Sunday, December 13, 2009
Ban tobacco entirely in Hong Kong?!
Everyone knows that smoking is evil, however, smoking still survive all over the world. Hong Kong implements the smoking ordinance that some areas or establishments will become designated no smoking areas. However, somebody argue that it’s not enough; they still suffer from the second-hand smoke. Therefore, they suggest the further legislation—Smoking Ban Entirely in Hong Kong! Is it work? In the WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic 2009, findings shown that there already have 17 countries implemented comprehensive smoke-free law such as Turkey, Colombia, and Mauritius[1]. So, it seems work. Today our topic is whether comprehensive smoke-free should be adopted in Hong Kong. And based on our moral stance, it shouldn’t. Let’s have a deeply look on the issue.
Culture and Conflict
Culture-the norms and values of one’s environment, is the lens through which we judge behaviors and characterize people as victims, heroes or villains.
By Gary Harper, Culture and Conflict
How will this change affect Hong Kong culture? Hong Kong highly developed has been ranked the freest in the world by the Index of Economic Freedom for 15 consecutive years. Hong Kong enjoys a high degree of freedom, for example, religious, media, and speech freedom. “FREEDOM” represents “HK”. That’s the attractive point of HK. But if it enforces the smoking-free legislation, it, to some extent, is to deprive people of the smoking freedom. Cultural identity of Hong Kong will become confuse. Although smoking is not good and smoking-free is implemented in some places, we can’t use one norm in all over the world. Just as what Louis C. Williams said “The standards are different in different places”(Business ethics)
“Cultural variances are diminishing as a consequence of the internet society; ethical standards in one place now are likely to be similar in other geographic locales.” (By Louis C. Williams)
Businesses (such as bars, restaurants) were severely affected by smoking bans since most of their customers are smokers. They will not patronize and the business value of the establishments will be dropped. Some businesses which affected have filed lawsuits claiming that bans are unconstitutional or otherwise illegal.
Bans may move smoking elsewhere
Bans on smoking in offices and other enclosed public places often result in smokers going outside to smoke, frequently congregating outside doorways. The former British Cabinet Member John Reid even claimed that bans on smoking in public places may lead to more smoking at home.
Therefore, some alternatives to bans can reach same goals without such huge controversies and grounds. Government, Organization and Individuals can have a reference on them.
Culture and Conflict
Culture-the norms and values of one’s environment, is the lens through which we judge behaviors and characterize people as victims, heroes or villains.
By Gary Harper, Culture and Conflict
How will this change affect Hong Kong culture? Hong Kong highly developed has been ranked the freest in the world by the Index of Economic Freedom for 15 consecutive years. Hong Kong enjoys a high degree of freedom, for example, religious, media, and speech freedom. “FREEDOM” represents “HK”. That’s the attractive point of HK. But if it enforces the smoking-free legislation, it, to some extent, is to deprive people of the smoking freedom. Cultural identity of Hong Kong will become confuse. Although smoking is not good and smoking-free is implemented in some places, we can’t use one norm in all over the world. Just as what Louis C. Williams said “The standards are different in different places”(Business ethics)What thing different people’s concern?
The impact of banning smoking in all public places has both its advantages and its disadvantages on smokers, non-smoking people, community, government and the tobacco industry. Whether to execute the policy or not is a difficult decision as different people have different perspectives and invested interests in the issue.
People have significant differences of opinion regarding what constitutes ethical behavior and how ethical decisions should be made. (Business Ethics: Approaches to Ethical Decision Making)
Smokers
The smokers may feel that they are unjustly discriminated against by the society. According to Gallup's latest survey, one-third of smokers felt unjustly discriminated. (More Smokers Feeling Harassed by Smoking Bans, 2007[2]). On the other hand, according to the research done by American Heart Association in Italy after a smoking ban in public places (Heart Attacks Decreased After Public Smoking Ban In Italy, 2008[3]), the research result shows that it will reduce the proportion of the population who smoke, the frequency of smoking decreased from 34.9 percent to 30.5 percent in men and from 20.6 percent to 20.4 percent in women. Some of the smokers may even quit smoking in response to a smoking ban in public places.
The community & non-smoking people
As we all know, there are many people incur smoking related diseases due to passive smoking. By adopting the policy of banning smoking in public places, it’s going to reduce the risk of incurring smoking related diseases and it also means allowing non-smokers the freedom to exercise their right to clean air and healthy lungs, as it will substantially improve the air quality which gets stepped on every time they inhale involuntary smoke. Smoking ban will significantly reduce heart attacks in the city, and attributed most of the reduction to decreased secondhand-smoke exposure. Recently, the smoking ban came into affect in England. However, in Scotland the ban on smoking in public places has been in force since March 2006. Statistics recently released suggest that this is the primary reason for the dramatic 17% fall in heart attacks.
Government
This will help governmental agencies to deal effectively with air pollution and health. The process will help to reduce smoking related diseases and deaths which are a threat to those who smoke. It will also promote clean air and good health among people. It’s going to earn money in countries where fines for individuals and premises where smoking is caught is imposed. However, Hong Kong is a city that promotes freedom; everyone has the rights to do anything (smoking) that do not break the law. Furthermore, Hong Kong is also one of the famous city that attracts lots of tourists every year. With a large tourism trade, the ban may have had a significant negative impact on tourism. Lastly, tax on tobacco products is also a great source of income of Hong Kong government.
