Paksa Punya NPWP, Tarif Fiskal Bakal Tiga Kali Lipat

Selasa, 2 Desember 2008

JAKARTA, SELASA - Tarif fiskal untuk masyarakat yang bepergian ke luar negeri akan naik berlipat mulai awal 2009. Tarif baru akan menjadi tiga kali lipat atau naik sebesar 200 persen dari tarif saat ini.

Kalau tahun ini Anda rnelancong ke luar negeri dengan menggunakan pesawat udara hanya merogoh dompet untuk fiskal sebesar Rp 1 juta, maka tahun depan nanti tarif fiskalnya menjadi Rp 3 juta per orang. Untuk perjalanan ke luar negeri lewat laut tarifnya akan meroket dari Rp 500.000 menjadi Rp 1,5 juta per orang. Demikian juga dengan perjalanan via darat tarif tahun depan bakal melompat menjadi Rp 600.000 per orang.

Direktorat Jenderal Pajak memang belum memutuskan tarif itu secara resmi. "Saat ini besaran tarif itu masih digodok," kata seorang pejabat di Direktorat Jenderal Pajak, Senin (1/12). Tarif resmi itu nantinya akan tertera dalam beleid Peraturan Pemerintah (PP) tentang Tarif Fiskal Luar Negeri. Ditjen Pajak dan Departemen Hukum dan HAM saat ini masih membahas rancangan PP tersebut.

Direktur Harmonisasi Peraturan Perundang-undangan Departemen Hukum dan HAM Wicipto Setiadi mengakui adanya pembahasan rancangan PP tarif fiskal itu. Namun Wicipto enggan menjelaskan soal besarnya tarif fiskal. "Pembahasannya belum selesai," elak Wicipto.

Direktur Jenderal Pajak Darmin Nasution juga tidak memberi jawaban atas konfirmasi KONTAN. Darmin hanya menyatakan, "Sebaiknya, semua wajib pajak yang ingin keluar negeri untuk membuat Nomor Pokok Wajib Pajak (NPWP)," kata Darmin, diplomatis.

Memang, orang yang sudah mengantongi kartu NPWP tak perlu risau dengan tarif ini fiskal sebesar itu memang hanya untuk mereka yang behmm memiliki NPWP namun suka bepergian atau berbisnis ke luar negeri. Ditjen Pajak menetapkan batas akhir pengurusan NPWP pada 31 Desember 2008 ini.

Namun orang yang baru memegang NPWP pada tanggal 31 Desember 2008 akan tetap terkena tarif fiskal baru bila bepergian pada Januari 2009. Maklum, gratis fiskal itu berlaku bila jarak antara pembuatan NPWP dengan keberarfgkatan ke luar negeri minimal satu bulan.

Kenaikan tarif yang besar itu adalah cara Ditjen Pajak untuk mendongkrak penerimaan pajak tahun depan nanti. Maklum target pajak 2009 nanti membengkak menjadi Rp 697 triliun dari target tahun ini yang cuma sebesar Rp 580,2 tribun.

Selain itu, kenaikan tarif ini juga untuk memanfaatkan sisa waktu penerapan fiskal yang akan berakhir pada 31 Desember 2010. Sebab mulai awal 2011 nanti, pungutan fiskal ke luar negeri sudah bebas tanpa syarat bagi semua masyarakat. Ketentuan itu adalah amanah pasal 25 ayat 8a Undang-Undang Nomor 36 Tahun 2008 tentang Pajak Penghasilan (PPh).

Anggota Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat (DPR) sepertinya tidak berkeberatan dengan kenaikan tarif fiskal sebesar 200% itu. "Kami bahkan mengusulkan kalau perlu tarifnya Rp 5 juta," kata Anggota DPR dari fraksi Golkar Melchias M. Mekeng.

Namun Ketua Harian Yayasan Lembaga Konsumen Indonesia (YLKI) Husna Zahir berpendapat, untuk menaikkan tarif fiskal perjalanan ke luar negeri, pemerintah sebaiknya menyerap dulu aspirasi masyarakat. "Pungutan itu untuk apa? Sudah tidak ada lagi negara yang memungut biaya fiskal untuk bepergian ke luar negeri," kata Husna.

