Introduction
Milton Friedman believed and argued that business people take care of the responsibilities that affect them in their day to day life. However, they don't care the impact their businesses have on the society so long as their market is growing and increasing their profits. The main reason why he argued this is because believing in a reduced impact that the government has and a free-market. He found that government solutions to problems are no better because its solutions are even worse than the problem itself. As a result of his belief, he believed that the government should keep off the businesses activities because of its greed and the quest of people to have access to power. Additionally, he thought in a free society which is very difficult to maintain among people because most of them are selfish. A free market requires selflessness and great ordinance which most people lack. It, in turn, led to his argument that the social responsibility of any business is to make more profits each day. The people who run the companies care less about the impact of their business activities to the society so long as their business grows.
Milton Friedman's Argument
Friedman believed that the most significant aim of any business is to make as much money as possible for its owners and the stakeholders. It can only be possible if it hand reduces the cost of the expenses such as minimizing the potentially harmful effects the business might have to the social lives such as pollution (Friedman, 2007). His statement that "the social responsibility of a business is to increase its profits" sounds cruel. But from my perspective, this might be true. Businesses stakeholders do anything they can to ensure that their businesses become large and more prominent every day. They don't care what their companies do or how they affect others. Some of them don't care about the safety of the workers that help them make the profits. Others care less about where they dump their waste products. They dispose of them in rivers, air pollution and a lot of noise pollution, all these because they want to reduce the cost of production and increase the output. In the third world countries, some business owners employ young kids because they will pay them less amount compared to what could have been paid to the right person for the job (Carroll & Shabana, 2010). The act deprives young children the right to access education, and they are physically abused. All the laws make the society uncivil and potentially unpleasant to live. Friedman was having no problem with businesses making profits so long as they maintain a civilized society. I do not doubt that what he was advocating is for the economists to take the social responsibility at an upper hand concerning making profits in their businesses.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In his argument, he claims that businesspeople have social responsibilities in their private life, but they don't give a damn about the social responsibilities when it comes to their profession. He was urging people who run businesses to have the same concerns to the social framework the way they have when it comes to dealing with their private lives. They should be concerned about the social interests such as having effective means to manage the external externalities example pollution (Dahlsrud, 2008). Although what Friedman was advocating is very hard in real life situation, a framework of law can be established to hold businesses liable for the pollutions they cause. Companies can continue to maximize the profits they make, but the gains the firms make take account for effects it has to the society such as taking care of the pollution costs.
Robert Solomon Argument
Robert Solomon claimed that Milton Friedman was asking for moral neutrality. In his argument, Solomon believes that to defend a liberal conception; people are supposed to leave their personal and religious principles at the moment they are thinking about public affairs so that they can remain loyal citizens (Anquetil, 2013). Hence, people from different religious beliefs and moral differences cannot have the same conclusion when it comes to the matter of the public. Secondly, he claims that moral neutrality cannot be achieved through tolerance. Thus, executives who run businesses should lead their activities based on their moral views. The society should expect strong ethical principles from the people orienting their behaviors and decisions.
In his view, Robert Solomon believes that the game of maximizing profits is changed. Optimizing profits sides long along with the moral purposes of the executives. Businesses produce products and services which are meant to satisfy different kinds of needs for people with different beliefs. Secondly, they are the sole organizations that make a profit. Also, there are many works in companies and business organizations to develop their talents, and others search their spiritual satisfaction through work. Thus businesses hold dual purposes by providing services and products needed by people as well as satisfying different kinds of needs that people have. Additionally, enterprises promote the development of virtues hence their purpose is beyond profit generation. Companies and businesses should not have the same use as the government but what drives them is the most necessary part to consider. Because enterprises involve a lot of people; workers, distributors, shareholders, customers and many others in the different departments, it cannot be able to choose between profit and moral if it was asked.
My Opinion
Milton Friedman was right about the primary role of businesses. Their social purpose is to make profits, grow bigger and make much money as possible for its stakeholders. Individuals who run these corporations do not care about what impact their business have or how they affect the social life of other people. From my point of view, this is the main reason why he claims that the business owners care about the social responsibilities of their social life, but they don't take care of the same social responsibilities when it comes to running their businesses. The way he was proposing was right. Companies and firms should be allowed to make as much profit as they can, but in return, legislations that will demand the benefits created by the businesses to be used to take care of the externalities from their companies should be set. The enforcement of these legislations would make the business owners responsible for the social life even in their professionals.
Conclusion
Milton Friedman was right in claiming that the sole purpose of any business is to make as much profit as possible while on the other hand reduce the cost of production and expenses. His idea to have legislations that will make businesses responsible for their externalities can be faced with a lot of rejection because the prominent leaders in the government own a lot of companies and they cannot accept a situation where they would lose their profits. Also, people running small businesses won't be making any or minimal benefits.
References
Anquetil, A. (2013). Business ethics and moral skepticism. RIMHE: Revue Interdisciplinary Management, Homme & Entreprise , (5), 3-14.
Carroll, A. B., & Shabana, K. M. (2010). The business case for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice. International journal of management reviews , 12 (1), 85-105.
Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate social responsibility and environmental management , 15 (1), 1-13.
Friedman, M. (2007). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. Corporate ethics and corporate governance , 173-178.