The tobacco industry
Tobacco industry will be the one which suffer the most of this policy. It will create an environment where smoking becomes increasingly more difficult as it shift social norms away from the acceptance of smoking in everyday life. As a result, it will reduce the demand for tobacco and the sales will fall.
It seems that there are different and conflicting interests between them. How will it affect the final compromise? Let’s make the assumption first.
Assumption on human nature
According to our group analyzing, we assume that different parties such as organization, government, smokers and non-smokers and so on, are basically amoral and do not consider the existence of morality plausible. They do not care what they do is right or wrong, completely absence of moral beliefs. They only analysis the cost and benefit of doing one thing and concerns their own interest.
‘There is no clear moral compass to guide through complex dilemmas about what is right and wrong.’ by Carter McNamara (Complete Guide to Ethics Management: An Ethics Toolkit for Managers)
In this situation, we cannot judge the parties doing right and wrong. In fact, people mostly concern about their main interest (i.e. money and profits) rather than the public health because they weigh the pros and cons in this situation.
For example, many researches prove that tobacco deeply affects not only smokers’ health, but also for non-smokers, however, the organization still produce and encourage people to purchase tobacco so that they can increase their profits. Thus, if smoking bans scheme establishes in Hong Kong and cover all areas, tobacco manufacturing industries must reject this scheme because it will affect the revenue greatly.
When one new policy promotes in the community, it will make many noise. Different people have different opinions and suggestions, and their decisions mostly are based on protecting their own benefits. Indeed, Freedom is the one of culture in Hong Kong, Hong Kong people can express their opinions freely, but they just concern about themselves and ignore the others. As a result, people usually are amoral and further affect their decision making. From our group, we do not suggest smoking bans in all areas and the disadvantages outweigh the advantages of this policy. Instead, we support smoking bans scheme in assigning areas, so it can satisfy different parties.
Wild Imagination --- Smoking Free Utopia
We can go deeper in this controversial issue by making an assumption that is: Should we ban smoking in Hong Kong? That is smoking is not allowed in Hong Kong, even the imported tobacco is prohibited. This policy is currently adopted in Bhutan, so can Hong Kong do this?
No people can smoking here, no passive smoking, all of us will be healthy, no further negative consequences will be caused….. We can think of many good points generated from smoking ban. Is this a better solution, compared to recent policy in Hong Kong? That is smoking is banned in the public area only? The answer is NO.
Back to reality --- Trade-off
The recent policy can be viewed as a kind of trade-off among them since they have different vested interests from this issue. So there will be no such a policy that can satisfy all parties’ wants. Then, some parties need to forgo some interests in order to make comprise to deal with this issue. Thus, each party needs to choose the most important interest to them with the respective decision approaches.
In this issue, it can be said the government has the greatest power in deciding the policy of the degree in smoking since it has the power to make law to control the behaviors of the people. So we will go deeper in the decision approach of government to see the whole picture. To sum up again, the vested interests of government: 1. health issue, 2. tobacco tax, 3. promote trade.
Does government adopt the utilitarian approach?
If so, the government will ban smoking in Hong Kong since it will benefit and protect all the non-smokers, which is the majority in the society, from passive smoking. The affected parties, such as the smokers, tobacco companies, entertainment industry, in sum, they are just minority in this case, compared to the non smoker in Hong Kong.
But what we can see from the recent situation is that smoking is “partly” banned only, and then we can say that HK government is not adopting the utilitarian approach which will benefit the greatest number of people.
So, how about the cost-benefit approach?
Yes, we agree to this point of view. Let’s assume the government balances the cost and the benefit in this issue. The other parties are also adopting this approach. (Maybe we are in Hong Kong, everything is about the efficiency, so the beneficial one should be chosen) we will prove this assumption with the followings.
Under the recent policy, it is all about “Give and Take”. The tobacco companies can still sell the cigarettes in Hong Kong, which is their priority and the only concern, since it is not banned at all, although the policy will affect the sales of their products since the policy will decrease the chance for and also the desire to smoke. The companies have to forgo part of their sales volume to continue to import cigarettes to HK, which is more beneficial than total ban for smoking.
How about the smokers and the non smokers?
The major concern for the smokers is that they can continue smoking while the non smokers can be away form passive smoking. Under the recent policy, smoking is banned in all the public area. It satisfies the major needs of them. The smokers can still continue to smoke in the private area, such as home and open area. The non-smokers can stay away from the passive smoking because there will not be passive smoking in the above smoking area. It satisfies the major concern of them, it shows that the benefit is greater than the cost for them, although smokers cannot smoke everywhere; they forgo some of the rights. At least, it is better than total smoke ban in Hong Kong.
To summarize, the tobacco companies can still sell the cigarettes, the smokers can still smoke, and the non-smokers can stay away from passive smoking. It is a compromise between them.
How about the government?
In view of this, the government will see if the policy fits all the major concern of the different parties, meanwhile, the interests of the government also. The government, in response of this, will make the policy according to the situation. The government can still tax the tobacco product, which is an important income, and also maintain the free trade principle of Hong Kong.
However….can the government still does better than the recent policy?