Blog Ethics

Banda Aceh, Nov 29,2008
Kompas, November 23, 2008

Blog is one of telecommunication tools in illusion world that is well-known in this country. In the beginning, Blog is a daily writing that is posted to a site in internet where can be accessed by all of the people. Blog already known in 1998, but in Indonesia, the people who need Blog arise in 2004 and induce fast in 2007. We can know and see all of information in blog. Blog is not restricted by time and place. We can inform all of information in blog and every people can read it. But this freedom is usually used in wrong way by the blog writer, like inform to others about lie information. It is not ethic, because it can give bad effect to the people who read that information. So, to avoid this happened, society must select the information which they must read.

There are some criteria about the lie information. This information usually inform the dangerous information without the clearly reasons and ask the reader to inform that information to others. This lie information is may be occurred because there is no people who inform that information to the law officer. The writer thinks that is the responsibility of the reader to select the right information. So, the reader may not believe 100% to the information. It is the usual habit that the information in blog is unedited.

In fact, blog is like in the real world. There is ethic there. But the bloggers do not think about that because if there are restricts in blog, so there is no freedom there, it is an unpleasant thing. So, again and again, it will be the responsibility of reader to choose which the right information is that they can read. In the other side, there is a probability of information cheating from blog. Because information in blog can be read by all of people, so people may be cheat information from blog. There are some cases about this, like there is a book that its content is come from information in one blog. It can be a loss by the blog writer, because it does not follow ethic, copyright of writer has been infringed.

But, blog does not always give a bad effect. There are some advantages from blog. Blogger usually make a group to inform their experiences each others. They do not only talk each other, they also do some actions to other people, like held a conference, help poor people, and collect books to children. The books are gotten from other people who read the announcement in blog. So, the blog is also give benefits to society.

Business System Government, Markets, and International Trade

Banda Aceh, November 29, 2008
Taken by, Manuel G. Velasques

An economic system is the system a society uses to provide the goods and services it needs to survive and flourish. This system must accomplish two basic economic tasks. To accomplish these two tasks, economic systems rely on three kinds of social devices:

FREE MARKET AND RIGHTS: JOHN LOCKE

John Lock (1632-1704), is generally credited with developing the idea that human beings have a “natural right” to liberty and a “natural right” to private property. Locke argued that if there were no governments, human beings would find themselves in a state of nature. In this state of nature, each individual would be the political equal of all others and would be perfectly free of any constraints other than the law of nature.

Criticisms of the Locke an defense of free markets have focused on four of its major weaknesses:

(a) The assumption that individuals have the “natural rights” Locke claimed they have,

(b) The conflict between these negative rights and positive rights,

(c) The conflict between these Locke an rights and the principles of justice, and

(d) The individualistic assumptions Locke makes and their conflict with the demands of caring.

FREE MARKETS AND UTILITY: ADAM SMITH

Adam Smith (1723-1790), the “father of modern economics”, is the originator of this utilitarian argument for the free market. According to Smith, when private individuals are left free to seek their own interests in free markets, they will inevitably be led to further the public welfare by an invisible hand.

The “invisible hand” is market competition. In a competitive market, a multiplicity of such private businesses must all compete with each other for the same buyers. The competition produced by a multiplicity of self-interested private sellers serves to lower prices, conserve resources, and make producers respond to consumer desires.

Criticisms of Adam Smith:

1. In monopolized industries, it is no longer true that prices necessarily move to their lowest levels. The monopoly power of the industrial giants enables them to keep prices at artificially high levels and production at artificially low levels.

2. Smith failed to take into account the external effects that business activities often have on their surrounding environment, and assumed that the firm is a self-contained agent whose activities affect only itself and its buyers.

3. Smith’s analysis wrongly assumes that every human being is motivated only by a “natural” and self-interested desire for profit.

THE KEYNESIAN CRITICISM

John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946) argued that the total demand for goods and services is the sum of the demand of three sectors of the economy: households, businesses, and government.

Government, according to Keynes, can influence the propensity to save, which lowers aggregate demand and creates unemployment. Government can directly affect the amount of money households have available to them by raising or lowering taxes. Then, government spending can close any gap between aggregate demand and aggregate supply by taking up the slack in demand from households and business (and, incidentally, creating inflation).

THE UTILITY OF SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST: SOCIAL DARWINISM

Charles Darwin (1809-1882), who argued that the various species of living things were evolving as the result of the action of an environment that favored the survival of something while destroying others: “this preservation of favorable individual differences and variations, and the destruction of those which are injurious, called it natural selection or the survival of the fittest.

