Top 10 Unethical Business Actions

RORY HYNES

SEPTEMBER 13, 2011

This list was originally titled Most Evil Corporations but the author thought it would be best to keep the sites neutral status and minimize the probability of this list being classified as slander. As long as there has been big-business there have been dubious and flat-out immoral actions taking place to preserve profit, market share and public image. This list cannot be ranked too effectively, as the extent and severity of the misdeeds cannot be measured, but the items have been chosen because of their human and long-term cultural impact.

10
Wal-Mart Lack of compassion
Tip of the iceberg can describe the story below. Wal-Mart is company No. 1 in the world. It has the most revenue over any other company ($421 Billion). But its riches equal its controversies. This story is probably the most apt at describing the unethical treatment of its workers, because of the sheer senselessness of it. In 2000, a collision with a semi-trailer left 52-year-old Deborah Shank with permanent brain damage and in a wheelchair. Her husband and three sons were fortunate for a $700,000 accident settlement from the trucking company. After legal costs and other expenses, the remaining $417,000 was put in a special trust to care for Mrs. Shank. However, six years later the providers of Mrs. Shanks health plan, Wal-Mart, sued the Shanks for the $470,000 it had spent on her medical care. Wal-Mart was fully entitled to the money; in the fine print of Mrs. Shanks employment contract it said that money won in damages after an accident

belonged to Wal-Mart. A federal judge had to rule in favor of Wal-Mart, and the family of Mrs. Shank had to rely on Medicaid and social-security payments for her round-the-clock care. Wal-Mart may be reversing the decision after public outcry. However this case pinpoints Wal-Marts often criticized treatment of employees as a commodity and its sometimes inhuman business ethics.

9
Trafigura Dumping Toxic waste on the Ivory Coast and gagging the media
Earlier in the year, there was media frenzy in the U.K. over celebrities getting court injunctions to silence the press from reporting on their various misdeeds and grubby encounters. This story actually stems from a far more serious beginning, in 2006. Trafigura is a multinational formed in 1993, trading in base metals and energy, including oil. It makes almost 80 billion USD a year. In 2006, it caused a health crisis affecting 108,000 people, after a ship leased by the company was told that, due to toxicity levels higher than expected, the price of transferring the waste on board to the processing plant in the Netherlands had increased twenty-fold. To avoid the charge, Trafigura ordered the ship to dock at other seaports until they could find someone who would dump the waste. At Abidjan, Cte dIvoire, one of Africas largest seaports, the waste was handed over to a newly formed dumping company, Compagnie Tommy, which illegally dumped the waste, instead of processing it. Many people there became sick due to exposure to the waste, and investigations began to determine whether it was intentionally dumped by Trafigura. Trafigura said in a press statement that their tests showed the waste not to be as toxic as had been claimed. This was proven false by a 2009 UN report posted by Wikileaks.

When newspapers came to publish their own findings, which proved that Trafigura was guilty of releasing toxic waste, they lawyered up and started firing legal notices to all news outlets which were saying there was a connection between the dumping and the injuries reported in the Ivory Coast. The Guardian newspaper had conclusive evidence that Trafigura knew of the dumping, and had a report they were ready to publish, however the libel firm hired by Trafigura, Carter Ruck, applied for a super-injunction so that the paper couldnt publish the report until a court decision was made. This caused MP Evan Harris to question the freedom of the press in the country. However, after a twitter campaign that spread the story in a matter of hours, the libel firm responsible backed down and allowed the report to be published. Carter Ruck are still pursuing a libel case against BBC Newsnight for allegations made on television (later proven true by an independent report).

8
Thomas Edison/Radio Corporation of America Attempting a monopoly of patents
The ability for inventors and aspiring minds to call an idea their own, and theirs alone, is a very important mark of a fair society. Unfortunately, history is littered by examples of intellectual property being swallowed up by big corporations. In particular, Thomas Edison and the companies he formed with his vast wealth (RCA, General Electric) have always had a habit of trying to abuse the patent system for profit. The reason that Hollywood is the home of the movie industry is that film-makers in the 1920s were forced to abandon the east-coast because of the high royalties that Edison charged them for use of camera technologies. Edison even had hired goons to harass them for money. But it was a policy of the RCA (Radio Corporation of America) that caused untold damage for inventors of the 20th century. The official company policy was that The Radio Corporation doesnt pay royalties and, allegedly, David Sarnoff, the proud general manager of the company,

boasted we collect them [royalties]. They repeatedly steamrolled inventors and small businesses to acquire their patents without licensing them, forcing the companies to collapse into the RCAs arms because of the mounting legal fees. However, there is one notable exception the inventor of electronic television, Philo T. Farnsworth, had his patent for electronic television and other components (notably the image dissector) approved in the early 30s, and no matter what the RCA did, they couldnt get round Farnsworths patents. In 1939, a month after the war had started, the RCA accepted to pay, for the first time in their corporate history, a $1,000,000 patent license for Farnsworths electronic television. Legend has it there were tears in the eyes of the RCA men as they signed the document. This whole practice was extremely unethical in terms of the technologies these companies prevented from reaching the market. Farnsworth hoped that television would bring people together and prevent war, but because of the RCAs actions and endless lawsuits, television never got going until the 50s.

7
Dyncorp Sex trafficking, reckless chemical usage
The first Private Military Company on the list, and certainly not the last, Dyncorp is a medium sized PMC with revenues of $3 Billion. PMCs are probably the most likely company to become involved in unethical situations. They are being paid by governments to protect areas, and often take the same roles as soldiers. Mixing money with killing is never going to be straightforward; the laws that apply to a PMC soldier are always a gray area, so the law often doesnt catch those that commit a crime. Dyncorp has been employed in Plan Colombia (part of the war on drugs) and, in 2001, a group of Ecuadorian farmers filed a class-action lawsuit against DynCorp under the Alien Tort Claims Act, the Torture Victim Protection Act and state law claims in US federal court in the District of

Columbia. The plaintiffs claimed that from January to February 2001, DynCorp sprayed herbicide almost daily, in a reckless manner, causing severe health problems (high fever, vomiting, diarrhea, dermatological problems) and the destruction of the food crops and livestock of approximately 10,000 residents of the border region. In addition, the plaintiffs alleged that the toxicity of the fumigant caused the deaths of four infants in this region. Although the usage of herbicides was sanctioned by US congress, Dyncorp never mapped out areas of civilian crops to avoid. When Dyncorp was employed in Bosnia at the turn of the 21st century, it was revealed, by whistle-blower Ben Johnston, that DynCorp employees and supervisors engaged in sex with 12 to 15 year old children, and sold them to each other as slaves. Ben Johnston ended up fired, and later forced into protective custody. According to Johnston, none of the girls were from Bosnia itself, but were kidnapped by DynCorp employees from Russia, Romania and other places. DynCorp has admitted it fired five employees for similar illegal activities, prior to Johnstons charges. In the summer of 2005, the United States Defense department drafted a proposal to prohibit defense contractor involvement in human trafficking for forced prostitution and labor. Several defense contractors, among others, DynCorp, stalled the establishment of a final proposal that would formally prohibit defense contractor involvement in these activities. More allegations of this sort appeared in 2009, involving employees hiring Afghan dancing boys for their pleasure.

