LSAT考试——范文连载之（二二）_LSAT
"so long as no laws are broken, there is nothing unethical about doing
whatever you need to do to promote existing products or to create new
products."
discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion
expressed above. support your point of view with reasons and/or examples
from your own experience, observations, or reading.
the arguer asserts that in creating and marketing products, companies act
ethically merely by not violating any laws. although this position is not
wholly insupportable, far more compelling arguments can be made for holding
businesses to higher ethical standards than those required by the letter of
the law.
on the one hand, two colorable arguments can be made for holding business
only to legal standards of conduct. first, imposing a higher ethical duty
can actual harm consumers in the long term. compliance with high ethical
standards can be costly for business, thereby lowering profits and, in
turn, impeding a company s ability to create jobs (for consumers), keep
prices low (for consumers), and so forth. second, limited accountability is
consistent with the "buyer beware" principle that permeates our laws of
contracts and torts, as well as our notion in civil procedure that
plaintiffs carry the burden of proving damage. in other words, the onus
should be on consumers to protect themselves, not on companies to protect
consumers.
on the other hand, several convincing arguments can be made for holding
business to a higher ethical standard. first, in many cases government
regulations that protect consumers lag behind advances in technology. a new
marketing technique made possible by internet technology may be unethical
but nevertheless might not be proscribed by the letter of the laws which
predated the internet. second, enforceability might not extend beyond
geographic borders, consider, for example, the case of "dumping." when
products fail to comply with u.s. regulations, american companies
frequently market-or "dump" such products in third-world countries where
consumer-protection laws are virtually nonexistent. third, moral principles
form the basis of government regulation arid are, therefore, more
fundamental than the law.
in the final analysis, while overburdening businesses with obligations to
consumers may not be a good idea in the extreme, our regulatory system is
not as effective as it should be. therefore, businesses should adhere to a
higher standard of ethics in creating and marketing products than what is
required by the letter of the law.
whatever you need to do to promote existing products or to create new
products."
discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion
expressed above. support your point of view with reasons and/or examples
from your own experience, observations, or reading.
the arguer asserts that in creating and marketing products, companies act
ethically merely by not violating any laws. although this position is not
wholly insupportable, far more compelling arguments can be made for holding
businesses to higher ethical standards than those required by the letter of
the law.
on the one hand, two colorable arguments can be made for holding business
only to legal standards of conduct. first, imposing a higher ethical duty
can actual harm consumers in the long term. compliance with high ethical
standards can be costly for business, thereby lowering profits and, in
turn, impeding a company s ability to create jobs (for consumers), keep
prices low (for consumers), and so forth. second, limited accountability is
consistent with the "buyer beware" principle that permeates our laws of
contracts and torts, as well as our notion in civil procedure that
plaintiffs carry the burden of proving damage. in other words, the onus
should be on consumers to protect themselves, not on companies to protect
consumers.
on the other hand, several convincing arguments can be made for holding
business to a higher ethical standard. first, in many cases government
regulations that protect consumers lag behind advances in technology. a new
marketing technique made possible by internet technology may be unethical
but nevertheless might not be proscribed by the letter of the laws which
predated the internet. second, enforceability might not extend beyond
geographic borders, consider, for example, the case of "dumping." when
products fail to comply with u.s. regulations, american companies
frequently market-or "dump" such products in third-world countries where
consumer-protection laws are virtually nonexistent. third, moral principles
form the basis of government regulation arid are, therefore, more
fundamental than the law.
in the final analysis, while overburdening businesses with obligations to
consumers may not be a good idea in the extreme, our regulatory system is
not as effective as it should be. therefore, businesses should adhere to a
higher standard of ethics in creating and marketing products than what is
required by the letter of the law.