【简介】感谢网友“雕龙文库”参与投稿，这里小编给大家分享一些，方便大家学习。
59. Juvenile delinquency is clearly a serious social problem. Whether businesses must
become more involved in helping to prevent the problem depends, however, on the
specific business--whether it is culpable in creating the problem and whether its owners
collective conscience calls for such involvement.
Although parents and schools have the most direct influence on children,
businesses nonetheless exert a strong, and often negative, influence on juveniles by way
of their advertisements and of the goods they choose to produce. For example, cigarette
advertisements aimed at young people, music and clothing that legitimize gang sub-
culture, and toys depicting violence, all sanction juvenile delinquency. In such cases
perhaps the business should be obligated to mitigate its own harmful actions―for
example, by sponsoring community youth organizations or by producing public-interest
ads.
In other cases, however, imposing on a business a duty to help solve juvenile
delinquency or any other social problem seems impractical and unfair. Some would
argue that because business success depends on community support, businesses have an
ethical duty to give back to the community―by donating money, facilities, or services
to social programs. Many successful businesses―such as Mrs. Fields. Ben Jerrys,
and Timberland―have embraced this philosophy. But how far should such a duty
extend, and is it fair to impose a special duty on businesses to help prevent one specific
problem, such as juvenile delinquency? Moreover, businesses already serve their
communities by enhancing the local tax base and by providing jobs, goods and services.
In the final analysis, while businesses are clearly in a position to influence young
people, whether they should help solve juvenile delinquency is perhaps a decision best
left to the collective conscience of each business.
59. Juvenile delinquency is clearly a serious social problem. Whether businesses must
become more involved in helping to prevent the problem depends, however, on the
specific business--whether it is culpable in creating the problem and whether its owners
collective conscience calls for such involvement.
Although parents and schools have the most direct influence on children,
businesses nonetheless exert a strong, and often negative, influence on juveniles by way
of their advertisements and of the goods they choose to produce. For example, cigarette
advertisements aimed at young people, music and clothing that legitimize gang sub-
culture, and toys depicting violence, all sanction juvenile delinquency. In such cases
perhaps the business should be obligated to mitigate its own harmful actions―for
example, by sponsoring community youth organizations or by producing public-interest
ads.
In other cases, however, imposing on a business a duty to help solve juvenile
delinquency or any other social problem seems impractical and unfair. Some would
argue that because business success depends on community support, businesses have an
ethical duty to give back to the community―by donating money, facilities, or services
to social programs. Many successful businesses―such as Mrs. Fields. Ben Jerrys,
and Timberland―have embraced this philosophy. But how far should such a duty
extend, and is it fair to impose a special duty on businesses to help prevent one specific
problem, such as juvenile delinquency? Moreover, businesses already serve their
communities by enhancing the local tax base and by providing jobs, goods and services.
In the final analysis, while businesses are clearly in a position to influence young
people, whether they should help solve juvenile delinquency is perhaps a decision best
left to the collective conscience of each business.