FREE TRADE AND UTILITY: DAVID RICARDO
David Ricardo (1772-1823), is usually credited with showing that even if one country has an absolute advantage at producing everything, it is still better for it to specialize and trade.

CRITICISM OF RICARDO
First, Ricardo assumes that the resources used to produce goods do not move from one country to another.
Second, Ricardo assumes that each country ‘s production costs are constant and do not decline as countries expand their production or as they acquire new technology.
Thirdly, Ricardo assumes that workers can easily and causelessly move from one industry to another. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Ricardo ignores international rule setters.

MARX AND JUSTICE: CRITICIZING MARKETS AND FREE TRADE

Karl Marx (1818-1883) said that capitalist systems offer only two sources of income: sale of one’s own labor and ownership of the means of production. Because workers can not produce anything without access to the means of production, they are forced to sale their labor to the owner in return for a wage. The owner, however, does not pay workers the full value of their labor, only what they need to subsist. Capitalism promotes injustice and undermines communal relationship.

According to Marx, every society can be analyzed in terms of its two main components: its economic substructure and its social superstructure. The economic substructure of a society consists of the materials and social control that society uses to produce its economic goods. A society’s superstructure consists of its government and its popular ideologies. The members of the ruling class will control the government and use it to protect their position and property, and they will popularize ideologies that justify their position of privilege.

Marx also claims that so long as production in modern economies is not planned but is left to depend on private ownership and unrestrained free markets, the result could only be a series of related disaster that would harm the working class.

PROPERTY SYSTEM AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES

On one side are those who take either the Locke or the utilitarian view that intellectual property should be treated like private property. Utilitarian argue that private ownership of intellectual property provides a necessary incentive for people to work hard at generating new intellectual creations. On the other side, Marxist and socialist support the collective or common ownership of intellectual property. They claim that intellectual creativity does not require the financial incentives of a private property system.

Love and Willing

from Me, to to You... ^_^

Cinta dan rasa ingin memiliki terkadang sering menjerumuskan orang dalam menentukan pilihannya. ni aku punya tips untuk kamu bisa ngebedain antara cinta dan rasa ingin memiliki:
Cinta : Ketika kamu hilang gairah romantika tapi kamu masih sayang dengannya.

Rasa ingin memiliki : ketika gairah romantikamu hilang maka rasa sayang juga akan hilang.

Cinta : mampu menunggu sampai kau benar2 yakin.

Rasa ingin memiliki :tak sabar ingin mendekatinya, meski kau belum yakin dengan itu.


nah sekarang kamu bisa ngerasain. kalu kamu suka denganseseorang tanyakan lagi apakah itu CINTA atau Hanya RASA INGIN MEMILIKI......?

Business and the Environment theory

6 11 2008

Banda Aceh, October 6, 2008

BUSINESS ETHICS

James Fieser

BUSINESS AND THE ENVIRONMENT

The greatest damage done to the environment is inflicted by business and industry, and not from domestic activities. Businesses extract the greatest tolls in terms of energy consumption, toxic waste, air and water pollution, and deforestation. Increasing amounts of industrial toxic waste contaminates ground water, which in turn becomes harmful for human consumption. Oil spills from petroleum industries destroy shorelines and kill millions of sea animals. The burning of fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal produces excess carbon dioxide, which adds to global warming through a greenhouse effect. Fluorocarbon gasses used in making domestic products such as refrigerators and styrofoam depletes the earth’s ozone layer, which shields the earth from the sun’s life-destroying ultraviolet rays. Some of these problems are expensive nuisances, such as oil spills and toxic waste. Others, though, threaten the survival of life on our planet, such as carbon dioxide production and the release of fluorocarbon gasses. In this chapter we will look at some of the causes of environmental irresponsibility in businesses, and some theories about why businesses should be more responsible.