People have significant differences of opinion regarding what constitutes ethical behavior and how ethical decisions should be made. (Business Ethics: Approaches to Ethical Decision Making)
Smokers
The smokers may feel that they are unjustly discriminated against by the society. According to Gallup's latest survey, one-third of smokers felt unjustly discriminated. (More Smokers Feeling Harassed by Smoking Bans, 2007[2]). On the other hand, according to the research done by American Heart Association in Italy after a smoking ban in public places (Heart Attacks Decreased After Public Smoking Ban In Italy, 2008[3]), the research result shows that it will reduce the proportion of the population who smoke, the frequency of smoking decreased from 34.9 percent to 30.5 percent in men and from 20.6 percent to 20.4 percent in women. Some of the smokers may even quit smoking in response to a smoking ban in public places.
The community & non-smoking people
As we all know, there are many people incur smoking related diseases due to passive smoking. By adopting the policy of banning smoking in public places, it’s going to reduce the risk of incurring smoking related diseases and it also means allowing non-smokers the freedom to exercise their right to clean air and healthy lungs, as it will substantially improve the air quality which gets stepped on every time they inhale involuntary smoke. Smoking ban will significantly reduce heart attacks in the city, and attributed most of the reduction to decreased secondhand-smoke exposure. Recently, the smoking ban came into affect in England. However, in Scotland the ban on smoking in public places has been in force since March 2006. Statistics recently released suggest that this is the primary reason for the dramatic 17% fall in heart attacks.
Government
This will help governmental agencies to deal effectively with air pollution and health. The process will help to reduce smoking related diseases and deaths which are a threat to those who smoke. It will also promote clean air and good health among people. It’s going to earn money in countries where fines for individuals and premises where smoking is caught is imposed. However, Hong Kong is a city that promotes freedom; everyone has the rights to do anything (smoking) that do not break the law. Furthermore, Hong Kong is also one of the famous city that attracts lots of tourists every year. With a large tourism trade, the ban may have had a significant negative impact on tourism. Lastly, tax on tobacco products is also a great source of income of Hong Kong government.
The tobacco industry
Tobacco industry will be the one which suffer the most of this policy. It will create an environment where smoking becomes increasingly more difficult as it shift social norms away from the acceptance of smoking in everyday life. As a result, it will reduce the demand for tobacco and the sales will fall.
It seems that there are different and conflicting interests between them. How will it affect the final compromise? Let’s make the assumption first.
Assumption on human nature
According to our group analyzing, we assume that different parties such as organization, government, smokers and non-smokers and so on, are basically amoral and do not consider the existence of morality plausible. They do not care what they do is right or wrong, completely absence of moral beliefs. They only analysis the cost and benefit of doing one thing and concerns their own interest.
‘There is no clear moral compass to guide through complex dilemmas about what is right and wrong.’ by Carter McNamara (Complete Guide to Ethics Management: An Ethics Toolkit for Managers)
In this situation, we cannot judge the parties doing right and wrong. In fact, people mostly concern about their main interest (i.e. money and profits) rather than the public health because they weigh the pros and cons in this situation.
For example, many researches prove that tobacco deeply affects not only smokers’ health, but also for non-smokers, however, the organization still produce and encourage people to purchase tobacco so that they can increase their profits. Thus, if smoking bans scheme establishes in Hong Kong and cover all areas, tobacco manufacturing industries must reject this scheme because it will affect the revenue greatly.
When one new policy promotes in the community, it will make many noise. Different people have different opinions and suggestions, and their decisions mostly are based on protecting their own benefits. Indeed, Freedom is the one of culture in Hong Kong, Hong Kong people can express their opinions freely, but they just concern about themselves and ignore the others. As a result, people usually are amoral and further affect their decision making. From our group, we do not suggest smoking bans in all areas and the disadvantages outweigh the advantages of this policy. Instead, we support smoking bans scheme in assigning areas, so it can satisfy different parties.
Wild Imagination --- Smoking Free Utopia
We can go deeper in this controversial issue by making an assumption that is: Should we ban smoking in Hong Kong? That is smoking is not allowed in Hong Kong, even the imported tobacco is prohibited. This policy is currently adopted in Bhutan, so can Hong Kong do this?
No people can smoking here, no passive smoking, all of us will be healthy, no further negative consequences will be caused….. We can think of many good points generated from smoking ban. Is this a better solution, compared to recent policy in Hong Kong? That is smoking is banned in the public area only? The answer is NO.
Back to reality --- Trade-off
The recent policy can be viewed as a kind of trade-off among them since they have different vested interests from this issue. So there will be no such a policy that can satisfy all parties’ wants. Then, some parties need to forgo some interests in order to make comprise to deal with this issue. Thus, each party needs to choose the most important interest to them with the respective decision approaches.
In this issue, it can be said the government has the greatest power in deciding the policy of the degree in smoking since it has the power to make law to control the behaviors of the people. So we will go deeper in the decision approach of government to see the whole picture. To sum up again, the vested interests of government: 1. health issue, 2. tobacco tax, 3. promote trade.
Does government adopt the utilitarian approach?
If so, the government will ban smoking in Hong Kong since it will benefit and protect all the non-smokers, which is the majority in the society, from passive smoking. The affected parties, such as the smokers, tobacco companies, entertainment industry, in sum, they are just minority in this case, compared to the non smoker in Hong Kong.
But what we can see from the recent situation is that smoking is “partly” banned only, and then we can say that HK government is not adopting the utilitarian approach which will benefit the greatest number of people.
So, how about the cost-benefit approach?
Yes, we agree to this point of view. Let’s assume the government balances the cost and the benefit in this issue. The other parties are also adopting this approach. (Maybe we are in Hong Kong, everything is about the efficiency, so the beneficial one should be chosen) we will prove this assumption with the followings.
