Mark Pastin and Michael Hooker main focus was to make payments to foreign officials for the purpose of obtaining business and or sales and so on. It was intended that it be judged from an ethical perspective. There are several concerns to include the enforcement has been lousy, the standards and interpretations of the reporting requirements vary widely, the practical necessity of doing this in some countries does not make it moral.
The ethical assessment of laws can be argued in two different views according to Patin and Hooker: First, the end point approach attempts to demonstrate the contribution to general social well being of society (Pastin and Hooker, 1988). Second, the rule assessment of laws approach which main purpose is to look to see if the law is in accord with a code embodying correct ethical rules (Pastin & Hooker, 1988).
Pastin and Hooker also attempt to reclassify the “bribes” by making a parallel argument which contradicts Foreign Corrupt Practices act (Pastin & Hooker, 1988). For example, payments were often extorted from the companies; failure to make the payments might end up with inferior products being purchased; payments were in accordance with local practices.
I think that the moral rules should not allow self interest – On the contrary, the case Pastin mentions promotes it instead. Second, based on of one of Pastin’s examples, the only cases where self interest might be important enough would have to involve dire need in other words in a life threatening situation and would have to be unique situations which does not involve the establishment of a permanent policy (Pastin & Hooker, 1988). Third, the above parallel argument makes the assumption that extortion is not morally objectionable which I think is. In addition, it also does not separate between what is accepted or tolerated and what is held to be moral. If we hold on to our moral standards, we should impose them on to the other nation we do business with. Because,...