College of Business Administration

Social and Ethical Issues in Business

Teddy Drive

GROUP MEMBERS:

Lutz Hannigbrinck
Kai Klippel
Agalia Wieland

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

As all three of us are Germans we had some trouble in the beginning to figure out a way to help the homeless in San Diego. We had seen quite a lot of homeless here but we did not know anything about their problems.

We live at Mission Beach and had often noticed at night some homeless sleeping behind the Lahaina Beach House on the Ocean Front Walk. One night we decided to go there and talk to them. To be honest, we did not feel very comfortable in this situation and it took some courage to actually go there. That night we found an man lying there, covered by a blanket with all his belongings lying around him. He turned out to be very nice and told us a bit about his problems to find a job without a permanent address and vice versa. He also told us that going to an organization and seeking for help was no solution for him as he could never stand living in a shelter. However, he is looking pretty hopeful into his future as a friend of him from his school-days offered him to stay at his place next year.

The next approach we took was to contact Saint Vincent de Paul, an organization for the homeless in San Diego. We contacted Father Joe Carrol who is the founder of this organization. He told us some general information about St.Vincent de Paul and referred us to Rosemary.

During our visit at Saint Vincent de Paul's shelter we felt very touched by the amount of children who were living there temporarily. It made us sad to see in what surroundings they have to grow up. As Christmas is coming up we decided to organize Christmas presents for the children living at the shelter. Saint Vincent is also giving presents to them but these are very 'practical' things like toothbrushes for example. We think that personal presents are very important for a child to feel loved so we decided to buy teddy-bears for them. If a child is living with his parents we give the present to the parent so they have something that they can give to their children on Christmas. First, we contacted several toy stores (TOYS-R-US, KAY-BEE) but the responses were not very encouraging. As these are all national chains we had a bit the impression that the employees were hiding behind their organizations. We heard repeatedly arguments like 'our headquarters is already giving money to this and that charity so we have done our part.'

At the end we found Amazing Toys, which is a toy wholesaler. After several faxes and phone calls they finally decided to help us. They agreed to sell us teddies at manufacturer prices.

So what we had to do was to find a way to raise money to be able to buy the teddies.

So on a sunny Sunday we made a 'teddy-drive' at Ocean Walk at Mission Beach. We had made a banner for this and were able to raise enough awareness to make people stop and listen to us. The response was very positive and we came up with over seventy dollars that afternoon. We also went from door to door in our neighborhood and were able to come up with another fifty dollars. Even young surfers who did not have a job themselves were enthusiastic and were willing to give money.

We think the reason why so many people were willing to give money was that they knew exactly what would happen with their money: With each $1.75 there would be one more homeless child that would get a Christmas present.

So eventually we were able to buy 60 teddies so that all children under 6 years at Saint Vincent will get one teddy at Christmas. We had actually raised more money than we had needed so $15 could be donated directly to Saint Vincent.

The ethical frameworks

Classical Utilitarianism
In the utilitarian framework, actions are measured good or bad depending on their outcome, their consequences. An action is good when it tends to produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people. This is a very absolutist way of measuring because there is an almost endless number of different action that can be taken and already the second best would not be accepted in this ethical framework. In my opinion, classical utilitarianism can be applied when there are limited alternatives but in a real life decision one has the choice of too many alternatives, which cannot all be evaluated.
Such was the case with our project: We were not able to overview all of them; and even if we had been able to, the exact and complete evaluation of all these actions would have taken a tremendous amount of time, life is not long enough for that. Apart from that, consequences cannot be predicted with an 100% probability.

Managerial Utilitarianism
The problems that come with the classical utilitarianism made us focus more on the variant that is more suitable for real life: The managerial utilitarianism demands only adequate reason; the action does not need to be the one and only best, but good enough. This makes the framework applicable, we could chose from the available alternatives, we could effectuate the selective and limited analysis we are only capable of.
And is what we did: looking in our available surrounding for what could produce reasonable good consequences. As we made 55 children and their parents happy with a Christmas gift with decent expenditure of time, effort and energy, we made it happen. We produced an adequate good outcome, and that is why according to managerial utilitarianism our project has been a success.

Deontology
According to this ethical framework, an action is right or wrong independent of its real outcome. Deontology follows eternal rules that are not man-made, but were always there to be discovered. The problem with this framework is how should these rules be discovered and who decides if a rule is eternal and universal and not man-made. There is still the possibility that all these rules are only a myth; and everything considered universal is only created by men.
However, supposed universal rules really exist, we acted according to this formal conception of ethics. We helped those who are in need and made people happy without doing anything immoral or harming others. So our project was right in the deontological sense of the word.

Justice
In order to execute justice, one has to treat equals equally and unequals unequally. This is why we gave the teddy-bears only to those children who are homeless, poor and in need; opposed to considering every child around. Those who are not in need are not equal to the children of St. Vincent de Paul and for this reason they are not treated equally.

Social contract theory
This theory considers morality as a set of rules, governing how people are to treat one another. One of its premises is that rational people will accept these rules for their mutual benefit, on the condition that other people follow these rules as well.
There is no question our Christmas gift drive fits into this framework, because helping less advantaged members of society is something everyone would appreciate, when one himself would be in that less advantaged position. As we would expect somebody to help us, we are to help ourselves when we are in the position to do so. A social contract always requires a donor and somebody in need; it does not work out if everybody is only willing to participate when he wants to take.

Kant's categoric imperative
In his "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals," Kant says: "Act only according to the maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." As we do not want others to be indifferent to us when we might be in need, we are not to be indifferent to those who are in need while we are not. Acting as we did--try to help those who are less advantaged--can easily be adopted as a universal rule and therefore our project is good according to KantŐs categoric imperative.

Return to Professor Dunn's home page.