Businesses’ Resistance to Environmental Responsibility. Although businesses don’t consciously set out to harm the environment, several factors create an unfortunate situation, which in many cases is worse than it needs to be. First, large businesses and industries are inherently imposing on nature. They take pieces of nature and reshape them into things that didn’t exist before, such as automobiles, skyscrapers, television sets and shopping malls. Not only are the end products artificial, and in that sense unnatural, but the means of producing these things are taxing on natural resources. Second, it is easy to disregard natural resources that are held in common and seem abundant, such as air and water. It doesn’t seem wrong to pollute the air if, technically, no one owns the air and the particular damage that I do isn’t too noticeable. Environmentalists sometimes refer to this phenomenon as a tragedy of the commons, that is, a disaster that happens to things that are held in common. Given the size and complexity of businesses in industrial countries, such as the US, it is not surprising that they contribute heavily to this tragedy.

Third, businesses are driven by the motive to make a profit. Stockholders demand a return on their investment, and this mandate transfers down through the management hierarchy. Part of making a profit is to reduce costs, and environmental responsibility is highly costly, with few immediate financial rewards. Finally, government environmental watchdog agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, are limited in what they can do in imposing restrictions on businesses. To protect their financial interests, businesses lobby for support at all levels of government, and agencies such as the EPA must be politically compromising. Agencies such as the EPA say that they know that they do their jobs correctly when everyone is angry with them. That is, businesses feel that the EPA restricts them too much, and environmental advocates such as the Sierra Club will feel that the EPA does too little to protect the environment.

On a global level, many of the environmental offenders are businesses in third world countries. Underdeveloped countries are trying to catch up to the economic level of industrialized countries, and certainly have a right to do so. However, they cannot play catch up in a way that is both economically feasible and environmentally responsible. Maintaining a balance between economic development and energy conservation is far more difficult for poorer countries than it is for wealthier ones. For example, developed countries can shift to energy sources that give off less pollution, but developing countries cannot do so easily. Environmental problems are intensified in third world countries because of growth in population, which doubles about every 70 years. Increased population places increased demand on the utilization of land, which, in turn, leads to deforestation. It is not effective to simply encourage developing countries to do better. Recommendations from world organizations, such as the United Nations, have only limited leverage. Sometimes developed countries, such as the United States, try to assist developing countries by offering them free technology. But this is only partially effective.

Since the 1960’s, our society has become increasingly more environmentally conscious, and now we simply take it for granted that we all are responsible for maintaining the integrity of the environment. However, conservative businesses people commonly feel that their responsibility to the environment is limited. Typically, they give two distinct arguments for their views. First, they argue that businesses do not have an obligation to protect the environment above what the law requires. Although laws are strict concerning environmental regulation, they are not perfect and they allow for many kinds of environment judgement calls. If businesses showed special concern for the environment beyond what the law requires, then this would interfere with their ability to compete. Ultimately, they argue, environmental responsibility rests with consumers. If consumers are not interested in favoring businesses that have environmentally friendly policies, then it is not up to businesses to champion environmental policies on their own. The problem with this view is that environmental responsibility cannot be left to what consumers are willing to tolerate. Most consumers will be attracted to the least expensive consumer products, irrespective of moral considerations surrounding the manufacturing of those products. Even if I knew that a pair of tennis shoes was manufactured in a third world sweatshop, my purchase decision might still be motivated only by the price tag. This is so too with my motivation to purchase products that are manufactured by environmentally unfriendly companies. In a sense, businesses need to save consumers from succumbing to their most thrifty inclinations.

Second, if businesses agree that they have an environmental responsibility beyond what the law requires, they often take a “good ethics is good business” approach and emphasize areas of environmental responsibility that will generate a profit. For example, they might push recycling, which they can indicate on their packaging and thereby attract environmentally conscious consumers. They might also update older energy-hungry heating or production units if the investment has the right payoff. However, as noted above, what is best for the environment is not always financially best for business. When cases of conflict arise between the environment and profit motive, the “good ethics is good business” approach quickly appears deceptive and shallow.

Examples of Environmentally unsound Business Practices. Although most companies are guilty of varying degrees of environmental irresponsibility, some extreme cases vividly illustrate irresponsibility at its worst. A first case involves resistance to air pollution control measures. In the early 1950s, Union Carbide built a series of metal and chemical plants in the Ohio valley, between Ohio and West Virginia. Mountains on both sides of the valley trap in soot, ash, and other air pollutants, which resulted in increased incidents of respiratory disease among local residents. During the 1960s, Union Carbide refuse to participate public discussions about the problem and ignored a governmental request for an on site inspection. The company soon became a symbol of corporate resistance to pollution control. Part of their resistance owes to the fact that the environment was not an issue in the 1950s and new pollution control measures were both expensive and untested. Also, Union Carbide was less susceptible to consumer boycotts since only 20% of its products were direct consumer goods that we might purchase in a department store, such as antifreeze. In 1970s they became the target of the investigation by the newly formed Environmental Protection Agency, which instructed Union Carbide on several pollution control measures. Union Carbide responded by shutting down a boiler plant and laying off workers, claiming that was the only way they could comply with the required pollution reduction. Critics charged that Union Carbide’s tactics amounted to environmental blackmail, threatening to cut jobs if they had to be environmentally responsible. Ultimately, Union Carbide restructured their company and adhered to pollution control standards.