Under the recent policy, it is all about “Give and Take”. The tobacco companies can still sell the cigarettes in Hong Kong, which is their priority and the only concern, since it is not banned at all, although the policy will affect the sales of their products since the policy will decrease the chance for and also the desire to smoke. The companies have to forgo part of their sales volume to continue to import cigarettes to HK, which is more beneficial than total ban for smoking.
How about the smokers and the non smokers?
The major concern for the smokers is that they can continue smoking while the non smokers can be away form passive smoking. Under the recent policy, smoking is banned in all the public area. It satisfies the major needs of them. The smokers can still continue to smoke in the private area, such as home and open area. The non-smokers can stay away from the passive smoking because there will not be passive smoking in the above smoking area. It satisfies the major concern of them, it shows that the benefit is greater than the cost for them, although smokers cannot smoke everywhere; they forgo some of the rights. At least, it is better than total smoke ban in Hong Kong.
To summarize, the tobacco companies can still sell the cigarettes, the smokers can still smoke, and the non-smokers can stay away from passive smoking. It is a compromise between them.
How about the government?
In view of this, the government will see if the policy fits all the major concern of the different parties, meanwhile, the interests of the government also. The government, in response of this, will make the policy according to the situation. The government can still tax the tobacco product, which is an important income, and also maintain the free trade principle of Hong Kong.
However….can the government still does better than the recent policy?
“Cultural variances are diminishing as a consequence of the internet society; ethical standards in one place now are likely to be similar in other geographic locales.” (By Louis C. Williams)
A great number of mostly developed countries have enacted bans on smoking in public places or workplaces since the early 2000s, often in conjunction with a reduction in the proportion of the population who smoke.Undoubtedly, legislation in prohibiting people smoking is a direct way to reduce the amount of people smoking. However, smoking bans would be turned out some problems such as economics lost and criticized on a number of grounds. Thus, we have some suggestions instead of smoking ban in Hong Kong.
Smoking area should not be revoked
Smoking area should not be revoked if the methods of banning smoking are sufficient. Also, smokers argue that they can have the right to smoke and the smoking area should maintain under no implication on others.
Government
Setting World No Tobacco Day
World No Tobacco Day (WNTD) is observed around the world every year on May 31. It aims to reduce the amount of people deaths from tobacco-related health problems. It draws global attention to the widespread prevalence of tobacco use and to its negative. More WNTD should be presented as it can promote the message of smoke-free to more people.
Organization & Individual
1. Setting ventilation system in office
Ventilation can be an alternative to smoking bans as it can reduce the harmful impacts of passive smoking. A study conducted by the School of Technology of the University of Glamorgan in Wales, United Kingdom, published in the Building Services Journal stated that ventilation systems can dramatically improve indoor air quality.
If the Ventilation system was strong enough, the smoke will be deflated and it will drastically reduce the bad effects on others. Therefore, comprehensive anti smoking in public places or workplaces can be instead.
2. Creating anti-smoking environment and culture
Encouraging the creation of more business to join the bans voluntarily, some tax credits and other financial incentives for business should be established. It would probably attract more establishments became smoke-free businesses. Proponents of such policies claim that they would help to increase the options for customers and employees who prefer a smoke-free bar or restaurant without infringing on the rights of business owners.
3. Tradable smoking pollution permits
Tradable pollution permits has been suggested by Professor Robert Havemand and John Mullahy of the University of Wisconsin--Madison and it favored by some economists.
Tradable pollution permits is a market-based alternative and Lawmakers decide the optimal level of smoking establishments for an area. Permits are then auctioned off or otherwise allocated. Nonsmoking establishments can sell the unused permits on the open market to smoking establishments. That means, businesses are required to purchase the property rights over the clean air space of their business in order to let their customers to smoke.
Promotion and Education
Promotion and education are good ways to make widely known about the disadvantages of smoking and make them always on the alert for contracting smoking habit. The authorities can promote a smoke-free culture to the public through the mass media and raise the public awareness on the hazards of smoking and secondhand smoke.
Smoking area should not be revoked
Smoking area should not be revoked if the methods of banning smoking are sufficient. Also, smokers argue that they can have the right to smoke and the smoking area should maintain under no implication on others.
Government
Setting World No Tobacco Day
World No Tobacco Day (WNTD) is observed around the world every year on May 31. It aims to reduce the amount of people deaths from tobacco-related health problems. It draws global attention to the widespread prevalence of tobacco use and to its negative. More WNTD should be presented as it can promote the message of smoke-free to more people.
Organization & Individual
1. Setting ventilation system in office
Ventilation can be an alternative to smoking bans as it can reduce the harmful impacts of passive smoking. A study conducted by the School of Technology of the University of Glamorgan in Wales, United Kingdom, published in the Building Services Journal stated that ventilation systems can dramatically improve indoor air quality.
If the Ventilation system was strong enough, the smoke will be deflated and it will drastically reduce the bad effects on others. Therefore, comprehensive anti smoking in public places or workplaces can be instead.
2. Creating anti-smoking environment and culture
Encouraging the creation of more business to join the bans voluntarily, some tax credits and other financial incentives for business should be established. It would probably attract more establishments became smoke-free businesses. Proponents of such policies claim that they would help to increase the options for customers and employees who prefer a smoke-free bar or restaurant without infringing on the rights of business owners.
