This summer, I had the opportunity to take an online college class on business ethics offered by the University of Illinois. It took a very process oriented and algorithmically approach to business ethics. There were some things in the course that I agreed with and some things that I disagreed with.

First of all, the course was centered around various ethical dilemmas that various businesses faced. The dilemmas were analyzed using various ethical theories and approaches.

The first dilemma was with the company Merck. The company had an option to develop a drug for river blindness, a disease that only affects poor people in third world countries. These people would never be able to pay for the drug, and the development of the drug would cost lots of money. Additionally, that money could be spent on developing new cures for diseases that affect people that could pay for their treatment. However, the scientists who wanted to develop the river blindness drug were very excited and passionate about it. What was the company to do? The course examined the dilemma using a process called the stakeholder theory of ethics. This argues that one should evaluate everyone who is a stakeholder in a certain situation, the people with river blindness, the people who own shares of the company, the people in first world countries that can pay for treatment. Then, one should make a decision that benefits the various stakeholders the most. I argued that Merck should go ahead with the development of the drug, because it was the ethically right thing for the company to do, and it supported a general ethical principle that I believe all drug companies should follow. If all drug companies cared only for profit, where would we end up? This is what Merck ended up doing.

The second ethical dilemma that the course examined was with the company Bayer, a German pharmaceutical company. This company had a policy against child labor, but it discovered that a subcontractor of the company, Crop Science, was using child labor. However, this company operated in India, where child labor is normal and legal, and in many cases, essential to the survival of a family. Should Bayer cut ties with the company? Should they demand they end the child labor? Should they turn a blind eye? (when in Rome…) I argued that this issue could be publicized by the media, which would in turn cause a negative sentiment about the company, leading to the decline in stock price. This would not be beneficial to anyone, so therefor the company should demand that Crop Science end child labor, or cut ties with them. Just like in the first case, this is what the company ended up doing. They demanded Crop science end the child labor, and they actually did. Bayer and Crop Science still work together to this day.

I learned in this course that business ethics isn’t just as simple as “doing the right thing.” Many times there is a complex web of stakeholders, and there will be consequences to decisions that won’t be immediately evident. I disagree with the idea that you should always do what is best for the most people. I think that organizations should made decisions that uphold general ethical principles, decisions that society would be better off if all companies behaved that way. When I start my own business I plan on behaving this way.