6
Chevron Hiring military force for use on native peoples
Ever since attainable petroleum oil was discovered in 1956, in the Niger Delta, Nigeria, companies such as Royal Dutch Shell and Chevron have been making the most of the poor area. In the 70s, the Nigerian government began forcing them to abandon their land to oil companies without consultation, and offering negligible compensation.

The government took control of this land so that it could be distributed to the oil companies. Resistance movements from the native people turned violent in the early 90s, and were threatening to disrupt the operations with mass action. This led to the government declaring that disturbing oil production was an act of treason. Chevron had a military base at their Escravos facility, in the Delta State of Nigeria, which housed over a hundred soldiers. In 1999, when leaders of the Ikiyan people came to negotiate with the soldiers, who were already attacking different villages, they were shot at and up to 62 people were killed by the soldiers, including a seven-year-old girl. The soldiers proceeded to set the villages ablaze, kill livestock and destroy fishing equipment.

5
Blackwater
The biggest security PMC in the world and, like Dyncorp, is a minefield (sometimes literally) of ethical problems. However, treatment of its workers is what will be shown here. Blackwaters employee contracts routinely include clauses such as: 1) If you defy a direct order, for any reason, you will be abruptly terminated and Blackwater will withhold all back salary and bring legal action against your family. 2) If you die or are injured on a mission due to the negligence of Blackwater, you cant sue them. If you sue them, they will withhold all your back salary and bring legal action against you and your family. 3) You can be terminated for any reason whatsoever, and if you sue them for wrongful dismissal they will withhold all your back salary and bring legal action against you and your family.

Basically, their contracting system holds employees in a state of legal servitude until they quit, and if they have a problem with Blackwater they will be sued by them until they go away. An infamous picture has circulated on the Internet of two Blackwater contractors dead, strung up after they dangerously went through Fallujah in a Jeep. Their superiors at Blackwater ordered them to do the run, even though they objected and the US Army had deemed it operationally dangerous, and refused to allow soldiers to enter. Blackwater also failed to provide a heavy gunner who was promised to the men to safeguard their trip. As a result, and the fact they couldnt refuse the order without bankrupting themselves and their families, they ended up like that. Blackwater show that they often ignore safety protocol to fulfill a defense contract and get paid. Though Backwaters main source of controversy are the constant allegations of arms smuggling and connections in the government securing them no-bid contracts.

4
Matthias Rath Alternative treatments for HIV/AIDS
Matthias Rath is a doctor turned vitamin entrepreneur. He runs the Dr. Rath Health Foundation and founded the Dr. Rath Research Institute. He has been called the most powerful crackpot on the Earth due to the large amount of funds he has gotten from investors who can see the value of selling vitamin pills to cure the most serious of ailments. In the UK, his adverts claimed that 90 per cent of patients receiving chemotherapy for cancer die within months of starting treatment, and suggested that three million lives could be saved if cancer patients stopped being treated by conventional medicine. The pharmaceutical industry was deliberately letting people die for financial gain, he explained. These advertisements are highly detrimental to cancer sufferers and cancer research groups, it can be easy to look at someone who has lost all their hair to chemotherapy and think that it is a poison, but it is scientifically proven to fight cancer.

Before advertising standards agencies from all over Europe were finally able to stop some of the dishonest adverts (challenging alternative medicine claims are always difficult due to the very nature of the topic), Rath had made his fortune and walked into South Africa with all the acclaim and wealth he needed to place full page advertisements in newspapers saying The answer to the AIDS epidemic is here. Anti-retroviral drugs were poisonous, and were a conspiracy to kill patients and make money. Tragically, Matthias Rath had taken these ideas to exactly the right place. Thabo Mbeki, the President of South Africa at the time, was well known as an AIDS protester, and to international horror, while people died at the rate of one every two minutes in his country, he gave credence and support to the claims of a small band of campaigners who state that AIDS does not exist, that it is not caused by HIV, that anti-retroviral medication does more harm than good, and so on. So, throughout the turn of the 21st Century, when the AIDS epidemic was at its peak, the South African government was arguing that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, and that anti-retroviral drugs are not useful for patients. They refused to roll out proper treatment programmes, and they refused to accept free donations of drugs. One study estimates that if the South African national government had used anti-retroviral drugs for prevention and treatment at the same rate as the Western Cape province (which defied national policy on the issue), around 171,000 new HIV infections and 343,000 deaths could have been prevented between 1999 and 2007. Rath profited from all this anti-science feeling with his vitamin pills, which sold very well even though they were not supported by any trusted medical research. Matthias is constantly suing medical professionals for slander, when they say that his pills are useless and should not be seen as an alternative to tested medicines.

3
Dow Chemical/Union Carbide Rejecting liability of Bhopal Disaster

Dow Chemical already had a sinister reputation before they acquired Union Carbide, in 2001. Dow Chemical put a lot of money into its development and manufacturing of napalm for the U.S. military, a chemical which was infamous in the Vietnam War for giving people horrific burns and damaging a generation of unborn babies. Union Carbide, though, is directly responsible for the deaths of around 8,000 Indian people in December 1984, and the birth defects that followed. The Bhopal disaster occurred when a pesticide factory in Bhopal, India, owned and operated by Union Carbide Corporation, leaked large and deadly amounts of Methyl isocyanate, a highly poisonous gas. So many people were affected because the workers at the plant were so poor that their families set up homes outside the factory gates. Union Carbide offered $350 million in compensation, the Government of India said that the damages cost $3.3 billion; the Government, in the end, had to settle for $470 million. Throughout the years, UCC have had to fund hospitals and response centers after being nagged by officials, but many still say that what UCC have donated is negligible when compared to the human cost of the disaster. Dow Chemical, who are the wealthier new owners of Union Carbide, have yet to make significant reparations to the people of Bhopal.

2
Siemens Aiding the Final Solution
During World War Two, Siemens was a major player in the Nazification of Germany, rebuilding the army, creating a giant infrastructure: railways, communications and power generation. More significantly for this list, they built factories at the camps Auschwitz and Buchenwald. It was typical for a slave worker to build electrical switches for Siemens in the morning, and be snuffed out in a Siemensmade gas chamber in the afternoon. The allies destroyed four fifths of Siemens operated buildings to destroy the brand of the Nazis; Siemens was seen as an icon of Nazi industry.

Siemens is one of the few companies that still exist today, with the same name as when it exploited Jewish labor in the 40s. They are still paying up in lawsuits filed by holocaust survivors. In a move destined for failure, Siemens tried to trademark the name Zyklon in 2002, with the intent of marketing a series of products under the name. Including gas ovens.

