In my business ethics class I had to read an article titled “The Fourth wave: The Ethics of Corporate Downsizing” Written by John Orlando. The piece was particularly interesting to me because I went in to the reading as most do, with an opinion already formulated about whether corporate downsizing is a morally wrong or right decision. Although I had not done much research or reading on the topic before so I went in with an open mind that allowed me to look objectively at facts and different arguments rather than criticizing every view based on an already tight formulated opinion.
The context of this particular article is that the writer feels compelled to enter his logical arguments and opinions into a topic that has previously been talked about but never looked at from all sides. He mentions in the writing how the issue has come up many times but is often dismissed by fellow philosophers and never completely thought out, well prepared, and argued completely from all points of view. Therefore he felt it was his calling to explain his ruling out of other arguments such as one that states business owners have a fiduciary responsibility, only to the shareholders and not the workers as well. Which if were true would mean that corporate downsizing is not a moral issue but rather a financial or dutiful one. He argues that it is indeed a moral issue, gives all sides and arguments for or against the claims that it isn’t or can’t possibly be, and logically explains why his point of view should be adopted by the reader.
Going into the assignment I didn’t know much about the writer of the article. The professor just assigned us the article to read without really elaborating on any of the writer’s credentials or achievements. I was, however, able to form what I felt was a solid opinion of the writers knowledge on the topic by observing how well thought out, explained, and prepared the writer was for every side of each argument.
Not only does the article discuss whether or not corporate downsizing should be considered a moral issue, but it also discusses the place of this issue in business ethics classes. The writer imparts his opinion on the reader from all aspects of the arguments at hand successfully quelling any doubts you may have about a particular side of an argument. I think the writers intended audience is not only fellow philosophers or people with moral questions about corporate downsizing but also students like me who may have opinions on the matter but haven’t full thought the issue out.
In my opinion the writer did an extremely good job at conveying his view on the argument accurately and intelligently. When I finished reading the article I not only felt more informed about the subject as a whole but I felt that I could more confidently back my opinion knowing many more sides of the argument and having more faith in my knowledge on the subject. I did feel that the article could have been improved in certain ways. For instance; while I do believe a large part of the writers intended audience is fellow philosophers, I also believe it was also meant to inform students like me. In that light I believe the writer used many words and terms that were obscure and uncommon, such as the word “fiduciary”, which I used earlier in this blog, making comprehension and little tough at times. I also believe the writer’s style was a little hard to follow. For example, his Kafkaesque usage of dashes, to insert thoughts in the middle of sentences.
All in all I believe the writer accurately and intelligently conveyed his view on the issue. Minor improvements aside, I think he did an excellent job of showing all sides to the reader, and persuading the audience to see the issue from his point of view.
No comments:
Post a Comment