No such thing as a free drink?

A good friend of yours who studies at the same university has been complaining for some time to
you that he never has any money. He decides that he needs to go out and find a job, and after
searching for a while, he is offered a job as a bartender in the student bar at your university. He
gladly accepts and begins working three nights a week. You too are pleased, not only because it
means that your friend will have more money, but also because the fact is that you often go to
student bar anyway and so will continue to see him quite frequently despite him having the new
job. The extra money is indeed much welcomed by your friend (especially as he has less time to
spend it now too), and initially he seems to enjoy the work. You are also rather pleased with
developments since you notice that whenever you go up to the bar, your friend always serves you
first regardless of how many people are waiting at the time. After a while though, it becomes
apparent that your friend is enjoying the job rather less. Whenever you see him, he always seems
to have a new story of mild, but annoying treatment at the hands of the bar manager, such as
getting the worst shifts, being repeatedly chosen to do the least popular jobs, and being
reprimanded for the kind of minor blunders which go uncensored for the rest of the staff. This
goes on for a short while, and then one day, when you are in the bar having a drink with some of
your other friends, your friend the bartender does something that you are not quite sure how to
react to. When you go up to pay for a round of four beers for you and your other friends, he
discreetly only charges you for one. Whilst you are slightly uncomfortable with this, you
certainly don't want to get your friend into any kind of trouble by mentioning it. And when you
tell your friends about it, they of course think it is very funny and congratulate you for the cheap
round of drinks! In fact, when the next one of your friends goes up to pay for some drinks, he
turns around and asks you to take his money, so that you can do the same trick for him. Although
you tell him to get his own drinks, your friend the bartender continues to undercharge you
whenever it is your turn to go to the bar. In fact this goes on for a number of visits, until you
resolve to at least say something to him when no one else behind the bar is listening. However,
when you do end up raising the subject he just laughs it off and says, 'Yeah, it's great isn't it?
They'll never notice and you get a cheap night out. Besides, it's only what this place deserves
after the way I've been treated.
 Overall case

In this case the overall story is a good friend of your he studies same university but he
have no money .Thats why he find a job and at last he got a job as a bar tender in his
university. You often go to the bar and your friend always serves you first regardless
many people are waiting .when will you go to pay money your friends undercharge from
you.

Egoism

So in this case if we are think perspective of egoism it is right because we are know egoism is a
one task and by this task benefited one .So this case only benefitted bar tender friend.

Utilitarianism

on the other side if we are think perspective of utilitarianism its wrong because we are know
utilitarianism is a one task but by this task benefitted all. So in this case benefitted one thats why
it is not utilitarianism.
 Blood Diamond

Blood Diamond, a thriller set against the backdrop of the civil war in Sierra Leone in the1990s,
provides a fast-paced, action-fi lied Hollywood-style perspective on the issues surrounding
conflict diamonds Define need by the United Nations as diamonds that originate from areas
controlled by forces or factions opposed to legitimate and internationally recognized
governments conflict diamonds are essentially those mined and traded by rebel military forces in
order to fund conflict in war torn areas, particularly in central and western Africa. The proceeds
from the sale of conflict diamonds go towards purchasing arms and other illegal activities that
sustain rebel militia units. Brutal conflicts in Angola and Sierra Leone brought conflict diamonds
to the United Nations attention and subsequently led to targeted UN sanctions prohibiting the
importing of diamonds originating from rebel sources. It is in this context that the events in the
movie Blood Diamond are situated. The narrative centers around the discovery of a huge pink
diamond by a Sierra Leonean fisherman, Solomon Vandy (played by Djimon Hounsou), who has
been taken from his family and forced to work in the diamond fields. Following an attack by
government troops on the rebel mining camp, Vandy is forced to hide the diamond in the jungle
before being captured and thrown into jail. It is here that he meets Danny Archer (Leonardo
DiCaprio),a cynical Zimbabwean diamond smuggler, linked through a South African mercenary
to a Western diamond company. Archer and Vandy agree an uneasy alliance to retrieve the
diamond, and set off on a perilous journey back into the conflict zone. Blood Diamond does not
go into detail on the issues surrounding conflict diamonds, but uses the issue as a springboard for
developing an exotic action adventure with plenty of thrills and spills and even a slice of
romance in the form of a beautiful American journalist, played by Jennifer Connelly, who Archer
meets along the way. In so doing, it clearly brings a relatively obscure business ethics issues to a
wide mainstream cinema audience in a way that a book, a news segment, or factual documentary
never could. In watching the film, the terrible consequences of civil war, and the role of the
diamond trade in fuelling such conflict, simply cannot be ignored. Critics, however, have also
criticized the fi lm for its rather crude politics and easy moralizing, its simplistic portrayal of the

