Who is justified? Milton Friedman vs. Thomas Mulligan
Social responsibility, business, shareholders, taxation, executive branches and socialism are not common words that we use in our daily routine life, unless you are in a business or administration scopes. Also, you may not aware about who is Milton Friedman, and why Thomas Mulligan has strong oppositions toward him. In this essay you are going to read a comparison of two different arguments by Thomas Mulligan and Milton Friedman. Their contentions are about corporate social responsibilities. What are responsibilities for executives and companies? Do they have to fulfill them or not? Are social responsibilities only for individuals?
...view middle of the document...
Mulligan contends with inconsistencies and faults in Friedman’s doctrine; and found his cogency illogical. So why? Here, I will try to explain with comparing and contrasting Friedman’s doctrine and Mulligan’s critique.
Before starting to explain, it is better to take into consideration every society from traditional society in Central Africa to one of the fossilized planned economies of Eastern Europe, to define what, how and for whom questions for their producing process. It’s because against the possibility of problem of scarcity.
As written the previous paragraphs, Milton Friedman is an economist that re-describe social responsibility and role of businessmen’s through these social responsibilities. According to him, only people have responsibilities. Companies and corporates are not human beings. They are artificial monads so business can’t have a responsibility. On the other hand, while individual proprietors spending their own time, own energy to discharge these social responsibilities, it cannot have considered as social.
Main sentiment of Friedman is about profits of a company. The aim for a business should be maximizing the profits. A company should stand aside of increasing price of a product that makes profit for prevent inflation. Or, for reducing poverty, an executive shouldn’t hire hard-core unemployed instead of hiring better-qualified available workmen (Friedman, 1970). If an executive, individual proprietor wants to fulfil his responsibility he should expend his own money; not company’s money behalf of a company’s name as corporate social responsibility. Everyone can do his or her good with their own estimates. With all these, social responsibility is not a task for a company, executive or a businessman. They can take these responsibilities, unless the company established for a donative or charitable purpose like as a hospital or a school.
Despite, Friedman’s doctrine seems there is no borders or proper way for making profit; he also describes how business should follow moral and ethical steps to make profit. Friedman contends a company open and free competition without deception or fraud (Friedman 1970).
Thomas Mulligan is a philosopher studies about business ethic and approaches to the political science. His critique published on Journal of Business Ethics in 1986. He contends with Friedman’s points and analyse them with different subtitles. He states that stick to social responsibilities is not a subversive doctrine. Friedman interrogates this process, taxation without representation. However his doctrine is arbitrary and nebulous paradigm. In Friedman’s paradigm didn’t...