1
Congo Free State Genocide
Profiting from genocide and turning a blind eye to it is one thing, but only one organization has committed what can be called genocide for the sake of industry. Founded in 1885, by Leopold II, King of the Belgians, the Congo Free State garnered control over areas now known as the Congo, Rwanda and Burundi through a non-governmental organization, the Association Internationale Africaine. Leopold had acquired the Congo at the Berlin Conference of 1884, which was to regulate the European colonization of Africa. While under the pretense of conducting humanitarian efforts, e.g. building churches and educating the people, it established an industry of collecting ivory, en masse, using huge amounts of slave labor. Surveyors hired by Leopold found that the greatest riches that the tribes people could access was ivory. Employing the Force Publique (a combination of a police force, tax collector and gang of enforcers, who had been drafted from able-bodied Congolese men to serve the State), the men would troop along rivers finding villages, separating the men, women and children (rape was exceedingly common) and telling the men that if they did not find a certain amount of ivory they would never see their families again, though a lot of the time the families had already died of disease. Collecting ivory became harder once the elephant population had been decimated, so the FP changed tactics to frightening the villagers away and taking any supplies left behind, then burning everything to the ground. The other chief export was rubber, Leopold wanted the workers to be proficient and highly motivated so this meant that failing to meet rubber collection quotas was punishable by death. The officers in charge of a

particular village would have to bring the hands of those who didnt reach their quotas as proof that the officers hadnt used the bullets to hunt for food. Some soldiers cheated by simply cutting of the hand, and leaving them to die, saving ammunition. This even caused small wars between villages; hands had become a valuable item to have, as they can be handed into the officer when they couldnt fill their unrealistic quota. The entire control of the nation was put under very few people and King Leopold was the definite ruler (he ditched the faade of the Association Internationale Africaine soon into his rule). He directly maintained the country more than just about all other dictators before, and since, and it was his policy that for each bullet fired, a hand must be represented as proof it was used to kill a Congolese worker. This was purely for the sake of cost-cutting. He was running the most cost-efficient company the world had seen. The rubber and ivory industry was grinding to a halt due to the lack of motivation for slaves and the dwindling supply of ivory. Leopold was amassing severe debts, until the rubber boom of the 1890s, which was needed for telegraph wire and car tyres. Rubber overtook ivory as the countrys main export, and profits went through the roof. Estimates of the number of deaths that King Leopold II and the Congo Free State caused range from 10 million to 22 million, both valid claims. It also should be noted that, at the time, Africas entire population was between 90 and 133 million people. The Congo Free State ended in 1908, after whispers of the crimes happening in the Congo became shouts. The Congo Reform Movement, which included among its members Mark Twain, Joseph Conrad, Booker T. Washington and Bertrand Russell, led a vigorous international movement against the mistreatment of the Congolese population. The European nations had finally decided that Leopold was abusing the Berlin Treaty, and so it was annexed to Belgium, who retained it until 1960.

Leopold never intended to keep the nation for a long time, it was his twenty year get-rich-quick scheme, and it worked. Leopold died the wealthiest man in Europe after living the high-life, spending the massive profits on his favorite luxuries: expensive homes, yachts and teenage prostitutes. To learn more about the fascinating story of the Congo Free State I recommend watching the BBC Documentary White King, Red Rubber, Black Death

Relation between Law and Morality or Ethics

ANKITA

Law is an enactment made by the state. It is backed by physical coercion. Its breach is punishable by the courts. It represents the will of the state and realizes its purpose. Laws reflect the political, social and economic relationships in the society. It determines rights and duties of the citizens towards one another and towards the state. It is through law that the government fulfils its promises to the people. It reflects the sociological need of society. Law and morality are intimately related to each other. Laws are generally based on the moral principles of society. Both regulate the conduct of the individual in society. They influence each other to a great extent. Laws, to be effective, must represent the moral ideas of the people. But good laws sometimes serve to rouse the moral conscience of the people and create and maintain such conditions as may encourage the growth of morality. Laws regarding prohibition and spread of primary education are examples of this nature.Morality cannot, as a matter of fact, be divorced from politics. The ultimate end of a state is the promotion of general welfare and moral perfection of man. It is the duty of the state to formulate such laws as will elevate the moral standard of the people. The laws of a state thus conform to the prevailing standard of morality. Earlier writers on Political Science never made any distinction between law and morality. Plato's Republic is as good a treatise on politics as on ethics. In ancient India, the term Dharma connoted both law and morality. Law, it is pointed out, is not merely the command of the sovereign, it represents the idea of right or wrong based on the prevalent morality of the people. Moreover, obedience to law depends upon the active support of the moral sentiments of the people. Laws which are not supported by the moral conscience of the people are liable to become dead letters. For example laws regarding Prohibition in India have not succeeded on account of the fact that full moral conscience of the people has not been aroused in favor of such laws. As Green put it, "In attempting to enforce an unpopular law, a government may be doing more harm than good by creating and spreading the habit of disobedience to law. The total cost of such an attempt may well be greater than the social gain."

Although law and morality arc interdependent yet they differ from each other in their content, definiteness and sanction. Some points of distinction between law and morality may be brought out as follows:

Law:
1. Law regulates and controls the external human conduct. It is not concerned with inner motives. A person may be having an evil intention in his or her mind but law does not care for it. Law will move into action only when this evil intention is translated into action and some harm is actually done to another person. 2. Law is universal in a particular society. All the individuals are equally subjected to it. It does not change from man to man. 3. Political laws are precise and definite as there is a regular organ in every state for the formulation of laws. 4. Law is framed and enforced by a determinate political authority. It enjoys the sanction of the state. Disobedience of law is generally followed by physical punishment. The fear of punishment acts as a deterrent to the breach of political law. 5. Law falls within the purview of a subject known as Jurisprudence.

Morality:
1. Morality regulates and controls both the inner motives and the external actions. It is concerned with the whole life of man. The province of law is thus limited as compared with that of morality because law is simply concerned with external actions and docs not take into its fold the inner motives. Morality condemns a person if he or she has some evil intentions but laws are not applicable unless these intentions are manifested externally. 2. Morality is variable. It changes from man to man and from age to age. Every man has his own moral principles. 3. Moral laws lack precision and definiteness as there is no authority to make and enforce them. 4. Morality is neither framed nor enforced by any political authority. It does not enjoy the support of the state. Breach of moral principles is not accompanied by any physical punishment. The only check against the breach of morality is social condemnation or individual conscience. 'Moral actions are a matter of choice of inner conscience of the individual, laws are a matter of compulsion'. 5. Morality is studied under a separate branch of knowledge known as Ethics. We may conclude the discussion in the words of Gilchrist, "The individual moral life manifests itself in manifold ways. The state is the supreme condition of the individual moral life, for without the state no moral life is possible. The state, therefore, regulates other organizations in the common interest. The state, however, has a direct function in relation to morality."

