and visa and passport. But after 2 months of training, B never depart, even up to one year there was no clarity. When confirmed, the company has always argued that the recruitment agency there is a delay, and so on. From these cases it can be concluded that the Company had violated the principle of recruitment agency accountability by ignoring the rights of B as a potential migrant workers who should diberangnka to the destination country for work.
* Violation of the principle of fairness of business ethics
A leading property company in Yogyakarta does not give a permit to build a house from the developer to two customers in the area of ​​residential lots owned by the company. The first consumer has fulfilled its obligations as agreed to pay the price of land and other administrative costs.
While consumers still have an obligation to pay the excess land, because every time you pay the developer has always refused on the grounds there is no permission from the central company (headquarters in Jakarta). The strange thing is in the area of ​​the lot was only two people who have not pocketed permit the construction of houses, while 30 other customers have been given permission and a home they’ve built all of them. The reason given by the company it is like to give lessons to the two customers was because the two men had provoked the other customers to the prosecution of housing construction permits soon. From this case the property company had violated the principle of fairness (fairness) because it does not fulfill the rights of stakeholders (consumers) with the reasons that make no sense.
* Violation of the principles of business ethics of honesty
A development company in Sleman make a deal with a company to build a housing contractor. In accordance with the agreement gives the developer the building specifications to the contractor. In practice, however, the company reduced the quality specifications of the contractor doing the building without the knowledge of corporate developers. After several months the condition of the building has suffered serious damage. In this case the contracting company can be said to have violated the principle of fairness because the building does not meet the specifications agreed with the developer
* Violation of the principles of business ethics empathy
A client, call it X, of the finance company late paying installments due date in accordance car because his son was seriously ill. X had informed the company about being late paying installments, but no response from the company. A few weeks after the due date the company went straight to the X to collect the installments and threatened to take the car it still paid in installments. The company collecting the disrespectful manner and conduct psychological pressure on customers. In this case we can mengakategorikan the company has violated the principle of empathy for the customer because the company can actually provide a warning to customers by way of a wise and proper.


Tinggalkan Balasan

Isikan data di bawah atau klik salah satu ikon untuk log in:


You are commenting using your account. Logout /  Ubah )

Foto Google+

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Logout /  Ubah )

Gambar Twitter

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Logout /  Ubah )

Foto Facebook

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Logout /  Ubah )

Connecting to %s

%d blogger menyukai ini: