Corporate social responsibility is a widely spoken business topic. This topic is at once interesting, because it raises an exciting debate both on the philosophical-theoretical level and on a practical level. Among other things questioned and debated about whether the company really has moral and social responsibility? If so, what is the scope of responsibility? Is it a matter of involvement in social activities that are useful to the public in relation to corporate social responsibility? How can the company's responsibilities be operated in a company?
In discussing the principles of professional ethics and the principles of business ethics, we have alluded to responsibility as one of the most important ethical principles. The polemic question that must be answered in the first place is the condition for moral responsibility. What are the relevant conditions that allow us to demand that someone be responsible for his actions.
There are at least three important conditions for moral responsibility. First, responsibility assumes that an action is done consciously and knowingly. Responsibility can only be demanded from someone he acts consciously and knows about his actions and the consequences of his actions. If a person does not know about the good and the bad morally, he by itself can not have moral responsibility for his actions. Secondly, responsibility also presumes the freedom of the first place. That is, responsibility may only be relevant and demanded of a person for doing it freely. This is the weight of the person performing the action not in a forced or forced state. He himself freely and voluntarily took the action. So, if someone is forced or forced to take an action, morally he can not be held responsible for that action. Thirdly, responsibility also requires that the person performing a particular course of action is willing to do so. He himself willing and willing to do that action.
Based on the above three conditions, it can be concluded that only the intelligent and free-willed person can be responsible for his actions, and is therefore relevant to insist on moral responsibility from him. Even more precisely, only those who have been able to use their common sense and have free will for their actions in their control can be morally responsible for their actions.
The Company is a legal entity. That is, companies are formed under certain laws and endorsed by certain laws or legal rules. That means the company is a human form, whose existence is bound by legitimate rules of law. De George specifically distinguishes two kinds of views about the company status. First, to see the company as fully legal creation, and therefore there is only law. According to this view, the enterprise is created by the State and can not exist without the State.
Second, the view that does not focus on the legal status of the company but on the company as a free and productive business. According to this view, a company is formed by a person or group of persons to perform certain activities in a certain way freely in the interest of the person or persons.
Because in the second view, the company is not a state or society, the company sets itself the goal and operates in such a way as to achieve the interests of its founders.
In discussing the principles of professional ethics and the principles of business ethics, we have alluded to responsibility as one of the most important ethical principles. The polemic question that must be answered in the first place is the condition for moral responsibility. What are the relevant conditions that allow us to demand that someone be responsible for his actions.
There are at least three important conditions for moral responsibility. First, responsibility assumes that an action is done consciously and knowingly. Responsibility can only be demanded from someone he acts consciously and knows about his actions and the consequences of his actions. If a person does not know about the good and the bad morally, he by itself can not have moral responsibility for his actions. Secondly, responsibility also presumes the freedom of the first place. That is, responsibility may only be relevant and demanded of a person for doing it freely. This is the weight of the person performing the action not in a forced or forced state. He himself freely and voluntarily took the action. So, if someone is forced or forced to take an action, morally he can not be held responsible for that action. Thirdly, responsibility also requires that the person performing a particular course of action is willing to do so. He himself willing and willing to do that action.
Based on the above three conditions, it can be concluded that only the intelligent and free-willed person can be responsible for his actions, and is therefore relevant to insist on moral responsibility from him. Even more precisely, only those who have been able to use their common sense and have free will for their actions in their control can be morally responsible for their actions.
The Company is a legal entity. That is, companies are formed under certain laws and endorsed by certain laws or legal rules. That means the company is a human form, whose existence is bound by legitimate rules of law. De George specifically distinguishes two kinds of views about the company status. First, to see the company as fully legal creation, and therefore there is only law. According to this view, the enterprise is created by the State and can not exist without the State.
Second, the view that does not focus on the legal status of the company but on the company as a free and productive business. According to this view, a company is formed by a person or group of persons to perform certain activities in a certain way freely in the interest of the person or persons.
Because in the second view, the company is not a state or society, the company sets itself the goal and operates in such a way as to achieve the interests of its founders.
Advertisement
No comments