Analysis of an Argument
---------------------------------
Question Stem
-----------------------
The following is an excerpt from a memo written by the head of a governmental department:
“Neither stronger ethics regulations nor stronger enforcement mechanisms are necessary to ensure ethical behavior by companies doing business with this department. We already have a code of ethics that companies doing business with this department are urged to abide by, and virtually all of these companies have agreed to follow it. We also know that the code is relevant to the current business environment because it was approved within the last year, and in direct response to specific violations committed by companies with which we were then working—not in abstract anticipation of potential violations, as so many such codes are.”
Analysis
-----------------------
The argument put forward by the head of the governmental department about the non requirement of stronger ethics regulations and stronger enforcement mechanims is based on weak assumptions and contain serious flaws between what exists in the form of code of ethics and what is required as ethics regulations. In this discussion, I shall expose the flaws of the argument and suggest ways in which the argument could have been persuasive.
The major flaw in the argument is that the head of the governmental department feels that stronger ethics regulations are not needed because the existing code of ethics is sufficient enough. According to him, the code of ethics was formed in direct response to the specific violations committed by companies the department was working within the last year. What he forgets to address is that, the companies with which the department is working now and will work in future may be different and may well need different or broader set of ethics policy. Hence, the existing code of ethics is myopic in nature and lacks a vision of the future.
Another similar flaw in the reasoning of the head is that the code ethics is relevant to the current business environment. What he forgets to take into account is the ever changing business environment. The business needs of the yester year are different from today's and of the coming years. Hence, the need to constantly review the code of ethics.
Moreover, as the head of the department is well aware that violations are a routine, itself puts up a persuasive case for stronger regulations. Not only does this awareness demand stronger regulations but also stronger enforcement policies. Urging the companies to abide by the regulations will not work unless the department leads by example and punishes those who voilate the code of ethics. Hence, the need for stronger enforcement policies.
Owing to all these logical fallacies, the argument put forward the head of the governmental department is not entirely convincing. The argument could have been strengthened if the head of the department mentioned the broad nature of the code of ethics and a will to strongly enforce the ethics policy.
