Who did the Equifax breach harm? How? Why was this harm morally bad?
Ron Lieber presents the ethical issues that arise with the Equifax breach that occurred and who was harmed by it in “Why the Equifax Breach Stings So Bad – The New York Times.” Lieber explains how not only are these big companies not being held accountable for the data that was stolen but he also explains how little regard the companies have for the acts that have occurred. He explains how everyone who does not have all the money at their disposal relies on their credit for big transactions and how these big companies seem to not take great care in protecting the users’ data that is collected to populate their scores. Lieber also brings up the ethical concern behind users not even having the option to opt-out of having their data and information collected and sent to these big credit companies who do not seem to prioritize their security. In this Case Analysis, I will argue that the consequentialism theory shows us that the Equifax breach harmed users who use credit, hold a job, or make payments by not giving the users the option to determine if their information was collected and by not properly securing or informing users that their information was leaked, making this process morally wrong.
In the text “The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits,” Milton Friedman explains the central concept of whether or not businesses have an ethical responsibility to incorporate social concerns into their companies. Friedman focuses on what should be the focus of a business and also explains that social concerns are an individual’s responsibility, not a business’s responsibility. He also makes the assumption that individuals will contribute their personal money to helping social issues, which makes it unnecessary to hold businesses responsible for doing so. Friedman explains that businesses should only have to focus on making the most profit and hold no responsibility for social concerns. Concerns brought up in his text are if businesses and companies should have some social responsibility and if left solely to individuals, will society benefit as much?
Based on the consequentialism theory, it is not ethically correct for companies to not have any social responsibilities integrated into their businesses. The consequentialism theory states that the ethical choice to make is the one that brings “the greater good.” In the case of Friedman, his statements would be ethically incorrect. The amount of individual stockholders that would profit from businesses solely focusing on making more profit would be less than the amount of people and causes that would benefit if companies took on social concerns and responsibilities. On the contrary, it would be most ethical to hold businesses responsible for improving and helping social concerns because on top of businesses helping, individual stockholders could also donate and help with their personal time and money which would result if more individuals and causes benefiting. Another reason why Friedman’s view that companies should solely focus on making the most profit would be unethical is because by eliminating a social concern or responsibilities, companies will not consider who or what gets negatively impacted to generate the most profit for the stockholders. From the consequentialist perspective, more individuals would suffer in order to provide a small amount of individuals a greater profit. Having businesses take into consideration social concerns would provide “the greater good” because society would benefit, stockholders would still receive profit, their companies would be generating wealth and helping the society, and the overall company would be gaining a better reputation which would lead to more supporters and customers.
Friedman also makes the claim that there is no need for businesses to take any responsibility for social concerns because when stockholders receive more profit, they will donate and give their personal time to social concerns they want to. The issue with this statement is that he assumes every stockholder will want to contribute. Regulations and laws help keep individuals from being able to take and take for their own profit. This can be seen by laws against monopoly and laws to preserve planet earth. These types of laws indicate that not everyone will always want to help others, so by leaving the responsibility simply to individuals the amount of social concerns that will be helped is much smaller than if collectively businesses took on social responsibilities. A greater good will be seen if businesses take on social responsibilities, making Friedman’s theory that businesses should simply focus on making the most profit unethical.
In the text “Changing the Social Contract: A Role for Business,” Melvin Anshen explains that ultimately businesses are an organ of society in the way that they serve as a means to convert our raw materials into goods and services that will ultimately improve everyone’s life. He speaks about the idea that businesses need to change and evolve alongside society and times in order to provide the maximum amount of benefits for both the businesses and all of society. Anshen explains that businesses and society share a social contract with one another that allows for each party to gain. In order for societies and businesses to continue to grow and profit for everyone, Anshen claims that there need to be some rules in place to set boundaries and that businesses need to adapt to society and technological changes to prevent events such as riots and protests to align both party’s interests.
Based on the consequentialism theory, Anshen is correct in that it would be most ethical for businesses to invest and take into consideration changes and issues that are occurring in society in order to integrate addressing those issues into their companies. The consequentialism theory looks at what action will be being “the greater good” and in this case, taking an initiative approach and considering society’s needs would bring the most benefits to everyone. By taking the approach described by Anshen, businesses would avoid catastrophic events such as riots and protests that would eventually come about if society’s needs were not met by businesses. While it is not expected for businesses to fix and address every social concern, they should make an effort to hear out what social concerns are present and in what way they can do their part to be socially aware. Being that businesses are an organ of society; they need to take into consideration how they impact society even if it means doing nothing at all. From a consequential perspective, the most ethical action is the one that benefits the most amount of people. Even though change is hard to adapt to and many people resist it, for businesses to continue to organically grow and benefit society they need to take into consideration where we are in society and make environmental and social issues matter to the company as well. If companies, choose to ignore social and environmental issues more people will suffer and from a consequential perspective, this action would not be ethically correct. By not incorporating social and environmental needs, companies will damage their reputation, hinder their employees and their trust in the company since their concerns are not being validated and ultimately it might cause society to perform acts sucks as riots and protests in order to make companies care about their social concerns. This outcome will bring “the greater good” to fewer people and when riots and protests are involved, many times laws are forcibly implemented. At least, by companies choosing to listen to society’s needs, they will have the flexibility to make changes that not only best benefit and help certain social and environmental needs and concerns, but can also leverage ways to best benefit their company at the same time. This way both parties are most benefitted, and this action would result in “the greater good.”
In conclusion, based on the consequentialism theory, it is not ethically correct for companies to solely focus on how they can create the most profit without considering social needs and concerns. Businesses are meant to assist society in growing and not hinder society at the expense of a few. Based on this ethical theory, it would be ethical for businesses to understand and incorporate social needs and concerns into their mission to optimize the amount of people that will benefit. The most ethical action would be the one that brings “the greater good” so solely believing that businesses only needs to focus on generating the most profit as Milton Friedman claims would be unethical. Melvin Anshen understood that businesses need to grow organically with society and that by working together and aligning their social responsibilities and concerns, the greatest amount of people would benefit this way. Businesses need to consider that working in a way that benefits the most amount of people is not only the most ethical approach, but it will also help create more trust for that company and a better reputation in the long run.