Mr Friedman Essay

I agree with you discussion on Mr. Friedman. Mr. Friedman position is problematic because it argues that a corporation, unlike a person, cannot have responsibility. No one would engage in a business contract with a corporation if they thought for one minute that a corporation was not responsible to pay its bills, for example. So clearly, a corporation can have legal, but also moral responsibilities. He uses a key phrase: ‘as long as it stays within the rules of the game’ while narrowly defining that in legal terms. There are other rules that businesses must adhere to if they wish to be successful; such as the obvious rules of the marketplace including supply and demand. In addition, as we have seen with the proliferation of ‘new’ technologies, the law usually follows advancements in technology and

I also agree with you premise that Hoffman was correct to believe that a professional should not use an abstract business/building to hide unethical business activity. The basic premises behind the argument Mr. Friedman made during the collapse of 1970. May keep the business organization out of court by conforming within acceptable legal limits, but companies understand very well that holding themselves accountable to a higher standard will keep them in good stead with their customers, employees, shareholders, suppliers, regulators and communities. Any business, if its wants to be sustained over time must maximize its profits but do so in a manner that meets the needs of the stakeholders that allow it to remain viable. When those needs change, businesses have a responsibility to adapt their behaviors accordingly if it wishes to survive. That is a major piece Mr. Friedman’s argument missed. The rules of the game have changed in fundamental the following ways: 1). People today expect (and demand) more of businesses than simply maximizing their profits without violation of law; 2). Consumers want and expects to pay for quality, safety, and value from what they