【无名小组】第一小组第六次作业楼10.21

HeronAlpsUID: 3130247

130 Some people believe that corporations have a responsibility to promote the well-being of the societies and environments in which they operate. Others believe that the only responsibility of corporations, provided they operate within the law, is to make as much money as possible.

和ROUROU, AetDezac, fadotian一起写作点评神马的，最有爱了！加油！

AetDezacUID: 3182074

130 Some people believe that corporations have a responsibility to promote the well-being of the societies and environments in which they operate. Others believe that the only responsibility of corporations, provided they operate within the law, is to make as much money as possible.

Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented.


The first view presented here I agree more with. Though since the time of Adam Smith libertarians have been arguing the power of free market, much can be said to refute the idea of handing over everything to free market. The essential reason I think is that human societies are always something more than markets. In other words, we are not always happy to let market decide everything, especially when considering the observable failure of markets.

Start from the former viewpoint. Admittedly, free market can do many things much better than intentional efforts. Its merit is that it distributes resources extremely efficiently and, by common sense, cause improvement of individuals’ lives most efficiently as well. Therefore it brings forth the thought that every decision should be handed to free market, since it automatically gives the solution. As Adam Smith himself argued in his work, butchers and bakers never intended to make better anyone’s conditions, but buy trying to maximize their own profit, they actually provided goods for us to serve our end.

On the other hand, free market has its boundaries. It may be efficient in allocating material goods or resources, but pursuing material goods and resources does not make up the entire human life. One apt example is our need for clean environment. If corporations pursue only their own profit, the environment would usually be uncared for, because pollution does not generate bad results for corporations in the short term. But anyone with a clear mind can see the value of a healthy environment to us.

Besides, laws can be flawed and unable to cover all the important issues of society. For example, in many nations with legislation defects, food quality may not be controlled well enough, leading to damages of residents’ health even if producers have matched the law perfectly. Since in these nations, the cost of legislation tends to be high as well, corporations should act first to improve food quality or the quality of other concerned products before legislature does. Of course, it may be hard for them to make such decisions, but doubtlessly they bear the responsibility.

Finally, the possibility of failure shadows the fragile mechanics of market, constantly calling for correction from outside. In other words, markets do not always deliver goods in the way we hope it will. The endless inquiry of profit had led United States to Great Depression between the World Wars because prices asked by producers could not match with those expected by consumers. Had these producers given their milk and food to hungry residents of Hoover Huts rather than pouring it in the river, the condition of Americans then would have been much better. Respecting such breakdown of market system, I think corporations need to make some sacrifice for the greater good when real crises hit us.

In sum, though provokers of free market argue that market can solve almost all problems, human societies, as I see it, are always something beyond the distribution of goods and resources. Apart from our need beyond material exchange, the whole system of market is open to risk of failing, and laws may be flawed and unable to protect us from possible consequences from free competition.


还是写了五十分钟……

rourourou_dadaUID: 2985653

130Some people believe that corporations have a responsibility to promote the well-being of the societies and environments in which they operate. Others believe that the only responsibility of corporations, provided they operate within the law, is to make as much money as possible.

It is a more ethic than logical problem that whether corporations have an obligation to promote the well-being of the societies and environment or make as much money as possible. It is no wonder that companies are created for pursuing maximal interests. Yet as a member of the society influencing a lot to the public should take some part of duties when laws lag behind the current development. There is , however, no conflict between promoting overall welfare and making money, which can even bring about a surprising effect on the companies.

Admittedly, the CEOs of the corporations have accountability to make companies have biggest interest and they should create or maximize the profits for the shareholders. Thus the responsibility of the corporations is making money as much as possible. Simultaneously, such purpose will also bring some benefit to the society. When corporations want to have a dominant position of the field, they should offer more products of high quality and even broaden the scale of the companies to gain more profits. The former let our living standard better because the products we buy are safe, while the latter create more jobs for the jobless which otherwise promote the welfare of the society. Thence, the goal of corporations is to make money.

However, as corporations which are the components of the society should have some obligation to promote the well-being of the societies and environments in which they operate. It is known to all, each company has utilized the resources of the society such as labor, environment and so forth. The corporations should pay for these, providing complete welfare for the employees and protecting the environment. And in the other hand, laws usually lag behind the development of the new products, so it is relied on the corporations' ethics to restraint themselves. So, corporations should promote the well-being of the societies and environments.

