70. The speaker asserts that in creating and marketing products, companies act % a" N, i( ?* B+ T
ethically merely by not violating any laws. Although the speaker's position is not 4 u+ J: p' Y2 v
wholly insupportable, far more compelling arguments can be made for holding 6 b' k$ w* T5 z/ x, _: @6 C; J1 h
businesses to higher ethical standards than those required by the letter of the law.
6 |% B) M* ~( V6 v, [ On the one hand, two colorable arguments can be made for holding business only
7 F7 \- ?9 a" t# Z: b- F6 Vto legal standards of conduct. First, imposing a higher ethical duty can actual harm
5 s( G5 F F0 J# m9 mconsumers in the long term. Compliance with high ethical standards can be costly for : U c( ?1 K2 e7 E: a
business, thereby lowering profits and, in turn, impeding a company's ability to create ( ~; h* U! n) E8 `
jobs (for consumers), keep prices low (for consumers), and so forth. Second, limited
, X2 Q v! J. K8 t' ^5 D- I+ Saccountability is consistent with the "buyer beware" principle that permeates our laws
0 \, G2 o4 e+ [of contracts and torts, as well as our notion in civil procedure that plaintiffs carry the
4 R2 l+ p' g; b* A6 C0 eburden or proving damage. In other words, the onus should be on consumers to protect
+ |. u8 h3 Y% K5 H5 K+ g% u3 ythemselves, not on companies to protect consumers.
1 r5 d7 L2 _9 W5 H' e; n On the other hand. several convincing arguments can be made for holding 2 _" V, V: {! ^! n% }, D
business to a higher ethical standard. First, in many cases government regulations that 7 s3 w6 e6 C! G4 R# a, A+ V/ y
protect consumers lag behind advances in technology. A new marketing technique made 3 ~5 E, `8 w7 u% Z, G/ s
possible by. internet technology may be unethical but nevertheless might not be 0 |) p t& j* ~1 `0 u& W
proscribed by the letter of the laws which predated the Internet. Second, enforceability
6 |! Z8 j; R7 K2 H/ e, [might not extend beyond geographic borders. Consider, for example, the case of
) d$ h2 v: G' x0 K. x& m$ C8 y) C"dumping." When products fail to comply with U.S. regulations, American companies * b. q4 L+ p# y# H9 K
frequently market—or "dump"—such products in third-world countries where
) t+ |8 h7 v& s. vconsumer-protection laws are virtually nonexistent. Third, moral principles form the : @1 G% c& Z1 Z# G2 [
basis of government regulation and are, therefore, more fundamental than the law.
+ ~6 }' H" F0 A k) ~% I In the final analysis, white overburdening businesses with obligations to $ [) u9 y8 Q) K) W) \
consumers may not be a good idea in the extreme, our regulatory system is not as
: {+ q/ O) U' l. f* I% g# K/ {5 Teffective as it should be. Therefore, businesses should adhere to a higher standard of
5 ~! o1 J& N& dethics in creating and marketing products than what is required by the letter of the law. |