Points to Remember
Laws may be defined as external rules of human conduct backed by the sovereign political authority. Law and morality are intimately related to each other. Laws are generally based on the moral principles of a particular society. Some points of distinction may be brought out as follows: (a) Laws regulate external human conduct whereas morality mainly regulates internal conduct. (b) Laws are universal; morality is variable. (c) Laws are definite and precise while morality is variable. (d) Laws are upheld by the coercive power of the state; morality simply enjoys the support of public opinion or individual conscience. (e) Laws are studied under Jurisprudence but morality is studied under Ethics.

KOHLBERG'S METHOD Kohlberg's (1958a) core sample was comprised of 72 boys, from both middle- and lower-class families in Chicago. They were ages 10, 13, and 16. He later added to his sample younger children, delinquents, and boys and girls from other American cities and from other countries (1963, 1970). The basic interview consists of a series of dilemmas such as the following: Heinz Steals the Drug In Europe, a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $ 1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug-for his wife. Should the husband have done that? (Kohlberg, 1963, p. 19) Kohlberg is not really interested in whether the subject says "yes" or "no" to this dilemma but in the reasoning behind the answer. The interviewer wants to know why the subject thinks Heinz should or should not have stolen the drug. The interview schedule then asks new questions which help one understand the child's reasoning. For example, children are asked if Heinz had a right to steal the drug, if he was violating the druggist's rights, and what sentence the judge should give him once he was caught. Once again, the main concern is with the reasoning behind the answers. The interview then goes on to give more dilemmas in order to get a good sampling of a subject's moral thinking.

Once Kohlberg had classified the various responses into stages, he wanted to know whether his classification was reliable. In particular, he. wanted to know if others would score the protocols in the same way. Other judges independently scored a sample of responses, and he calculated the degree to which all raters agreed. This procedure is called interrater reliability. Kohlberg found these agreements to be high, as he has in his subsequent work, but whenever investigators use Kohlberg's interview, they also should check for interrater reliability before scoring the entire sample.

KOHLBERG'S SIX STAGES

Level 1. Preconventional Morality Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation. Kohlberg's stage 1 is similar to Piaget's first stage of moral thought. The child assumes that powerful authorities hand down a fixed set of rules which he or she must unquestioningly obey. To the Heinz dilemma, the child typically says that Heinz was wrong to steal the drug because "It's against the law," or "It's bad to steal," as if this were all there were to it. When asked to elaborate, the child usually responds in terms of the consequences involved, explaining that stealing is bad "because you'll get punished" (Kohlberg, 1958b). Although the vast majority of children at stage 1 oppose Heinzs theft, it is still possible for a child to support the action and still employ stage 1 reasoning. For example, a child might say, "Heinz can steal it because he asked first and it's not like he stole something big; he won't get punished" (see Rest, 1973). Even though the child agrees with Heinzs action, the reasoning is still stage 1; the concern is with what authorities permit and punish. Kohlberg calls stage 1 thinking "preconventional" because children do not yet speak as members of society. Instead, they see morality as something external to themselves, as that which the big people say they must do. Stage 2. Individualism and Exchange. At this stage children recognize that there is not just one right view that is handed down by the authorities. Different individuals have different viewpoints. "Heinz," they might point out, "might think it's right to take the drug, the druggist would not." Since everything is relative, each person is free to pursue his or her individual interests. One boy said that Heinz might steal the drug if he wanted his wife to live, but that he doesn't have to if he wants to marry someone younger and better-looking (Kohlberg, 1963, p. 24). Another boy said Heinz might steal it because maybe they had children and he might need someone at home to look after them. But maybe he shouldn't steal it because they might put him in prison for more years than he could stand. (Colby and Kauffman. 1983, p. 300)

What is right for Heinz, then, is what meets his own self-interests. You might have noticed that children at both stages 1 and 2 talk about punishment. However, they perceive it differently. At stage 1 punishment is tied up in the child's mind with wrongness; punishment "proves" that disobedience is wrong. At stage 2, in contrast, punishment is simply a risk that one naturally wants to avoid. Although stage 2 respondents sometimes sound amoral, they do have some sense of right action. This is a notion of fair exchange or fair deals. The philosophy is one of returning favors--"If you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." To the Heinz story, subjects often say that Heinz was right to steal the drug because the druggist was unwilling to make a fair deal; he was "trying to rip Heinz off," Or they might say that he should steal for his wife "because she might return the favor some day" (Gibbs et al., 1983, p. 19). Respondents at stage 2 are still said to reason at the preconventional level because they speak as isolated individuals rather than as members of society. They see individuals exchanging favors, but there is still no identification with the values of the family or community. Level II. Conventional Morality Stage 3. Good Interpersonal Relationships. At this stage children--who are by now usually entering their teens--see morality as more than simple deals. They believe that people should live up to the expectations of the family and community and behave in "good" ways. Good behavior means having good motives and interpersonal feelings such as love, empathy, trust, and concern for others. Heinz, they typically argue, was right to steal the drug because "He was a good man for wanting to save her," and "His intentions were good, that of saving the life of someone he loves." Even if Heinz doesn't love his wife, these subjects often say, he should steal the drug because "I don't think any husband should sit back and watch his wife die" (Gibbs et al., 1983, pp. 36-42; Kohlberg, 1958b). If Heinzs motives were good, the druggist's were bad. The druggist, stage 3 subjects emphasize, was "selfish," "greedy," and "only interested in himself, not another life." Sometimes the respondents become so angry with the druggist that they say that he ought to be put in jail (Gibbs et al., 1983, pp. 26-29, 40-42). A typical stage 3 response is that of Don, age 13: It was really the druggist's fault, he was unfair, trying to overcharge and letting someone die. Heinz loved his wife and wanted to save her. I think anyone would. I don't think they would put him in jail. The judge would look at all sides, and see that the druggist was charging too much. (Kohlberg, 1963, p. 25)

We see that Don defines the issue in terms of the actors' character traits and motives. He talks about the loving husband, the unfair druggist, and the understanding judge. His answer deserves the label "conventional "morality" because it assumes that the attitude expressed would be shared by the entire community"anyone" would be right to do what Heinz did (Kohlberg, 1963, p. 25). As mentioned earlier, there are similarities between Kohlberg's first three stages and Piaget's two stages. In both sequences there is a shift from unquestioning obedience to a relativistic outlook and to a concern for good motives. For Kohlberg, however, these shifts occur in three stages rather than two. Stage 4. Maintaining the Social Order. Stage 3 reasoning works best in twoperson relationships with family members or close friends, where one can make a real effort to get to know the other's feelings and needs and try to help. At stage 4, in contrast, the respondent becomes more broadly concerned with society as a whole. Now the emphasis is on obeying laws, respecting authority, and performing one's duties so that the social order is maintained. In response to the Heinz story, many subjects say they understand that Heinz's motives were good, but they cannot condone the theft. What would happen if we all started breaking the laws whenever we felt we had a good reason? The result would be chaos; society couldn't function. As one subject explained, I don't want to sound like Spiro Agnew, law and order and wave the flag, but if everybody did as he wanted to do, set up his own beliefs as to right and wrong, then I think you would have chaos. The only thing I think we have in civilization nowadays is some sort of legal structure which people are sort of bound to follow. [Society needs] a centralizing framework. (Gibbs et al., 1983, pp. 140-41) Because stage 4, subjects make moral decisions from the perspective of society as a whole, they think from a full-fledged member-of-society perspective (Colby and Kohlberg, 1983, p. 27). You will recall that stage 1 children also generally oppose stealing because it breaks the law. Superficially, stage 1 and stage 4 subjects are giving the same response, so we see here why Kohlberg insists that we must probe into the reasoning behind the overt response. Stage 1 children say, "It's wrong to steal" and "It's against the law," but they cannot elaborate any further, except to say that stealing can get a person jailed. Stage 4 respondents, in contrast, have a conception of the function of laws for society as a whole--a conception which far exceeds the grasp of the younger child. Level III. Postconventional Morality

