2. Explain how Aaron Beam might have used the “loyal agent’s argument” to defend his actions.
The “loyal agent’s argument” can be paraphrased as follows:
a) As a loyal agent of his or her employer, the manager has a duty to serve the employer as the employer would want to be served.
b) An employer would want to be served in whatever ways will advance his or her interests.
c) Therefore, as a loyal agent of the employer, the manager has a duty to serve the employer in whatever ways will advance the employer’s interests.
Based on the above statement, Beam can use this argument to defend his action. In this case, Scrushy told Beam that he should do whatever he could to make their financial reports look better. Although Beam was reluctant at first, he felt both pressured and awed by Scrushy and so eventually did some manipulation to the financial reports by capitalizing certain expenses. By doing this, their net profits look larger and can attract new potential investors. In this case, it is clear that Beam’s action was done as instructed by his employer, Scrushy. Therefore, he can use this argument to defend his action by claiming: “I had to do it because I had a duty to serve my employer by following his orders.” This reason aligns with this argument that is the manager has a duty to serve the employer in whatever ways will advance the employer’s interests.
Do you think that in Aaron Beam’s situation the “loyal agent’s argument” might have been valid? Explain.
In this situation, the “loyal agent’s argument” is not valid or cannot be used to defend Beam’s action. In our opinion, this argument has several questionable assumptions:
a) The argument tries to show that ethics does not matter by assuming an unproved moral standard. We believe that the manager should serve the manager in whatever moral and legal way the employer wants to be served, not the manager should serve the employer in whatever way the employer wants to be served. In...