3. Tradable smoking pollution permits
Tradable pollution permits has been suggested by Professor Robert Havemand and John Mullahy of the University of Wisconsin--Madison and it favored by some economists.
Tradable pollution permits is a market-based alternative and Lawmakers decide the optimal level of smoking establishments for an area. Permits are then auctioned off or otherwise allocated. Nonsmoking establishments can sell the unused permits on the open market to smoking establishments. That means, businesses are required to purchase the property rights over the clean air space of their business in order to let their customers to smoke.
Promotion and Education
Promotion and education are good ways to make widely known about the disadvantages of smoking and make them always on the alert for contracting smoking habit. The authorities can promote a smoke-free culture to the public through the mass media and raise the public awareness on the hazards of smoking and secondhand smoke.
Businesses (such as bars, restaurants) were severely affected by smoking bans since most of their customers are smokers. They will not patronize and the business value of the establishments will be dropped. Some businesses which affected have filed lawsuits claiming that bans are unconstitutional or otherwise illegal.
Bans may move smoking elsewhere
Bans on smoking in offices and other enclosed public places often result in smokers going outside to smoke, frequently congregating outside doorways. The former British Cabinet Member John Reid even claimed that bans on smoking in public places may lead to more smoking at home.
Therefore, some alternatives to bans can reach same goals without such huge controversies and grounds. Government, Organization and Individuals can have a reference on them.
Reference:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban
Friday, December 4, 2009
Immoral scientific misconduct
Nowadays, you can find many products claimed that they are tested by scientific method. However, by how much, can we trust these products?
Science development is the representation of modern society. Science is a continuing effort to discover and increase human knowledge and understanding through disciplined research (from wiki). Moreover, science lets different countries to cooperate, so it impacts deeply in inter-cultural processes. For example, International scientific organizations, such as the International Council for Science, have since been formed to promote cooperation between the scientific communities of different nations.
However, some people exploit science to make profit for themself, ignoring the moral stance. They buy up the scientists, they do the fake scientific research, and they only concern their benefit and ignore the public wealth. In this blog, we will explore this moral conundrum deeply.
There are so many examples to such misconduct. For example, in the case of Diamond Energy Water, the company claimed that their water system is based on advanced Energy Converter Technology. This technology helps break water molecule clusters into smaller cluster for easier absorption (Hailed as a breakthrough health therapy). In order to make their statement more powerful, it cites several scientists name to prove their product’s credibility. However, sarcastically, those named scientists said that they never done such research, and didn’t hear such functional water machine.
People are basically AMORAL
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a concept about companies integrates social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis. One of the focuses of CSR is ethical, companies should be ethical, and they have the obligation to do what is right, just, fair and moral.
According to Carter McNamara ‘There is no clear moral compass to guide through complex dilemmas about what is right and wrong.’(Complete Guide to Ethics Management: An Ethics Toolkit for Managers) We assume that some people are basically amoral and do not consider the existence of morality plausible. They do not care what they do is right or wrong, completely absence of moral beliefs. They only analysis the cost and benefit of doing one thing and concerns their own interest.
Listerine is one of the most popular mouthwashes brand in the world. They have over 50 years clinical experiment experience to prove that their product can help people maintain healthy mouth. However, recently, some other research shows that people using the mouthwash products with alcohol will increase the chance of getting oral cancer. Although Listerine states that they have over 50 years clinical experiment experience of their products, they do not consider the existence of morality plausible that they ignore the subsequence of using alcohol-containing mouthwash. They should conduct a more thorough research and experiment of their products before selling it to the market.
And some of them are IMMORAL
Immoral perspective means that people are basically bad and they do something hurt others with the aim of getting benefits. Thus, the society should set some ethical rules which are accepted by major people to punish immoral people. For the long term, the immoral people should be educated and changed their mind.
However, some immoral company deliberately omit the undesirable data. For example, company misleadingly creates desirable result, although they know that what they done may be harmful to the consumers. Therefore, consumers are cheated by these fake scientific researches and further they suffer from these ‘guaranteed’ products.
‘..ethical involves learning what is right and wrong, and then doing the right thing—but “the right thing” is not nearly as straightforward as conveyed in a great deal of business ethics literature.’ (By Complete Guide to Ethical Management: An Ethical Toolkit for Manager)
The obvious example is about Marlboro. In fact, there is growing perception that smoking might be harmful to the health of others. The passive smoking is a sensitive issue to the tobacco industry which causes public prominence and it threaten the tobacco industry. In order to solve these unfavorable problems of Marlboro, Marlboro Company eliminated the sensitive data about passive smoking because these issues affect the tobacco industry so it bought up the scientist to get the desirable result of the research.
Marlboro put a huge amount of funding to establish a team including British scientists and the lawyer. They are operated under the direction of Marlboro. The team mainly produced a research on the problems of indoor air quality and the lawyers to eliminate areas of sensitivity.
However, after this report announcing to public, many people criticize Marlboro that it produce the misleading information to consumers. Actually, their product seriously affects people’s health. Therefore, immoral companies provide fake and misleading scientific data is inadmissible and unethical.
(example’s URL from http://www.ash.org.uk/ash_1cm2x3li.htm)
So, what are the impacts of such misconduct to the inter-cultural process, individual and cultural identity?