Stage 5. Social Contract and Individual Rights. At stage 4, people want to keep society functioning. However, a smoothly functioning society is not necessarily a good one. A totalitarian society might be well-organized, but it is hardly the moral ideal. At stage 5, people begin to ask, "What makes for a good society?" They begin to think about society in a very theoretical way, stepping back from their own society and considering the rights and values that a society ought to uphold. They then evaluate existing societies in terms of these prior considerations. They are said to take a "prior-to-society" perspective (Colby and Kohlberg, 1983, p. 22). Stage 5 respondents basically believe that a good society is best conceived as a social contract into which people freely enter to work toward the benefit of all They recognize that different social groups within a society will have different values, but they believe that all rational people would agree on two points. First they would all want certain basic rights, such as liberty and life, to be protected Second, they would want some democratic procedures for changing unfair law and for improving society. In response to the Heinz dilemma, stage 5 respondents make it clear that they do not generally favor breaking laws; laws are social contracts that we agree to uphold until we can change them by democratic means. Nevertheless, the wifes right to live is a moral right that must be protected. Thus, stage 5 respondent sometimes defend Heinzs theft in strong language: It is the husband's duty to save his wife. The fact that her life is in danger transcends every other standard you might use to judge his action. Life is more important than property. This young man went on to say that "from a moral standpoint" Heinz should save the life of even a stranger, since to be consistent, the value of a life means any life. When asked if the judge should punish Heinz, he replied: Usually the moral and legal standpoints coincide. Here they conflict. The judge should weight the moral standpoint more heavily but preserve the legal law in punishing Heinz lightly. (Kohlberg, 1976, p. 38) Stage 5 subjects,- then, talk about "morality" and "rights" that take some priority over particular laws. Kohlberg insists, however, that we do not judge people to be at stage 5 merely from their verbal labels. We need to look at their social perspective and mode of reasoning. At stage 4, too, subjects frequently talk about the "right to life," but for them this right is legitimized by the authority of their social or religious group (e.g., by the Bible). Presumably, if their group valued property over life, they would too. At stage 5, in contrast, people are making more of an independent effort to think out what any society ought to value. They often reason, for example, that property has little meaning without life. They are trying

to determine logically what a society ought to be like (Kohlberg, 1981, pp. 21-22; Gibbs et al., 1983, p. 83). Stage 6: Universal Principles. Stage 5 respondents are working toward a conception of the good society. They suggest that we need to (a) protect certain individual rights and (b) settle disputes through democratic processes. However, democratic processes alone do not always result in outcomes that we intuitively sense are just. A majority, for example, may vote for a law that hinders a minority. Thus, Kohlberg believes that there must be a higher stage--stage 6--which defines the principles by which we achieve justice. Kohlberg's conception of justice follows that of the philosophers Kant and Rawls, as well as great moral leaders such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King. According to these people, the principles of justice require us to treat the claims of all parties in an impartial manner, respecting the basic dignity, of all people as individuals. The principles of justice are therefore universal; they apply to all. Thus, for example, we would not vote for a law that aids some people but hurts others. The principles of justice guide us toward decisions based on an equal respect for all. In actual practice, Kohlberg says, we can reach just decisions by looking at a situation through one another's eyes. In the Heinz dilemma, this would mean that all parties--the druggist, Heinz, and his wife--take the roles of the others. To do this in an impartial manner, people can assume a "veil of ignorance" (Rawls, 1971), acting as if they do not know which role they will eventually occupy. If the druggist did this, even he would recognize that life must take priority over property; for he wouldn't want to risk finding himself in the wife's shoes with property valued over life. Thus, they would all agree that the wife must be saved-this would be the fair solution. Such a solution, we must note, requires not only impartiality, but the principle that everyone is given full and equal respect. If the wife were considered of less value than the others, a just solution could not be reached. Until recently, Kohlberg had been scoring some of his subjects at stage 6, but he has temporarily stopped doing so, For one thing, he and other researchers had not been finding subjects who consistently reasoned at this stage. Also, Kohlberg has concluded that his interview dilemmas are not useful for distinguishing between stage 5 and stage 6 thinking. He believes that stage 6 has a clearer and broader conception of universal principles (which include justice as well as individual rights), but feels that his interview fails to draw out this broader understanding. Consequently, he has temporarily dropped stage 6 from his scoring manual, calling it a "theoretical stage" and scoring all postconventional responses as stage 5 (Colby and Kohlberg, 1983, p. 28). Theoretically, one issue that distinguishes stage 5 from stage 6 is civil disobedience. Stage 5 would be more hesitant to endorse civil disobedience

because of its commitment to the social contract and to changing laws through democratic agreements. Only when an individual right is clearly at stake does violating the law seem justified. At stage 6, in contrast, a commitment to justice makes the rationale for civil disobedience stronger and broader. Martin Luther King, for example, argued that laws are only valid insofar as they are grounded in justice, and that a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws. King also recognized, of course, the general need for laws and democratic processes (stages 4 and 5), and he was therefore willing to accept the penalities for his actions. Nevertheless, he believed that the higher principle of justice required civil disobedience (Kohlberg, 198 1, p. 43).
Factors influencing business ethics: Leadership, strategy and performance, individual characteristics, corporate culture and environment Leader is a person who leads the people towards achieving a common goal. Leader can be good or bad, great or small they arise out of the needs and opportunities of a particular time and place. Not all leaders are considered to be perfect in their decision making because each and every decision they make will depend upon the character of person which differ from person to person. Character of a person includes their inborn talents, learned and acquired traits which were imposed upon them by life and experience. Leaders are models and mentors to their followers therefore they follow the path way set by their leaders. In a large organisation the top level managers or CEO are considered to be the executive and supervisory leader. The CEO should have strong commitment towards ethics and ethical conduct and should give a constant leadership in renewing the values of an organisation. They play a key role in creating, maintaining and changing the ethical culture. It is necessary for the leader to set good examples, and follows ethics. One such good leader is JRD Tata who set a good example for his successor and they still follow it. Where there are good leaders there will be good ethical practices in business. Corporate governance: is the set of systems and processes that a company follows to ensure that it is in the best interest of the stake holders. Stakeholders are the shareholders, employees, customers, creditors and the community. Sustainability has three components according to john elkington's triple bottom line concept they are economic, social and environmental. According to elkington the business does not have one single goal of attaining profit but to extend the goal set by adding environmental and social values. Thus sustainability has become the new goal set by the organisation. Environmental perspective: natural resources. Economic perspective: about the future generation. Social perspective: over exploiting of employees and not providing equality in gender employment, caste creed and religion based employment employing child labour. Organisational culture: is the set of shared values, beliefs, goals, norms etc that prevails within an organisation. The organisational culture emphasis on ethics but as it grows it may