A second case of environmental irresponsibility involves nuclear power accidents. There are currently around 400 nuclear power plants world wide, providing about 15% of the world’s electricity. For the past few decades, the nuclear power industry has been under attack by environmentalists and few new plants have been started. Ironically, the original intent of nuclear power was to provide a safe, clean, and cheap alternative to coal and oil, which are notoriously damaging to the environment. Nuclear power produces no smoke or carbon dioxide, and only harmless steam. It also doesn’t require environmentally intrusive mining or drilling efforts. Two major disasters contributed to the now tarnished image of the nuclear power industry, both the result of safety violations and human error. First occurred at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. In 1979, a series of mechanical and human failures contributed to a partial core meltdown to one of its reactors. Radiation was released into the local community, and, although connections with health problems were difficult to prove, a family of a Down’s Syndrome child received 1 million dollars in compensation. A much more serious nuclear power disaster occurred in 1986 in the Ukrainian city of Chernobyl, then part of the Soviet Union. Partly from negligence and partly from design problems, a steam explosion and fires threw tons of radioactive material into the environment. 31 people were killed and 1,000 injured from direct exposure to radioactive material by means of inhaling radioactive gasses and dust, and ingesting contaminated food or water. 135,000 people were evacuated from the surrounding area, hundreds of square miles of land was contaminated, and the long term health effects of the accident are still being assessed. Financial losses reached $3 billion, and countries throughout Europe claimed losses into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Although the Soviet government owned the Chernobyl plant — and not private industry — the disaster had a decisive impact on the entire nuclear power industry. In addition to the risks of catastrophic disasters such as Chernobyl, nuclear power plants create other environmental problems that involve nuclear waste disposal. Nuclear waste is deadly to animal life, and remains toxic for a very long time. After Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, critics called for a moratorium on the construction all future nuclear power plants, and a systematic closing of the ones currently in use. Defenders, though, argue that nuclear energy is necessary in view of the limitations of alternative energy sources, such as coal, oil, and solar technology. They also argue that nuclear waste sites need to confine wastes for only a few thousand years since after 1,000 years the ingestion toxicity is comparable to that of the original uranium from which the wastes were derived. Finally, defenders say that we can reasonably expect a decrease in nuclear accidents even if we increase nuclear power use, similar to how airline travel has increased while their accident rate has decreased. Defenders recommend that clustered reactors provide better operational support, security, and handling of wastes.

A third and final case of environmental disaster involves large-scale oil spills. In 1989, an Exxon oil tanker called the Valdez struck a reef in Alaska’s Prince William Sound and created the largest crude oil spill in US waters. The captain of the ship, 42 year old Joseph Hazelwood, was with Exxon for 20 years. He had a reputation as a drinker, which some departments at Exxon knew about, and at the time of the disaster his blood alcohol level was .06. The tanker trip was part of a routine convoy from Alaska to Long Beach California that was successfully made by other tankers over 8,000 times. Hazelwood assigned the piloting of the vessel to a less experienced officer and then retired to his quarters. Icebergs were in the path of the ship, which an ineffective radar system failed to detect earlier. The ship was so large that it took a full minute to respond to steering changes. Attempting to navigate around an iceberg, the piloting officer miscalculated and ran the ship into a reef. Oil poured from the ship and, when the weather changed, it sloshed onto the beaches for hundreds of miles. Initially viewing it as only a public relations problem, Exxon was slow to respond with cleanup efforts, which made the situation worse. The spill had a terrible impact on plant and animal life in the area, which the news media vividly captured in pictures and on television. The cleanup was also expensive; the average cost of rehabilitating a seal was $80,000. Hazelwood was ultimately fired for not being on the bridge at the time of the disaster and was convicted of negligent discharge of oil, with a punishment of 1000 hours of community service in the cleanup. Exxon paid in excess of 2 billion dollars in the cleanup efforts and, just as significantly, suffered an almost irreplaceable loss of reputation because of the disaster. 40,000 Exxon credit card holders destroyed their cards.