Promoting the well-being of the societies and making money are not controversial for the corporations to decide. For a long-term interest, they should be responsible for the overall welfare of the society. If a company has a scandal that its products are made relying on the destruction of the environment, more customers will consume it; while when people know that the company create new products as well as relying on a new technology which can make less influence on the environment, it will attract more people to buy because the company has a good reputation. Hence, corporations can maximize the profits and promote the well-being of the societies and environments at the same time.

In conclusion, the action of the corporations to pursue the most interest is not wrong. Yet the corporations should also take over some responsibility to promote the overall welfare of the society. When the company combine the two measures, it is a good perspective for the companies in the long-term interest.


这次掐时间写的，31分钟写完（可是我之前构思了好久），写的时候时间来不及导致逻辑紊乱啊……自己都不知道在写什么……
今天问题可能多多啊……

rourourou_dadaUID: 2985653

2# AetDezac


The first view presented here I agree more with. Though since the time of Adam Smith libertarians have been arguing the power of free market, much can be said to refute the idea of handing over everything to free market. The essential reason I think is that human societies are always something more than markets. In other words, we are not always happy to let market decide everything, especially when considering the observable failure of markets.

Start from the former viewpoint. Admittedly, free market can do many things much better than intentional efforts. Its merit is that it distributes resources extremely efficiently and, by common sense, cause improvement of individuals’ lives most efficiently as well. Therefore it brings forth the thought that every decision should be handed to free market, since it automatically gives the solution. As Adam Smith himself argued in his work, butchers and bakers never intended to make better anyone’s conditions, but buy trying to maximize their own profit, they actually provided goods for us to serve our end.自由市场虽有高效率，但相对公平就不够了，效率与公平的问题

On the other hand, free market has its boundaries. It may be efficient in allocating material goods or resources, but pursuing material goods and resources does not make up the entire human life. One apt example is our need for clean environment. If corporations pursue only their own profit, the environment would usually be uncared for, because pollution does not generate bad results for corporations in the short term. But anyone with a clear mind can see the value of a healthy environment to us.环境污染是企业产生的负的外部效应

Besides, laws can be flawed and unable to cover all the important issues of society. For example, in many nations with legislation defects, food quality may not be controlled well enough, leading to damages of residents’ health even if producers have matched the law perfectly. Since in these nations, the cost of legislation tends to be high as well, corporations should act first to improve food quality or the quality of other concerned products before legislature does. 这句话的逻辑没看懂。立法成本高所以要商人靠自己的道德责任来做事？？Of course, it may be hard for them to make such decisions, but doubtlessly they bear the responsibility.法律的欠缺需要靠道德意识来弥补

Finally, the possibility of failure shadows 模糊了？？the fragile mechanics of market, constantly calling for correction from outside. In other words, markets do not always deliver goods in the way we hope it will. The endless inquiry of profit had led United States to Great Depression between the World Wars because prices asked by producers could not match with those expected by consumers. Had these producers given their milk and food to hungry residents of Hoover Huts rather than pouring it in the river, 生产者追求利益和这个没关系吧，也已追求利益所以能赚钱就不会把牛奶倒了吧，倒了就说明过期了，给别人也不太好吧the condition of Americans then would have been much better. Respecting such breakdown of market system, I think corporations need to make some sacrifice for the greater good when real crises hit us.

In sum, though provokers of free market argue that market can solve almost all problems, human societies, as I see it, are always something beyond the distribution of goods and resources. Apart from our need beyond material exchange, the whole system of market is open to risk of failing, and laws may be flawed and unable to protect us from possible consequences from free competition.

自由市场和题目所说的商人追求更多的钱是不同的
就算是在政府调控的市场上，商人也是追求利益的，所以两者是不等同的
就算写，也要先把这两个关系说明一下，否则算偏题了吧

AetDezacUID: 3182074

@rourou

130Some people believe that corporations have a responsibility to promote the well-being of the societies and environments in which they operate. Others believe that the only responsibility of corporations, provided they operate within the law, is to make as much money as possible.

It is a more ethic than logical problem that whether corporations have an obligation to promote the well-being of the societies and environment or make as much money as possible. It is no wonder that companies are created for pursuing maximal interests. Yet as a member of the society influencing a lot to the public should take some part of duties when laws lag behind the current development. There is , however, no conflict between promoting overall welfare and making money, which can even bring about a surprising effect on the companies.