change, as in the case of tyco where its organisational culture supports unethical practices. If the company makes huge profits in unethical way then individual who joins the organisation would also have to practice unethical things to survive in the company. As in the case of enron where many executives and managers knew that the company was following some illegal and unethical practices, but the executives and the board of directors did not know how to make the ethical decisions and corporate ethical culture. Thus they fall back and managers have to pay in the form of fines and imprisonment. Business ethics is the application of ethical principle in the organization or business. An organization should produce or make its own ethical cultures, but this ethical culture formulated should be drawn from the concept of what is ethical to all and not what is right for the organization itself. The employees of the organization, also has to follow the same ethical principles. The organisation being ethical will provide certain social responsibilities such as they do not harm the stake holders, the general public and the society as well. "business that treat their employees with dignity and integrity reap rewards in the form of high moral and productivity" (Frederic, Post and Davis). There are three major types of ethical issues that arise in a business they are, face to face ethics, corporate policy ethics and functional area ethics. Face to face ethical issues happen between the employees of an organization in their day to day organizational life. the employee face these ethical conflicts when their personal standards differs from what their job demands. Corporate policy ethical issues happen in the basic operations of a company. The top level management including the board of directors and CEO's are responsible for ethical practices of the organization. Functional area ethics issues arise at all functional levels of the organization. For example in the accounting department, if unfair pressure is put on employees to deliver an audit report which has been altered or not showing current accounts of the organization would be un ethical, as it does not follow the standards and policies set by the organization. Causes for unethical issues: There are many reasons for an organization to follow unethical practices they are personal gain and selfish interest, competitive pressures on profits, business goals and personal goals, cross cultural contradictions. When an employee gives more importance to his greed or concern for his personal gain rather than any other concerns, irrespective of the harm it can bring to the organization is termed as unethical practices that arise due to personal gain and selfish interest. When a company has tough competitors in a limited or static market; it may engage some unethical practices just to be in business or to protect their profits. If the organization uses some unethical means to achieve its goal that is unaccepted by its stakeholders will give rise to ethical issues under business goal and personal goal. Here the organisaiton has set a goal that would conflict with the personal goal of its stake holders. Under such conditions the individuals involved have two choices either to follow the ethical ways of the organization or "blowing the whistle" on organization. Environmental perspective relates to the exploitation of natural resources in business. The company should make sure that the natural resources are not exploited; it should sustain the resources so that the future generation can also enjoy them as we did. One such example is the restriction of fishing in the North Sea, to sustain the availability of diminishing cod fish to the consumers.

Economic perspective of sustainability relates to the economic growth and fall in the society. The short term adjustments made by the companies such as bribes and cartels will only be for a short period of time, it will never achieve a long time sustainability the organizations attitude towards the environment in which it is embedded. If the organization does not pay taxes are said to behave unethically similar in the case of organization that does not give donations to public institutions such as schools, hospitals, police and other justice systems. Social perspectives of sustainability refers to the social future of an organization which it is able to give. Business ethics if practiced properly in an organization would provide scope to its stakeholders (which includes employees, customers, shareholders, bank and other lending institutions, government), personal policy level, social level and internal policy level.

Arguments For and Against Business Ethics

Some people object to the entire notion that ethical standards should be brought into business organizations. They make three general objections. First, they argue that the pursuit of profit in perfectly competitive free markets will, by itself, ensure that the members of a society are served in the most socially beneficial ways. Of course, the assumption that industrial markets are perfectly competitive is highly suspect. Even more, there are several ways of increasing profits that will actually harm society. Producing what the buying public wants may not be the same as producing what the entirety of society needs. The argument is essentially making a normative judgment on the basis of some assumed but unproved moral standards ("people should do whatever will benefit those who participate in markets"). Thus, although the argument tries to show that ethics does not matter, it can do this Business Ethics only by assuming an unproved moral standard that at least appears mistaken. Second, they claim that employees, as "loyal agents," are obligated to serve their employers single-mindedly, in whatever ways will advance the employer's self-interest. As a loyal agent of his or her employer, the manager has a duty to serve his or her employer as the employer would want to be served (if the employer had the agent's expertise). An employer would want to be served in whatever ways will advance his or her self-interests. Therefore, as a loyal agent of his or her employer, the manager has a duty to serve his or her employer in whatever ways will advance the employer's self-interests. But this argument itself rests on an unproven moral standard that the employee has a duty to serve his or her employer and there is no reason to assume that this standard is acceptable. An agent's duties are defined by what is called the law of agency, (i.e., the law that specifies the

duties of persons [agents] who agree to act on behalf of another party and who are authorized by the agreement so to act). Also, agreements to serve another do not automatically justify doing wrong on another's behalf. Third, they say that obeying the law is sufficient for businesses and that business ethics is, essentially, nothing more than obeying the law. However, the law and morality do not always coincide (again, slavery and Nazi Germany are relevant examples). Some laws have nothing to do with morality because they do not involve serious matters. These include parking laws, dress codes, and other laws covering similar matters. Other laws may even violate our moral standards so that they are actually contrary to morality. Thus, none of the arguments for keeping ethics out of business seems forceful. In contrast, there are fairly strong arguments for bringing ethics into business. One argument points out that since ethics should govern all human activity, there is no reason to exempt business activity from ethical scrutiny. Business is a cooperative activity whose very existence requires ethical behavior. Another more developed argument points out that no activity, business included, could be carried out in an ethical vacuum. One interesting argument actually claims that ethical considerations are consistent with business activities such as the pursuit of profit. Indeed, the argument claims that ethical companies are more profitable than other companies. The data is mixed on this question, but even though it cannot demonstrate that ethical behavior is always more profitable, it does clearly show that it is not a drag on profits