Three Philosophical Theories of Environmental Responsibility. As noted earlier, some businesses argue that their environmental responsibility is confined to what the law requires and what will yield a profit. However, ethicists typically argue that businesses need to look beyond profit motive and legal regulations to find more persuasive reasons for environmental responsibility. We will consider three of these theories, each of which yields substantially different conclusions about the environmental responsibility of businesses.

The first of these theories is anthropocentric, or human centered. Environmental anthropocentrism is the view that all environmental responsibility is derived from human interests alone. The assumption here is that only human beings are morally significant persons and have a direct moral standing. Since the environment is crucial to human well-being and human survival, then we have an indirect duty towards the environment, that is, a duty that is derived from human interests. This involves the duty to assure that the earth remains environmentally hospitable for supporting human life, and that its beauty and resources are preserved so human life on earth continues to be pleasant. Some have argued that our indirect environmental duties derive both from the immediate benefit which living people receive from the environment, and the benefit that future generations of people will receive. But, critics have maintained that since future generations of people do not yet exist, then, strictly speaking, they cannot have rights any more than a dead person can have rights. Nevertheless, both parties to this dispute acknowledge that environmental concern derives solely from human interests.

A second general approach to environmental responsibility is to base it on the moral consideration that we owe to animals, a position that we will call the animal rights view. On this view, higher animals qualify as morally significant creatures, such as dogs, cats, cows, horses, pigs, dolphins, and chimpanzees. Animal right as advocate Peter Singer goes a step further and argues that even lower animals, such as chickens, deserve equal moral consideration insofar as they are capable of experiencing physical pleasure and pain, just as humans are. For Singer, the mistreatment of animals is analogous to racism and slavery since it gives unequal treatment to beings with equal interests. Singer describes this inequity toward animals as speciesism. Our responsibility toward the environment, then, hinges on the environmental interests of animals, either higher or lower, as well as the environmental interests of humans. Thus, environmental responsibility derives from the interest of all morally significant persons, which includes both humans and at least some animals.

The third theory is that of egocentrism, which is that we have direct responsibilities to environmental collections, such as animal species and rain forests, just as we have direct responsibilities to humans. Even if there is no direct human consequence of destroying environmental collections, we still have a moral responsibility to those collections anyway. Egocentrisms use various terms to express this direct responsibility to the environment. They suggest that the environment has direct rights, that it qualifies for moral personhood, which it is deserving of a direct duty, and that it has inherent worth. Common to all of these claims, though, is the position that the environment by itself is on a moral par with humans. Aldo Leopold first articulated egocentrism in his highly influential essay “The Land Ethic” (1949). Leopold explains that morality evolved over the millennia. The earliest notions of morality regulated conduct between individuals, as reflected in the Ten Commandments. Later notions regulated conduct between an individual and society, as reflected in the Golden Rule. Leopold argues that we are on the brink of a new advance in morality that regulates conduct between humans and the environment. He calls this final phase the land ethic. For all three of these phases in the evolution of ethics, the main premise of morality is that the individual is a member of a community of interdependent parts. For Leopold, “The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land.” This involves a radical shift in how humans perceive themselves in relation to the environment. Originally we saw ourselves as conquerors of the land. Now we need to see ourselves as members of a community that also includes the land.

Implications for Businesses. Each of the above theories has different implications on business’s responsibility to the environment. From the anthropocentric perspective, businesses have an obligation not to damage the environment in ways that negatively impact on human life. From the animal rights perspective, businesses have an obligation to avoid harming animals either directly or indirectly. They need to avoid harming animals directly, such as they might do through animal testing, or inhumane food production techniques. They need to avoid harming animals indirectly, such as they might do by destroying animal environments. For example, we should not control pests through poisoning, since this causes animals to suffer; instead we should prefer a sterility chemical. This is especially pertinent given that the environment is the immediate habitat of animals, and damage to the environment harms animals more than it harms humans. Finally, from the ecocentrist perspective, businesses have a direct obligation to protect the environment since it is wrong to harm members of the moral community, and the environment is a member of the moral community.

