[CaptainHaplo]

Undersea - you can get this under 500 words easily.

But I am going to counter you on some things and see what you think on this.

2)Should business be allowed to export commodities which have been banned from sale in the United States?
Again, the answer is an emphatic yes. The alternative is to let some other country export the same commodities and simply lose out on the business. Presumably, countries that allow such goods don't see them as being harmful, so we commit no moral crime by providing them unless someone can make an ethical case for us knowing what is best for the rest of the world.

Ok - so if Thailand decides that they want to legalize child pornography, it would be ok for the US to export it? That's what you seem to be saying here. How about meth, or crack, or less "dangerous" drugs like hashish - which are legal in various countries? How about assault rifles - true automatic weapons - should Colt Arms be developing civilian machine guns to sell in other countries?

Many things ethically have no black and white answer.

I don't mean to be offensive or contrarian or critical, but I think a better question would be: "Should a business be allowed to downsize in the face of economic difficulty if it could afford to do otherwise?" In that case the answer from a rule utilitarian perspective becomes much more difficult, and depends upon a number of factors. Is nonprofitability sustainable for an acceptable length of time? Is there some way the resources could be better-directed? Is the potential for investment and growth going to provide greater benefit than downsizing? Who decides whether the risk is worth it? I'm not sure that rule utilitarianism can even answer this question. I think act utilitarianism would be more well suited, and in the case of the second question my answer would be a tenative "no".

Take this out!!! Take this out NOW! Seriously - it may be valid - but your not being asked "what question would be better". This is how you go off on tangents. You have one goal here - answer the question that was asked - nothing more. To say "the question should have been" makes you appear like you know it all better. Yes, you may be right - but the comment and statements after have nothing to do with what you were asked.

This deletion will also likely get you alot closer to that 500 word mark......

Now - a couple of questions.

Is it ethical for a company to outsource - or as it puts it export capital overseas - to help "more" people over there, as compared to the people here? Does a company not have an ethical responsibility to the society that it services?

Regarding unions - is it ethical for a company to oppose unionization entirely, and in the case where organized labor and the business make a contract, who is entitled to make the determination that business finances dictate a breaking of that contract?