Kantianism
Kantianism is the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher born in Knigsberg, Prussia (now Kaliningrad, Russia). The term Kantianism or Kantian is sometimes also used to describe contemporary positions in philosophy of mind, epistemology, and ethics. Kantian universalizability An alternative conception of universalism in ethics rejects golden rules and seeks to anchor all ethical justification in a more formal fundamental universal principle, which does not refer to desires or consent to fix the content of ethics. The most famous and most ambitious attempt to go further is Kants categorical imperative, of which the best known version runs: Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a uni versal law ([1785] 1903: 421). Kant claims to show that all imperatives of duty can be derived from this one imperative as their principle (421). He insists that in such derivations no reference be made either to anyones happiness or desires, consent or agreement, and that the categorical imperative is not a version of a golden rule (which he dismisses as trivial, 430, footnote). Kant's views have been influential: a German scholar recently commented

that "Kant succeeded with his objection almost in invalidating the golden rule and disqualifying it from future discussion in ethics" (Reiner 1983: 274). English language philosophy has been less convinced that Kant undermined golden rule approaches. J.S. Mill was neither the first nor the last to think that Kants claim to derive all principles of duty from the categorical imperative was complete nonsense. He wrote of Kant when he begins to deduce from this precept any of the actual duties of morality, he fails, almost grotesquely, to show that there would be any contradiction, any logical (not to say physical) impossibility, in the adoption by all rational beings of the most outrageously immoral rules of conduct. All he shows is that the consequences of their universal adoption would be such as no one would choose to incur. (1861: 207; original emphasis) There has been widespread scepticism about Kant's supposed claim to show that 'immoral rules of conduct' are self-contradictory. However, he in fact makes the more circumspect modal claim that we should not act on principles which we cannot simultaneously "will as universal laws". An example of such a principle is that of false promising. Kant holds that false promisers who try (incoherently) to will false promising as a universal law thereby will the destruction of the very trust on which their own attempts to promise falsely must rely. Hence when we try to act on such principles Kant holds that we in fact do not will that our maxim (principle) should become a universal law - since this is impossible for us - but rather that its opposite should remain a law universally: we only take the liberty of making an exception to it for ourselves (or even just for this once). ([1785] 1903: 424; original emphasis) In "deriving" an "actual principle of duty" from the categorical imperative, Kant takes it that agents not only seek principles of universal form and cosmopolitan scope which prescribe the same for all, but shun any principles which cannot be "willed for all". Kantian justifications of such principles, unlike golden rule justifications, do not appeal to either the desires, the happiness or the acceptance of those on the receiving end, nor indeed to actual or hypothetical desires of any or of all agents. The distinctive modal character of Kantian universalizability is its appeal to what can be willed for all (rather than to what actually is or hypothetically would be willed by all). It remains a matter of considerable controversy whether a strictly Kantian approach can be used to construct an account of specific principles of duty, virtue or entitlement, or whether it is indeed too formal and minimal to sustain these derivations.

Categorical imperative
The categorical imperative (German: Kategorischer Imperativ) is the central philosophical concept in the deontological moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant. Introduced in Kant's 1785 Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, it may be defined as a way of evaluating motivations for action. According to Kant, human beings simply occupy a special place in creation, and morality can be summed up in one ultimate commandment of reason, or imperative, from which all duties and obligations derive. He defined an imperative as any proposition declaring a certain action (or inaction) to be necessary. Hypothetical imperatives apply to someone dependent on them having certain ends to the meaning:

if I wish to quench my thirst, I must drink something; if I wish to acquire knowledge, I must learn.

A categorical imperative, on the other hand, denotes an absolute, unconditional requirement that asserts its authority in all circumstances, both required and justified as an end in itself. It is best known in its first formulation: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.[1] Kant expressed extreme dissatisfaction with the popular moral philosophy of his day, believing that it could never surpass the level of hypothetical imperatives: a utilitarian says that murder is wrong because it does not maximize good for those involved, but this is irrelevant to people who are concerned only with maximizing the positive outcome for themselves. Consequently, Kant argued, hypothetical moral systems cannot persuade moral action or be regarded as bases for moral judgments against others, because the imperatives on which they are based rely too heavily on subjective considerations. He presented a deontological moral system, based on the demands of the categorical imperative, as an alternative.

Indian values.
INDIAN VALUES, ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS, AND EDUCATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
By Joann Sebastian Morris
1. Cooperation Cooperation is highly valued. The value placed on cooperation is strongly rooted in the past, when cooperation was necessary for the survival of family and group. Because of strong feelings of group solidarity, competition within the group is rare. There is security in being a member of the group and in not being singled out and placed in a position above or below others. Approved behavior includes improving on and competing with ones own past performance, however. The sense of cooperation is so strong in many tribal communities that democracy means consent by consensus, not by majority rule. Agreement and cooperation among tribal members are all-important. This value is often at odds with the competitive spirit emphasized in the dominant society. A common result of the disparity between cooperation and competition is that, under certain circumstances, when a fellow Indian student does not answer a question in class, some Indian children may state they too do not know the answer, even though they might. This practice stems from their noncompetitive culture and concern that other individuals do not lose face. 2. Group Harmony Emphasis is placed on the group and the importance of maintaining harmony within the group. Most Indians have a low ego level and strive for anonymity. They stress the importance of personal orientation (social harmony) rather than task orientation. The needs of the group are considered over those of the individual. This value is often at variance with the concept of rugged individualism. One result of the difference between group and individual emphasis is that internal conflict may result since the accent in most schools in generally on work for personal gain, not on group work. The Indian child may not forge ahead as an independent person and my prefer to work with and for the group. Some educators consider this to be behavior that should be discouraged and modified.

3. Modesty The value of modesty is emphasized. Even when one does well and achieves something, one must remain modest. Boasting and loud behavior that attract attention to oneself are discouraged. Modesty regarding ones physical body is also common among most Indians. Indian children and their parents may not speak freely of their various accomplishments (e.g. traditional Indian dancing: championships or rodeo riding awards won.) Therefore, non-Indians are generally unaware of special achievements. Regarding the matter of physical modesty, many Indian student experience difficulty and embarrassment in physical education classes and similar classes in which students are required to undress in front of others. 4. Dignity Value is placed on respect for an individuals dignity and personal autonomy. People are not meant to be controlled. One is taught not to interfere in the affairs of another. Children are afforded the same respect as adults. Indian parents generally practice noninterference regarding their childs vocation. Indians support the rights of an individual. One does not volunteer advice until it is asked for. A conflict in these essential values is evident in circumstances in which Indians resist the involvement of outsiders in their affairs. They may resent non-Indian attempts to help and give advice particularly in personal matters. Forcing opinions and advice on Indian on such things as careers only causes frustration. 5. Placidity Placidity is valued, as is the ability to remain quiet and still. Silence is comfortable. Most Indians have few nervous mannerisms. Feelings of discomfort are frequently masked in silence to avoid embarrassment of self or others. When ill at ease, Indians observe in silence while inwardly determining what is expected of them. Indians are generally slow to demonstrate signs of anger or other strong emotions. This value may differ sharply from that of the dominant society, which often values action over inaction. This conflict in values often results in Indian people being incorrectly viewed as shy, slow, or backward. The silence of some Indians can also be misconstrued as behavior that snubs, ignores, or appears to be sulking. 6. Patience To have the patience and ability to wait quietly is considered a good quality among Indians. Evidence of this value is apparent in delicate, time-consuming works of art, such as beadwork, quillwork, or sandpainting. Patience might not be valued by others who may have been taught "never to allow grass to grow under ones feet." Educators may press Indian student or parents to make rapid responses and immediate decisions and may become impatient with their slowness and deliberateness of discussion. 7. Generosity Generosity and sharing are greatly valued. Most Indians freely exchange property and food. The respected person is not one with large savings, but rather one who gives generously. Individual ownership of material property exists but is sublimated. Avarice is strongly discouraged. While the concept of sharing is advanced by most cultures, it may come into conflict with the value placed by the dominant society on individual ownership. Some educators fail to recognize and utilize the Indian students desire to share and thus maintain good personal relations with their peers. 8. Indifference to Ownership

