family. Barbara showed a clear position by using the voice of justice. However I believe Wilson should have continued to receive an equal housing allowance like everyone else as long as he didn’t falsify his receipts and additionally he should be able to help out his family in any which way he wanted even if it doesn’t properly “project the company image.” In another case study called Parable of sadhu, a man was on an extremely difficult hike in Nepal with his friend Stephen and they also met up with other fellow hikers. During a day break one of the hikers found a pilgrim on the ice that had been suffering from hypothermia. Unfortunately, a couple other hikers wanted to get across the pass before the sun melted the snow and so they continued on without the sadhu. The main character turned around and met up with the other hikers and covered the sadhu in their extra layers. He was clothed and warm but still much too weak to walk. The main character decided to take off without the sadhu and left the sadhu with the other hikers and Stephen. Eventually Stephen had no other choice but to leave him with Japanese men who had given the sadhu food and drink but refused to carry him down
all the way. They do not know if the sadhu lived or died. The main question from this story was “Where is the limit of our responsibility in a situation like this?” This story is very complex in ways because it deals with individual vs group ethics. Should all the members in this story be held equally accountable because they were in a group setting with a plan or consensus? I believe so. Every person in the story had an opportunity to go the extra mile and help the sadhu get to safety but they chose a hiking experience over a man’s life. Even Stephen eventually gave up and left the Sadhu to fend for himself knowing he probably would not make it to safety. Stephen showed the most sympathy for the sadhu and did more to help and accommodate the man in need but eventually decided to leave. I do not believe Stephen truly cared about the well-being of this man because if he did he would be motivated to get the sadhu to safety. Stephen and the other hikers should have nursed the man back to health and waited to find a way to ensure the sadhu’s safety. The Nestle case study was about Nestle corporation advertising potentially harmful baby formula to third world countries. Boycotters believe that this baby formula has helped cause the death of millions of infants due to baby bottle disease. This is commonly caused by parents buying cheap baby formula and using the local, contaminated water. Babies are 25 times more likely to suffer from baby bottle disease in places that use unsafe drinking water. Nestle knew of these problems and continued to have extensive advertisement campaigns for the baby formula around the world. These actions are not illegal but they are seen as immoral and socially irresponsible. In 1981, the World Health Organization adopted the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes. This code made Nestle comply with certain standards that were set in the code, however it was reported that Nestle has violated these standards repeatedly.
The corporation’s profit-driven actions immensely lack the ethics of care. Nestle shows
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 11 pages?
- Spring '11
- Business , Ethics of Care Carol Gilligan