Admittedly, the CEOs of the corporations have accountability to make companies have biggest interest and they should create or maximize the profits for the shareholders. Thus the responsibility of the corporations is making money as much as possible. Simultaneously, such purpose will also bring some benefit to the society. When corporations want to have a dominant position of the field, they should offer more products of high quality and even broaden the scale of the companies to gain more profits. The former let our living standard better because the products we buy are safe, while the latter create more jobs for the jobless which otherwise【你的意思是不是“反过来”？那个意思可以用in turn表达】 promote the welfare of the society. Thence, the goal of corporations is to make money.

However, as corporations which are the components of the society should have some obligation to promote the well-being of the societies and environments in which they operate. It is known to all, each company has utilized the resources of the society such as labor, environment and so forth. The corporations should pay for these, providing complete welfare for the employees and protecting the environment. And in[on] the other hand, laws usually lag behind the development of the new products, so it is relied on the corporations' ethics to restraint themselves. So, corporations should promote the well-being of the societies and environments.

Promoting the well-being of the societies and making money are not controversial for the corporations to decide. For a long-term interest, they should be responsible for the overall welfare of the society. If a company has a scandal that its products are made relying on the destruction of the environment, more customers will consume it; while when people know that the company create new products as well as relying on a new technology which can make less influence on the environment, it will attract more people to buy because the company has a good reputation. Hence, corporations can maximize the profits and promote the well-being of the societies and environments at the same time.
【为何到最后一点忽然开始写其实两者不矛盾……要不改成它们有时候其实是不矛盾的这样？】

In conclusion, the action of the corporations to pursue the most interest is not wrong. Yet the corporations should also take over some responsibility to promote the overall welfare of the society. When the company combine the two measures, it is a good perspective for the companies in the long-term interest.

HeronAlpsUID: 3130247

130 Some people believe that corporations have a responsibility to promote the well-being of the societies and environments in which they operate. Others believe that the only responsibility of corporations, provided they operate within the law, is to make as much money as possible.

The issue whether the corporations should burden the responsibility to reward the societies and environments is a complex and controversial one. The view changes depending on who debate the issue. On the one hand, some people advocate that the corporations need to promote the well-being of the societies and environments in which they operate. On the other hand, others probably insist that the most significant responsibility of corporations is to make as much money as possible within the legal permission. The complexion of the above issue requires us to consider it on a case-by-case basis. In my point of view, corporations not only should earn money as much as they can, but consider the social responsibility as one of its duties as well.  

First of all, we must admit that the corporations are a kind of organization derived form the framework of free trade and market-oriented economy. The natures of the corporations are to earn money and to benefit the stockholders, therefore it definitely should not be blamed for the profit-chasing in marketplace. If the corporations devote too much to the charity career, which may cause the plummeting of the company’s stocks, who will be responsible for such net loss of its investors? To be honest, maintaining the profit of the corporation is the upmost obligation, for such behavior ensures the benefits of ordinary investors, who mainly are also blue-collar workers.

Second, however, if the corporations absolutely ignore its duty of society and environment, the consequence would deteriorate its own profits in a long run. Considering the example of Mexico Bay oil leakage, BP cause such catastrophe largely because its negligence of environmental protection and regulation of work. This accident will cost BP billions of dollars to compensate the residents around the bay, moreover BP may not be permitted to exploit any region of ocean nearby the American coast. In short, the corporation, especially those may cause the damaging pollution, must operate consider the social and environmental duty into account.

Third, the promotion of the well-being of society and environment also promote the prosperity of the corporation in return. Because any corporation needs to build its career on the circumstances, both socially and environmentally. Hard to imagine how can a corporation thrive in a society full of people sustain their lives by pensions. The success of the commercial based on the high-standard of the public in the society. As the result, the corporations should reward the masses, not only with the money and goods, but only the help of acquiring wealth by their own.

In conclusion, due to the analysis and reasons mentioned above, the corporation needs to balance the proportion of thriving and rewarding. And, only in that way can the corporation enjoy the permanent development in a prosperous society and fine environment.