Acquiring material goods merely for the sake of ownership of status is not as important as being a good person. This was a value held by many Indians in times past. The person who tried to accumulate goods was often views with suspicion or fear. Vestiges of this value are still seen among Indians today who share what little they have, at time to their own detriment. Holding a "give-away" at which blankets, shawls and numerous other items, including money, are publicly given away to honor others is till a common occurrence, even in urban areas. Because of this traditional outlook, Indians tend not to be status conscious in terms of material goods. Upward social mobility within the dominant non-Indian society is not actively sought. Non-Indians frequently have difficulty understanding and accepting the Indians lack of interest in acquiring material goods. If the students family has an unsteady or nonexistent income, educators may incorrectly feel that economic counseling is in order. 9. Indifference to Saving Traditionally, Indians have not sought to acquire savings accounts, life insurance policies and the like. This attitude results from the past, when natures bounty provided ones needs. Not all food could be saved, although what meat, fruit or fist that could be preserved by salt curing or drying was saved. Most other needs (e.g., food, clothing, shelter, and land) were provided by nature in abundance, and little need existed to consider saving for the future. In Indian society, where sharing was a way of life, emphasis on saving for ones own benefit was unlikely to be found. This value may be at odds with the dominant culture, which teaches one to forgo present use of time and money for grater satisfactions to come. Emphasis on the European industrial viewpoint in most educational systems causes frustration and anxiety for the Indian student and parent, since it conflicts sharply with so may other values honored by Indians (sharing, generosity, and so on). 10. Indifference to Work Ethic The Puritan work ethic is foreign to most Indians. In the past, with nature providing ones needs, littl e need existed to work just for the sake of working. Since material accumulation was not important, one worked to meet immediate, concrete needs. Adherence to a rigid work schedule was traditionally not an Indian practice. Indians often become frustrated when the work ethic is strongly emphasized. The practice of assigning homework or in-class work just for the sake of work runs contrary to Indian values. It is important that Indians understand the value behind any work assigned, whether in school or on the job. 11. Moderation in Speech Talking for the sake of talking is discouraged. In days past n their own society, Indians found it unnecessary to say hello, good-bye, how are you and so on. Even today, many Indians find this type of small talk unimportant. In social interactions Indians emphasize the feeling or emotional component rather than the verbal. Ideas and feelings are conveyed through behavior rather than speech. Many Indians still cover the mouth with the hand while speaking as a sign of respect. Indians often speak slowly, quietly, and deliberately. The power of words in understood: therefore, one speaks carefully, choosing words judiciously. The difference in the degree of verbosity may create a situation in which the Indian does not have a chance to talk at all. It may also cause non-Indians to view Indians as shy, withdrawn, or disinterested. Indians tend to retreat when someone asks too many questions or presses a conversation. Because many Indians do not engage in small talk, non-Indians often consider Indians to be unsociable. 12. Careful Listening Being a good listener is highly valued. Because Indians have developed listening skills they have simultaneously developed a keen sense of perception that quickly detects insincerity. The listening

skills are emphasized, since Indian culture was traditionally passed on orally. Storytelling and oral recitation were important means of recounting tribal history and teaching lessons. Problems may arise if Indian students are taught only in non-Indian ways. Their ability to follow the traditional behavior of remaining quiet and actively listening to others may be affected. This value may be at variance with teaching methods that emphasize speaking over listening and place importance on expressing ones opinion. 13. Careful Observation Most Indians have sharp observational skills and note fine details. Likewise, nonverbal messages and signals, such as facial expressions, gestures, or different tones of voice, are easily perceived. Indians tend to convey and perceive ideas and feelings through behavior. The difference between the use of verbal and nonverbal means of communication may cause Indian students and parents to be labeled erroneously as being shy, backward or disinterested. Their keen observational skills are rarely utilized or encouraged. 14. Permissive Child Rearing Traditional Indian child-rearing practices are labeled permissive in comparison with European standards. This misunderstanding occurs primarily because Indian child rearing is self-exploratory rather than restrictive. Indian children are generally raised in an atmosphere of love. A great deal of attention is lavished on them by a large array of relatives, usually including many surrogate mothers and fathers. The child is usually with relatives in all situations. Indian adults generally lower rather than raise their voices when correcting a child. The Indian child learns to be seen and not heard when adults are present. In-school conflicts may arise since most educators are taught to value the outgoing child. While an Indian child may be showing respect by responding only when called upon, the teacher may interpret the behavior as backward, indifferent, or even sullen. Teachers may also misinterpret and fail to appreciate the Indian childs lack of need to draw attention, either positive or negative, upon himself or herself.

Difference Between Values and Beliefs

Values vs Beliefs Knowing the difference between your beliefs and values can be a little confusing. People use both to guide their actions and behavior and to form their attitudes towards different things, but they are essentially different. Beliefs are the convictions that we generally hold to be true, usually without actual proof or evidence. They are often, but not always connected to religion. Religious beliefs could include a belief that

God created the earth in seven days, or that Jesus was the son of God. Religions other than Christianity also have their own set of beliefs. Non religious beliefs could include: that all people are created equal, which would guide us to treat everyone regardless of sex, race, religion, age, education, status etc with equal respect. Conversely someone might believe that all people are not created equal, which results in racist and sexist values and attitudes. Beliefs are basically assumptions that we make about the world and our values stem from those beliefs. Our values are things that we deem important and can include concepts like equality, honesty, education, effort, perseverance, loyalty, faithfulness, conservation of the environment and many, many other concepts. Our beliefs grow from what we see, hear, experience, read and think about. From these things we develop an opinion that we hold to be true and unmovable at that time. From our beliefs we derive our values, which can either be correct or incorrect when compared with evidence, but nonetheless hold true for us. It is possible for our beliefs and values to differ over time as we encounter evidence or have experiences that challenge our previously held views. Conversely our beliefs and values can also be strengthened by experience or evidence. For example, someone who believes in God might have that belief confirmed when they see a loved one recover from cancer and see it as a miracle delivered from God. However, a person might have their belief in the essential goodness of human beings shaken and changed if they have a truly terrible experience.

Everyone has an internalized system of beliefs and values that they have developed throughout their lives. These may stem from religion or may develop separately to religion.