complex issues involved, and its readiness to reduce African problems to Hollywood-style
solutions. The release of the fi lm also met some controversy within the global diamond industry.
With its Christmas theatrical release in the US coinciding with the main diamond-buying season
in the worlds largest diamond jewellery market, the diamond industry launched an estimated
$15m public-relations and education campaign to combat the movies negative images of the
industry. The World Diamond Council (WDC) created a website, DiamondFacts.org, to
communicate to the public about reforms in the 2000s that led to a substantial decline in the
global trade in conflict diamonds. As a result of a UN-backed initiative called the Kimberley
Process that was launched in 2003, the share of conflict diamonds in the global industry is
estimated to have fallen to less than 1% of total trade from a high of around 4% at the end of the
1990s when Blood Diamond is set. The WDC also distributed information packs for retailers and
customers and hired a crisis-management firm to direct its educational efforts, including full-
page ads in US newspapers such as the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, and USA
Today. In a particularly successful PR coup, the industry enlisted Nelson Mandela to talk about
the economic benefits of diamond mining for the African population. For their part, the studio
behind the fi lms release maintained that it was a fictionalized account set at a particular time in
history, whilst the director, Edward Zwick, was widely reported to have refused to add a
disclaimer requested by the WDC to inform audiences that voluntary reforms had since stamped
out most conflict diamonds. Blood Diamond went on to box office success and even garnered
Oscar nominations for the two male leads. Perhaps most importantly, it also brought some
critical ethical issues into the mainstream. Whilst the movie itself employs little subtlety in
highlighting the problems of conflict diamonds, it shows that business ethics can even prove to
be a hit at the multiplexproviding you are prepared to disguise it as an action adventure and
lace it with a typical Hollywood ending.
 Overall Case

In this case the overall story is Blood diamond a thriller set against the back drop of the
civil war in sierra Leone in the 1990.angola and Sierra Leone brought conflict diamond to
the united nations. In this context that the event in the movie blood diamond are situated
around the discovery of huge pink diamond. A Solomon Vandy who has been taken from
his family and forced to work in the diamond fields government troops attract the revel
mining camp and vandy hide the diamond in the jungle before captured and thrown into
jail. Here he meets dandy ancher. Then through the South American mercenary Western
diamond company.Ancher and vandy agree to retrieve the diamond and set off a perilous
journey seek into the conflict zone.

Utilitarianism

In this case if we are think perspective of utilitarianism it is right. Because government retrieves
the diamond by vandy and archer because we are know that utilitarianism is a one task but by
this task benefitted by all.

Egoism

If we are think perspective of egoism it is wrong. Because egoism is a one task and benefitted
one. And this case benefited one.

Satyam fraud- responsibility issues in India

Rajesh Chhabara, 9 March 2008

The billion dollar fraud at satyam should sound a warning bell for India companies to reassess
their approach to corporate responsibility. It has raised serious questions about how India
companies define and practice corporate responsibility. In January 2009, Satyam computer
services, India fourth largest information technology out-sourcing company, revealed that it had
lied about nearly 1bn of nonexistent cash on its books. Until 2009, Satyam had enjoyed a
reputation as a leader in corporate responsibility among India companies. Its now disgraced
chairman and founder, B. Rambling Raju, used to head the corporate responsibility committee of
the confederation of India industries, Indias business lobby group. The committee mainly
encouraged members to pursue community development programmers. Raju also established the
Satyam Foundation, which the company describes as its corporate social responsibility arm. Its
philanthropy helped satyam win several domestic corporate responsibility awards. Such a narrow
definition of corporate responsibility as charity is common among Indian companies. When
talking about responsible business, most exclude key issues such as transparency, ethics,
governance, anti corruption and accountability to stakeholder. Most list only charity projects as
their corporate responsibility programmers. But the moral outrage that greeted satyam's
revelations has been so strong that it could force Indian companies to re-evaluate their position.
Now they will have to focus on corporate governance and transparency if they are to convince
the public of their ethical credentials. Increased scrutiny India's massive IT outsourcing industry,
which handles sensitive information and data for mostly multinational clients, is particularly
under pressure after the satyam scandal and a disclosure in January 2009 by Wipro., the
countrys third largest technology firm, that the world bank banned it last year for years for
providing improper benefits to bank staff. Incidentally, satyam was blacklisted for eight years by
the world bank in December 2008 for similar charges. Alerted by the scandals, multinational
clients have subsequently introduced greater scrutiny of Indian IT vendors' governance practices.
A senior manager at Wipro, who requested anonymity, says several of the company's clients-
many on the fortune 500 list of the world's biggest corporations have asked recently for detailed
information about its corporate governance arrangements since the satyam scandal broke. India's
top companies, including DLF and unhitch, are also feeling the heat. A report by investment
bank credit Suisse in early 2009 highlights an unusual proportion of related party transactions.
These are transaction with other firms directly or indirectly owned by management personnel,
and so are potential grounds for conflicts of interest. The report says that following the satyam
incident, it is clear that investors should focus on corporate governance issues. While Indian
regulators have pledged to introduce tougher governance rules to prevent a repeat of the satyam
experience, much responsibility lies with Indian companies to raise standards of corporate
responsibility. But already several business leaders and associations have called the satyam fraud
a one off incident, which should not prompt wholesale change. some outsiders feel that the
reputation of Indian business, and Indians ability to attract foreign investment, hang in the
balance in the aftermath of the scandals. Mary longhurst, managing director of uk based public
relations firm epoch strategic communications, who works in India, warns;"if Indian companies
develop a reputation for not taking corporate responsibility seriously, the Indian corporate brand
image will be charged.
 In this case the overall story is Satyam is a computer services .Indians massive
information technology outsourcing industry which handles sensitive information and
data for mostly multinational clients. But satyam scandal discloses the information to
third largest technology firm.

Egoism

In this case if we are think perspective of egoism it is wrong because satyam disclose the
information to the third party. Thats why it is selfishness and we are known that egoism is not
selfishness.

Utilitarianism

In this case if we are think perspective of utilitarianism is right. Because Indian IT out
outsourcing industry handles sensitive information and data for multinational clients and
utilitarianism is a one task but this task benefitted by all. Thats why its utilitarianism.