HeronAlpsUID: 3130247

It is a more ethic than logical problem that whether corporations have an obligation to promote the well-being of the societies and environment or make as much money as possible. It is no wonder that companies are created for pursuing maximal interests. Yet as a member of the society influencing a lot to the public should take some part of duties when laws lag behind the current development. There is , however, no conflict between promoting overall welfare and making money, which can even bring about a surprising effect on the companies.

Admittedly, the CEOs of the corporations have accountability to make companies have biggest interest and they should create or maximize the profits for the shareholders. Thus the responsibility of the corporations is making money as much as possible. Simultaneously, such purpose will also bring some benefit to the society. When corporations want to have a dominant position of the field, they should offer more products of high quality and even broaden the scale of the companies to gain more profits. The former let our living standard better because the products we buy are safe, while the latter create more jobs for the jobless which otherwise promote the welfare of the society. Thence, the goal of corporations is to make money.（第一个观点和我一样，但是表达比我好多了，赞！）
However, as corporations which are the components of the society should have some obligation to promote the well-being of the societies and environments in which they operate. It is known to all, each company has utilized the resources of the society such as labor, environment and so forth. The corporations should pay for these, providing complete welfare for the employees and protecting the environment. And in the other hand, laws usually lag behind the development of the new products, so it is relied on the corporations' ethics to restraint themselves. （这句话和论点似乎没关系呀。为什么法律滞后，企业就要promote the well-being呀？）So, corporations should promote the well-being of the societies and environments.

Promoting the well-being of the societies and making money are not controversial for the corporations to decide. For a long-term interest, they should be responsible for the overall welfare of the society. If a company has a scandal that its products are made relying on the destruction of the environment, more customers will consume it（这句逻辑不通吧？是LESS吧）; while when people know that the company create new products as well as relying on a new technology which can make less influence on the environment, it will attract more people to buy because the company has a good reputation.（人们的环保意识，还是让位于价格和品质吧？这点没有说服力） Hence, corporations can maximize the profits and promote the well-being of the societies and environments at the same time.

In conclusion, the action of the corporations to pursue the most interest is not wrong. Yet the corporations should also take over some responsibility to promote the overall welfare of the society. When the company combine the two measures, it is a good perspective for the companies in the long-term interest.

rourourou_dadaUID: 2985653

6# HeronAlps


The issue whether the corporations should burden the responsibility to reward the societies and environments is a complex and controversial one. The view changes depending on who debate the issue. On the one hand, some people advocate that the corporations need to promote the well-being of the societies and environments in which they operate. On the other hand, others probably insist that the most significant responsibility of corporations is to make as much money as possible within the legal permission. The complexion of the above issue requires us to consider it on a case-by-case basis. In my point of view, corporations not only should earn money as much as they can, but consider the social responsibility as one of its duties as well.  

First of all, we must admit that the corporations are a kind of organization derived form the framework of free trade and market-oriented economy. The natures of the corporations are to earn money and to benefit the stockholders, therefore it definitely should not be blamed for the profit-chasing in marketplace. If the corporations devote too much to the charity career, which may cause the plummeting of the company’s stocks, who will be responsible for such net loss of its investors? To be honest, maintaining the profit of the corporation is the upmost obligation, for such behavior ensures the benefits of ordinary investors, who mainly are also blue-collar workers.这里可以扩展说明一下

Second, however, if the corporations absolutely ignore its duty of society and environment, the consequence would deteriorate its own profits in a long run. Considering the example of Mexico Bay oil leakage, BP cause such catastrophe largely because its negligence of environmental protection and regulation of work. This accident will cost BP billions of dollars to compensate the residents around the bay, moreover BP may not be permitted to exploit any region of ocean nearby the American coast. In short, the corporation, especially those may cause the damaging pollution, must operate consider the social and environmental duty into account.

Third, the promotion of the well-being of society and environment also promote the prosperity of the corporation in return. Because any corporation needs to build its career on the circumstances, both socially and environmentally. Hard to imagine how can a corporation thrive in a society full of people sustain their lives by pensions. 补助其实和企业没有关系吧，是政府的职责The success of the commercial based on the high-standard of the public in the society. As the result, the corporations should reward the masses, not only with the money and goods, but only the help of acquiring wealth by their own.这对企业要求有点高

In conclusion, due to the analysis and reasons mentioned above, the corporation needs to balance the proportion of thriving and rewarding. And, only in that way can the corporation enjoy the permanent development in a prosperous society and fine environment.

掐时间写的，很好啊~~~