More Business Writing...

Do you think that business has an obligation to protect the environment beyond what the law requires? Be sure to explain the views of Bowie and Hoffman. With whom would Friedman side? Why?
First allow me to summarize the views of both men and answer the last question first. Then I will briefly delve into my opinion.

Bowie feels that business has two responsibilities when it comes to their environmental interaction: first, obey the law; second, do not interfere with the law-making process. In this way he feels the market and its stakeholders (including government) will determine what the appropriate level of involvement for the business is. He feels that the business will be prevented from improperly influencing the development of such legislation if they are not allowed to meddle in the process.

Hoffman, on the other hand, feels that business has an environmental responsibility that exceeds the limits of the law and should approach that responsibility from a naturalistic, biocentric perspective rather than from a humanistic homocentric one. In other words businesses should be proactively involved not just reactively involved, regardless of how it impacts its profits.

Bowie’s view would be the perspective most closely in alignment with Friedman’s theories. His response is true to the Friedman position of allowing the market to determine its own course and allow those with purchasing power to guide it.

Hoffman did not seem to think that equating environmental responsibility with a business’s self-interest was an adequate ethical foundation. I can see his point, but I tend to disagree a little bit. I agree with Hoffman on the basic idea that businesses should possibly have a responsibility above the law. However, I feel this is nearly always justified by a business’s own self-interest.

In the case he mentioned of the business-owner who bankrupted his business trying to achieve environmental responsibility, I feel there were several real errors in judgment. Thus, I do not feel that is the best case to represent a concept of social responsibility. As Hoffman indicated, it is one extreme. However, I do think responsible businesses must participate in a steady focused long-term campaign of environmental responsibility. They must do this to preserve their resources, their capital, the good will of their stakeholders, and steady long-term profits. Additionally, this concept is not untrue to shareholders because a responsible posture reduces the probability for lawsuits, clean-up costs, and health care coverage costs due to hazards resulting from unsafe and irresponsible behavior.

Hoffman did not seem to have much confidence in the long-term planning abilities of corporations (which I admit has been justified by corporate behavior in the last fifteen years). However, this is not a good excuse to not teach a long-term paradigm shift to corporations beginning with the lowest echelon of management. As has been repeatedly discussed and demonstrated, American culture and business – from the ground up – needs to retrain itself on impulse control, long-term planning, community cognizance, and quality management. This will facilitate the environmental responsibility desired by Hoffman.

At a more fundamental level, this discussion needs to consider the effects of world-view on how an individual approaches this debate. In a nutshell, the evolutionary bias of belief in the survival of the fittest lends itself to irresponsible behavior justified as we elbow and stomp our way over species and environments more fragile than ourselves. Juxtaposed to that idea, the Christian worldview provides a framework for the sacredness of all life, the value of the environment as a magnificent and precious creation, and the command for responsible stewardship of all resources. I understand this is a complex and far-reaching discussion that cannot be adequately treated here, but it is a foundational element of the discussion and should not be forgotten.

Overall this is a complex issue and I don’t think any one approach is sufficient. I think the marketplace is the ideal place for these changes to be made, supplemented by proactive businesses, and guided by active government regulation. Additionally, based on my belief in the Christian worldview, I would have to agree that business sometimes may have a responsibility above the law. However, this responsibility extends to all of us as individuals as well. Businesses are not to pursue this responsibility alone. All of us have the responsibility to do our part even above and beyond the law if necessary.

Nature Vs. Nurture?

This is from a discussion I posted to about the nature vs. nurture debate in one of my college classes. It is original for whatever it's worth.

With a quick scan of some of the available material on the subject, it appears that currently the nature vs. nurture is moving away from its traditional roots a little bit. While nurture traditionally was understood to be the home and family in which one was raised (or lack thereof) now it is becoming more common to understand the nurture side of things as being the totality of environment in which one is brought up. The nature of course refers to one's own innate qualities or inner self.

As to which one is responsible for human behavior and proclivities, I tend to walk somewhere in the middle. I also ascribe to the Biblical perspective which I will briefly delineate.

I believe that the rapid rate of discoveries in the field of genetics holds great promise for unlocking many of the biological "players" in our bodies that predispose us to certain strengths or weaknesses. However, given the nature of human beings, some squander great opportunity and others overcome great adversity to triumph. This demonstrates that it is not entirely genetic nor is it entirely a choice. It is most often a combination of the two.

The Biblical perspective is that mankind was created in the image of God with great perfection and nobility. It describes a process by which that perfection was marred and mankind became morally and biologically imperfect from its original design.

This to me illustrates why some people without faith can accomplish great acts of goodness and nobility and conversely why some people of faith can wreak great havoc and corruption. The reason is simply that all men hold vestiges of their originally intrinsic goodness as well as an intrinsic marred morality. This makes makes all men subject to the greatest of liberties: to choose their own pathway to the left or right...toward right or wrong...toward life or death in the great and small. This Biblical perspective I believe to be a remarkably accurate portrayal of the state of man. It is clear and direct and pulls no punches. It paints a picture of humanity as we are.

Therefore when it comes to the nature vs. nurture debate, I believe we are genetically wired toward good and bad, strength and weakness: biologically and morally. However, what is done with that package is also heavily influenced by the environment in which it is placed. I would have to posit that I believe in nature and nurture.