“Trust”
Individual might subconsciously believe the advertising once they saw scientific result because people deeply trust the “science”. As “Texted by scientific method” means professional, so they trust it completely. I still remember one time after swimming lesson, I saw my classmate who cleaned her face using a bottle of diamond energy water. Her explanation is that without using this “special” water, her face would suffer skin sensitive so that she brought it from home. It’s not exaggerated, in fact, there are really such guy totally rely on the scientific prove.
On the other hand, the others, who penetrate the pseudo research, might build mistrust with “Science”. They think they are stupid to trust such scientific research before, and never trust it anymore. They will unconscious to those advertising. It might even lead them to resist science, therefore, the term” anti-science” was appeared . But they don’t realize that, science itself hasn’t fault, but those unethical merchants have.
Country which ignores the important impacts of such behavior will develop a “fake culture”. Just like China, it’s famous for its “fake”, fake products, fake statistics and even fake singer in Olympics etc. Such a fake image will impact the others’ trust toward the country. And this negative image will even obstruct the science development. It may be the reason behind why China’s science still not develops well.
As no one trusts the fake culture anymore, how can they cooperate with each other? Science always requires different nations’ cooperation. But the fake image affects the inter-cultural process. For example, America NASA refuses the proposal of collaborating with China in space-development . So if we don’t stop the scientific misconduct, the problem will be continuous and become more serious.
Dilemma
However, some may argue that some fake scientific statistic mainly want to force people to doing something good, so, is not immoral. For example, in our previous blog, it indicates fishers will lost their job by 2050 if we keep on overfishing and shows the alarming amount of extincting marines. However, is the statistic really accurate? Or is it includes some exaggerated statistics in order to shock people to take action? Some people argue that the intention is good, and some fake scientific statistic should be done by the moral stance.
Sometime, it is hard to judge whether a decision is ethical or not since value judgments are personal and differ from people to people. However, we can still analyzing ethical dilemmas with the following models, which are more objective in nature.
Utilitarian approach
By using this approach, the pseudo-scientific research is not ethical at all since it will not result in the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Who will be benefited from these researches then? Surely, the producers and the parties which conduct these researches. They benefit from making profit through these advertisements, which are misleading, at the expense of exploiting the right of getting the accurate information for the customers. The customers cannot make the scientific researches claiming that smoking is not that harmful. It will, as a result, mislead the smokers and the potential smokers to continue or to start to smoke respectively. This is harmful to the customers; it is not simply to make them to purchase the cigarette, even more, it will hurt their health. If they can provide the accurate information in the market, it will save more people from smoking. In this sense, the producers, the minority, can be benefited from these misleading advertisements, at the same time, the public, the majority, suffers a lot. By using the utilitarian approach, these “researches” are not ethical.
Universalism
For this approach, whether an action is ethical or not depends on whether you are willing to be misled by the pseudo scientific researches. Surely, each and every one of us does not like being misled. We always want the accurate information, not the fake one, guiding us to make a wise decision. Otherwise, it will create a sense that the customers are not being respected. However, people do not share the same feeling under the same circumstance. For example, will you feel angry after knowing that the diamond energy water system is just a water filtering machine? The answers will be different among people. Some will be angry since they feel they are being cheated. Others may think that it is still acceptable that, at least, it has water filtering function. To sum up, it depends on whether it is acceptable for you to be misled by these researches. For our group, these unethical misleading behaviors are surely unacceptable since we do not like being misled.
So why these companies still make those unethical decisions then if everyone knows it is not good to do so? The following approach would help to make a better judgment.
Cost benefit
The common goal of giving this misleading information, for the companies, is to sell more products so as to make a handsome profit, regardless the negative publicity form it once these unethical behaviors are being discovered. The companies thought that it is ethical to do so since they can earn more money, which outweighs the cost of the negative publicity. So they will gain from this decision. They aim at short term profit by selling more since the customers cannot return the products or refund, or even they have consumed it. If it is successful to make the people believe in this fake information, it can generate handsome short term profit before it is known to be fake. The companies make the cheating decision using this approach that calculate the cost and benefit from it. If we judge whether conducting the pseudo scientific researches are ethical or not by using this approach, it will be “ethical”. However, it is the standpoint of those businessmen, which our team does not take.
Improve it!
All in all, such climate should not be promoted. We should do something to improve the situation.
Government
“Cultural variances are diminishing as a consequence of the internet society; ethical standards in one place now are likely to be similar in other geographic locales.” (By Louis C. Williams). Hong Kong Government can do a lot in order to prevent companies and organizations misleading the public by using scientific misconduct.
First, the government should promote correct and ethical value to the companies and people. Always show evidences that pass through different kinds of experiments and researches. It is a good way for the government to emphasize the benefits and the importance of using data, researches and statistics results honestly. For example, it helps company to build up a positive image and it would create an honest environment that customers can have more confidence when they consume.
On the other hand, the authorities can set up new law which forbids people using some incorrect data or researches to mislead customers and citizens. Offenders will have to pay the serious penalties for violating the law. Stiff punishment would scare people and companies from offending the legislation.
Besides, government should take the responsibility for protecting the right of the consumers. As we have mentioned, people are basically immoral. Most of them would only consider about their own advantages and just ignore the right of others.
According to the cost-benefit, they would only consider whether the benefits are useful or not and how great of them. Therefore, if there are no any organizations to keep a watchful eye on the market, the situation would be out of control.
