Nevada Licensed Insurance Agent 4. Each escrow agency shall deposit a corporate surety bond that complies with the provisions of this section or a substitute form of security that complies with the provisions of NRS A.
Hire Writer In this essay I will outline the arguments each side used to support their case, the additional arguments I believe should have been used, and an evaluation of who won the debate and reason why.
The debate was composed of two teams, each of which had 4 members. They each had a 5-minute main speech to prove their arguments, and a 2-minute rebuttal speech to disprove that of their opposing counterparts. The first speaker of the proposition cleverly set the tone for the debate by defining important terms from the motion.
Speaker 1 defined agents as something or someone that acts in behalf of another, and then went on to use the transitive property and identity thesis to state that corporations are moral agents but not moral entities. Yet, the law treats and defines corporations as entities. Just because people are needed to help make decisions does not mean that a corporation is not an entity.
Speaker 1 then mentioned that individuals are moral agents, to confirm the fact that the transitive property makes corporations moral agents because they are built from such. Without the assumption that corporations are not entities, the transitive property makes less sense because a corporation would be defined as one single unit.
Under law, people and corporations are considered legally equal entities The affirmative team had four main arguments that were divided amongst their four speakers. The first speaker stated that there is legal and social precedent that the corporation entity is a fiction, and that it is an association of shareholders for the gain of shareholders solely.
The third speaker reiterated their definition for moral agents as an argument: Finally, their fourth speaker used the CEO of Whole Foods, John Mackey, to support his claim saying that a corporation is a moral agent because their decisions do not affect parts of the corporation but affect it as a whole.
The first speaker not only defined the terms, but also spoke about the legal obligations and precedent that forces companies to maximize profits for shareholder within the confines of the law, without having to weigh in the morality of their decisions.
Speaker 1 said that utilitarianism supports the motion because when the happiness of society in general is measured only individual happiness is aggregated with no regard for the happiness of corporations.
Just because the theory of utilitarianism does not include corporations in their measure of happiness does not mean they are not entities. A dog is an entity, but is not included in this measure either.
Moreover, mentioning that law does not require companies to weigh in morality of their decisions completely limits any argument the affirming side could say with the exception of the transitive property. According to that phrase, corporations are not moral agents under law.
Also, they use the law here to support their argument, while in their definitions the argued against it to disprove corporations as entities. This double purpose use weakens the claims. The debate concluded by leaving the audience with an analogy that was to be used again later on in the debate: Transposed to the actual corporation, the corporation would be the team with the managers and employees as its players, and making or losing money as their wins or losses.
The analogy is valid, with the exception of the last part, considering the existence of shell corporations or solely patent holding companies that do not require any employees.
He mentions that the autonomy of the will is the foundation of morality and that a sense of law is within everyman that can reason. On the other hand, they could have tried to argue that corporations had autonomy of the will because different managers within the company exercise it to make a conglomerate of different decisions, thus giving the company a unique autonomy of the will and making it a moral agent according to Kant.
The third speaker of the proposition starts by delineating the difference between an agent and a moral agent. He states that agents are something or someone that act on behalf of another, while moral agents are the same but with the ability to make decisions upon their own morality.
I find it hard to believe that legal precedents disprove this claim when corporations are legally defined as entities.
Just the fact that the word legal is used weakens the argument, which should have only spoken about precedents trying to avoid any issue of legality. He then goes on to say that because people who are moral agents compose companies, companies act with a moral imperative due to the transitive property.
This is valid, but repeated several times. It should have been built upon to create a stronger argument that legitimized corporations as moral decision-making agents on its own. The fact that a unique combination of moral agents managers make decisions in a company means that a corporation has a unique decision making ability different to that of any other moral agent in existence, thus making it a moral agent within itself.
Lastly, the fourth speaker for the proposition brought it some new points.[Rev. 6/2/ PM] CHAPTER A - ESCROW AGENCIES AND AGENTS. GENERAL PROVISIONS. NRS A Definitions.. LICENSES. NRS A Unlawful to engage in business of administering escrows or act in capacity of escrow agent or escrow agency without license; exceptions..
NRS A Application for initial license or renewal: Requirements; issuance or renewal; . Feb 04, · The Corporation: A Moral Agent? After reading the Business Ethics(Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) article, I thought I would have a better understanding of a corporation from an ethical standpoint.
If society does not see corporations as moral agents, which it doesn’t, then they aren’t. The negative team began by redefining the terms in the motion. She said that a moral agent is a being able of acting with preference to being right or wrong.
It is overwhelming how corporations have embedded a social responsibility in their mission statements and company objectives.
This leaves us with one assertion that is that corporations do have some level of obligation towards society’s morality; however, the corporation itself is not a moral.
Medical Dark Ages Quotes. By Wade Frazier. Revised in July Introduction. Section 1.
Section 2. Section 3. Section 4.
Section 5. Section 6. Section 7. Dec 22, · Are Corporations Moral Agents? Published December 22, (Björnsson and Hess forthcoming) have even argued that corporations are full moral agents, capable of expressing emotions like guilt, and open to the same kinds of blaming .