In many cases the anthropocentric, animal rights, and exocentric interests overlap. For example, toxic waste, air and water pollution, excess carbon dioxide, and release of fluorocarbons equally affect humans, animals, and environmental collections. In many cases, though, the interests of the three do not overlap. For example, sometimes when businesses are found legally responsible for polluting a stream, several corrective options may be open to them. First, they may restore the stream, which costs a lot of money, or they may pay off a community in compensation for living with the polluted stream, which might cost them less money. Although the anthropocentrism will be satisfied with paying off the community, this would not touch the concerns of the animal rights and exocentric. To use another example, suppose that a business considered building a factory on a site that, if constructed, would destroy a breeding ground for birds. Typically, from the anthropocentrism position, the business would only need to take into account the recreational value that the bird breeding ground would have to human bird watchers. For the animal rights advocate and egocentric, though, this reasoning ignores the needs of animals and the integrity of the ecosystem itself.

In view of these various theories of environmental obligation, what should businesses do? First, businesses will automatically be bound by the environmental regulations that are required by law. Although this covers much ground, it doesn’t cover everything. Second, businesses should at least be sensitive to environmental concerns from both the anthropocentric and animal rights perspectives. Animal rights and environmental lobby groups today are becoming increasingly more influential, and, as a matter of good public relations and even survival, companies need to take this into account. Many environmental problems lend themselves to graphic portrayal by the media — such as sea animals covered in oil — which intensifies negative public opinion towards a company. If companies don’t respond properly, they appear arrogant and uncaring, which greatly harms their reputation.

what is ethics

October 15, 2008

In this situation the business environment was change dramatically, its because of the technology development. the business violation is can happen everywhere, even though in business environment. in many case the business company still doing the morality in violation. this violation is not only damage another company but can damage the society and the country. for example; the corruption and don the incorrect way to competitive with other company.

the business ethic is very close with the morality. If we are talking about ethic is should be about moral, because the moral is can show through the behavior of business man. and moral also should follow the rules of religion. The moral moral and business is should come together to determine the satisfaction of customer and other company. The moral came from the people that have more knowledge about the religion and culture.

the conclusion is the moral is very important is the business environment. If the business man want to change some regulation they should think first “is is this the decision can impact to me”? If yes is it the impact positive or negative. If the impact is negative they should thik more about the regulation.

Ethics and Business is pa lemo

Review of Chapter I

Ethics and Business

Ethics is the thing that we feel right and wrong. According to the dictionary, the term ethics has a variety of different meanings. One of the meanings given to it is: “the principles conduct governing an individual or a group.”

Morality is the standards that an individual or a group has about what is right and wrong, or good and evil. Moral standard include the norms we have about the kinds of actions we believe are morally right and wrong as well as the values we place on the kinds of objects we believe to be morally good and morally bad. Ethics is the discipline that examines one’s moral standards or the moral standards of the society.

Business ethic is a specialized study of moral right and wrong that concentrate on moral standards as they apply to business institutions, organizations, and behavior. In the organizations, the ethics must be applied, because is the important way to keep their employee as a human that must be responsible on that.

Technology and Business Ethics

Technology consists of all those methods, processes, and tools that human invent to manipulate their environment. New technologies developed in the closing decades of the 20th century and the opening years of the 21st century are again transforming society and business and creating the potential for new ethical problems.

These technologies spurred a number of changes, such as increasingly rapid globalization and the decreasing importance of distance; the rise of new ways to communicate and transfer any kind of media; instanteously from one place to another; the acceleration of change as product life’s cycles get shorter gang revolutionary new products are invented and marketed ever more quickly; and the ability to create new life forms and new mechanism whose benefits and risks are unpredictable.

Moral Development and Moral Reasoning

Moral Development we sometimes assume that a person’s values are formed during childhood and do not change after that. As children, we are simply told what is right and what is wrong. And we obey so as to avoid punishment: The child’s adherence to moral standards is essentially based on a self-absorbed avoidance of pain.

Moral Reasoning is the reasoning process by which human behaviors, institutions, or policies are judge to be in accordance with or in violation of moral standards. This things also include: (1) an understanding of what reasonable moral standards require, prohibit, value, or condemn; and (2) evidence or information that shows that a particular person, policy, institution or behavior has the kinds of features that the moral standards require, prohibit, value, or condemn.