Multinationals
Nowadays many corporations have offices, branches or manufacturing plants in different countries and where their original and main headquarter is located. They have multiple operation points that all respond to one headquarter. So, if some ethical guidelines are set by the head office and encourage other operation points to adopt it, the global environment would become more honest. Telling the staff how to tackle the difficulty when they are facing with ethical problem, for example, how to balance in making a profit without any unethical measures; how to attract the public by using method without exaggeration, immoral. Provided that there are some guidelines, the functional managers and staffs would feel easy to deal with the problems, especially the ethical problems.
By the way, multinational corporations such as Nike and Coca have a powerful influence in local economics as well as the world economy and play an important role in international relations and globalization. Some of them can even affect the governments in establishing the policy. As they have huge impact on the world, they should work ethically as an example and let other corporations, firms and organizations to imitate it.
Reference:
1 http://biocab.org/Antiscience.html
2 http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/aug/12/olympics2008.china1
3 http://www.blogercn.com/html/30/46830-289837.html
4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Save Our Sea! You Can Do It!
Background
Many "green"products claimed in the market nowadays which customers are sometimes confused by their claims and mistrust about their validity. "Trustmarks help ensure companies follow best practices by setting clear and transparent standards."(By GreenBiz Staff) 1. Ecological label helps consumers to identify products which are more environmentally preferable than other similar products with the same functions in the markets.
Due to the overfishing in recent years, our oceans are under more pressure than before. In order to tackle the issue of seafood sustainability, an organization is funded. Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) is an independent non-profit organization with an ecological label and fishery certification programme. It aims to contribute to the health of the world’s oceans by recognizing and rewarding sustainable fishing practices. They want to influence the choices people make when buying seafood, and work with our partners to transform the seafood marke
t to a sustainable basis.
The MSC runs an exciting and ambitious program, working with partners to transform the world's seafood markets and promote sustainable fishing practices. It collaborates with fisher, retailers, processors, consumer and others to drive them to sustainable behavior. It never compromise on the environmental standard we set, or on our independence.
Website:http://www.msc.org/
- Our Video to promote "MSC"
Hong Kong Culture
Hong Kong is a small city but provide a large variety of food and given the reputable praise of “Gourmet paradise” and “World’s fair of food”. Food holds an important place in Hong Kong. As Hong Kong located near the coast, seafood is especially famous in Hong Kong. People always heard Chinese saying that fish and meat is the essential dish (in Chinese有魚有肉) as it indicated a symbol of abundance and prosperity Therefore, people will eat a lot of seafood in Chinese traditional festival.
Source: http://www.discoverhongkong.com/tc/dining/seafood.html (Hong Kong Tourism Board website)
Protection against overfishing in H.K.
In Hong Kong, the use of explosive, toxic substances, electricity, dredging and suction devices for the purpose of fishing are detrimental to fisheries and the marine ecosystem and are prohibited under the Fisheries Protection Ordinance.2
Public Awareness
Altho
ugh there is a Ordinance to protect the marine, most people are not aware the problem of overfishing, they do not know the consequences and mainly concern about the quality of seafood. A label which related about seafood is used under the accredited fish farm scheme carry out by the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department in 20053. It is a label to ensure the quality of locally cultured fish in order to regain consumer confidence.
In the 1970s, Hong Kong's co
mmercial fishery reach the peak, Hong Kong waters were incredibly rich just decades ago with manta rays, hammerhead sharks, giant grouper etc. Due to overfishing, the fishery in Hong Kong declined. The WWF in Hong Kong launched several campaigns to promote marine protection, for instance, Save our Seas Campaign in 2005 and also Bluefin Tuna in Crisis. Unfortunately, it cannot arouse the awareness of the public. 4
Rhetorical strategies and its effectiveness
When people enjoy and love eating seafood, at the same time, the number of marine products become extinction is increasing. It is due to the problem of overfishing.
“Telling and listening to stories…may be the most powerful means for relaying and retaining information, communicating and understanding important messages, and influencing cultural thought.”(By Kathleen Marvin) 5
Our story aimed at shocking people into actions and to persuade and motivate them to buy the products with Marine Stewardship Council labels. In some countries, “Overfishing has not only proved disastrous to fish stocks but also to the fishing communities relying on the harvest”6 . We show how people enjoy eating seafood at the beginning of the video, therefore to recall the audience’s happy memories of eating delicious seafood. Then, we reveal the fact of overfishing problem with the statement of “If we keep on overfishing, fisher will be unemployed by 2050.”7. This will threaten the audience as seafood will soon disappear unless urgent action is taken to make sure that the seafood is comes from a healthy population and harvested in a sustainable non-destructive manner. If the consumers buy seafood with conscience with the Marine Stewardship Council label, they can ensure the fisheries are following the principles of Marine Stewardship Council standards.
Most people in Hong Kong are educated and they are more and more concern about the environment, even some of the environmental protection actions are legislated by law. The Marine Stewardship Council label is the best and most recognizable eco label for marine products we currently have in the world. According to a survey conducted by WWF in 2005 “97% of Cantonese speakers said that they would stop consuming a species if they found out it was endangered.”8 If people know that the products with this label implying that the fishery is following the principles and have sustainable caught, their acceptance of this label will be much higher and as a result they will start to buy the products with this label. In order to enhance the awareness of overfishing problem in the world of the public, we think that with the use of celebrity to promote the MSC labels, it will catch the attention of the public.
