Business Ethics: Martha Stewart, Case Study Example

There are two theories defining business ethics in modern societies. They pertain to the assumption that business ought to be conducted beyond ethical standards, restraints and ideals (theory of amorality). Secondly, business actions are judged by general ethical standards within the society (theory of moral unity). A number of other philosophical assumptions based on religious, personal and even political beliefs of moral ethnics prevail within the business science.  In the Martha Stewart case study it would appear that that theory, which guided her action resulting both in criminal charges and indictment emerged from the amorality paradigm. Her business was conducted beyond ethical standards restraints and ideals of others. Therefore I find her not guilty of a crime

My personal opinion on the issue is that once the actions of business do not exploit consumers severely there is no need for moral judgement to intercede in passing sanctions. Ultimately, in Martha Stewart’s non-disclosure and apparent falsification of records pertaining to trading transactions the man on the street was not affected financially. It was the government that offers very little to the poor which appeared to have suffered a lost (The Trial of Martha Stewart).

As such, in my Judgement of the case the decision was based on prejudice and the US attorney and securities did not empathetic concerning this case. As arguments might have been they were preoccupied in bringing to disgrace a successful woman. Who was affected by her non declaration of trading? Importantly, no man on the street, but why a business woman should engage in such practices. If further investigations into business practices among male business men, were to be conducted the same undermining regarding declaration of trading is evidence. None are brought to justice.

No! I do not believe with the jury’s that Martha Stewart was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Perhaps, according to the legal system the law may find her guilty since legally she ought to have declared her trading and she did not. When taken from the perspective of business ethics the penalty as well as guilty verdict could have been waived based on the premise that she did no harm to anyone. The point is that the justice system in America when it wants to free someone it find a loophole in the law to do so. There are several instances when this is done from time to time. So there is no beyond reasonable doubt in this case as it is in the many cases that were overruled when the crime was blatantly committed and the accused clearly guilty.

No they weren’t neither those of her accused accomplices Peter and Douglas. In America people murder and are placed on house arrest, no sentencing neither probation. Martha Stewart’s punishment was punishment and did not murder anyone. Besides, being imprisoned she had to work for 12cents an hour. Why? The money recovered from sentencing and indictment would not be filtered down towards improvements in health care neither social services. Hence, where is the business morality guiding measures taken against another business entity since government is business? It could be asked by what type of morals government businesses function. Is it through amorality or morality? While businesses ought to be judged by moral standards established within the society and be in alignment with them, how amoral was Martha Stewart’s business interactions requiring such exposure and legal action?

Works cited

The Trial of Martha Stewart. Business ethics. Chapter 7. PDF