Motivation & Altruism
‘Altruism defines how selfish behavior could have evolved. It is applied not only to people (psychological altruism), but also to animals and even plants.’ 9
Nowadays, overfishing is one of the hot topics in everywhere. People only satisfy their needs and put not much effort on protecting the environment, especially the ocean. Overfishing usually destroys not only the sea, but also marine ecosystems. ‘Life on earth is being destroyed at alarming rate, and evidence is mounting of impending disasters such ecological collapse and climate change that threaten as all’. 10 Therefore, we should spread the message that the importance of the altruism and how unselfish behavior of others.
In fact, technological communication is an effective way to convey the altruism messages over the world. In the video, it raises people awareness of protecting the sea as soon as possible. “Initial story must be emotionally moving enough to unleash the narrative impulse in others” (By Kathleen Marvin) . 11When people watch this video, they might feel guilty and sympathy if they keep on buying seafood which is came from overfishing. So, they might change their purchase behavior to buy the seafood with the MSC label to show supporting on this campaign.
The video can boost altruism and build up a global consciousness as it can make people to have sympathy and feel guilty with their selfish behavior. They will not only concern about self-benefit firstly, but also they may seem others as oneself and provide unselfish behavior to others. Indeed, it will have a global impact that people can act a coherent action to echo using the MSC logo to save the sea together. Therefore, this strategy can send the altruism message to the world and encourage people to contribute their effort to our world unselfishly.
Motivates are the reasons that before one take action towards an event.
There are mainly 3 reasons for Hong Kong people to purchase the products with the approval from the MSC.
First of all, it is out of self interest, the popularity of seafood in HK. As aforementioned, Hong Kong people love having seafood. It is a kind of culture and tradition in the festivals. As indicated in the Times magazine, if overfishing continue for 50 years, there will be no supplies of seafood. That means there would be no seafood for Hong Kong people to consume. In view of this, in order to save the sea and while the seafood, Hong Kong people are thus motivated to consume the products approved by MSC. It can extend the time for them to consume the seafood they love most.
Thank you all of you
Thank you again for the useful comments from Mgt3430 classmates and also Mgt2411. We found that it is enjoyable to read your comments, hope you do also when you are reading our blog. The comments are helpful. It makes our blog better. We have chosen the following topics to discuss further. Let’s GO and enjoy.
Some of you ask about which type of marine are going to be extincted. We are going to show some of them to you:
· Bombay duck(九肚魚)
· High-finned grouper(老鼠斑)
· Leopard coral trout(東星斑)
· Humphead wrasse(蘇眉)
· Abalone(鮑魚)
· Caviar (sturgeon) 魚子醬(鱘魚)
· Bluefin tuna(藍鰭吞拿魚)
All of the above we enjoy are going to be extincted. And if we keep ignoring it, the situation would become more serious
Promotion to restaurant
We would promote to the shops and restaurants which have a lot of benefits on selling MSC products. Nowadays, more seafood buyers in
How the label will be shown? & Will seafood with MSC be more expensive than those without?
The MSC labels are used on packaging, price lists, menus, fish counters and materials highlighting seafood products. Here are the pictures which show the products with MSC labels, including fresh and canned seafood. The fish products with the MSC logo are not more expensive, incidentally, which means that it is just as economical to eat sustainable fish.
Should we organize a “NO Seafood day’?
As some people suggest,
However, the purpose of MSC is not to stop eating seafood and fishing, it aims to raise people attention on the ocean destroyed speedily because of OVERFISHING. Therefore, stop eating seafood is not the main idea of MSC, but promoting using products with MSC is that encouraging fishers correct their fishing methods and be more ethical. Also, this logo aims to increase people sense of protecting the sea. For the long term, the MSC mainly convey message that all people should take responsibility to protect the ocean. So people will act automatically to echo the activity better than punish them or totally change their local culture. The first thing let people echo the logo successful; people understand the overfishing is the one of serious problem to destroy the sea. If people deeply understand the hidden threat, they will try their best to protect the ocean. Therefore, the ocean will be protected, people continue to enjoy the seafood with correct fishing and fishers keep earning money. Eventually, it makes win-win situation.
REFERENCES
1GreenBiz Staff(2009), GreenBiz.com, http://greenercomputing.com
2 The Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department. Fisheries Protection Ordinance, http://www.afcd.gov.hk/english/fisheries/fish_cap/fish_cap_fpo/fish_cap_fpo.html
3 The Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department. Accredited Fish Farm Scheme
http://www.hkaffs.org/en/background.html
4 WWF Hong Kong, Save Our Seas Campaign, http://www.wwf.org.hk/eng/conservation/marine/?source=fp-leftmenu
5 Kathleen Marvin (2006). Business Narration. JFK University
6 Darrell Tan. 2009. Over Fishing. http://geog-ace.blogspot.com/2009/06/over-fishing.html
7 Monica Fong. 2006. General Education, http://ls.hket.com/hk/liberalStudiesTopicsAction.do?action=listnewscornerdetail&id=ff8080810e799f03010f603c6cdb00d7
8 WWF Hong Kong, Seafood Choice Initiative, http://www.wwf.org.hk/eng/conservation/seafood/bluefintuna/index.php
9 ‘Altruism-what is it?’ Retrieved from http:// www.altruism .org/about/altruism/
10 ‘Altruism-what is it?’ Retrieved from http:// www.altruism .org/about/altruism/
11 Kathleen Marvin (2006). Business Narration. JFK University
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)