FCPA: Foreign Corrupt Policy Act
The End-point assessment is based on the principles of utilitarianism. FCPA would be morally sound when the well being of those affected by the law was promoted to the greatest extent practically achievable. Pastin and Hooker believed that the FCPA didn’t sound moral. In 1983 through a study on data based on the exports of the U.S. it was found that the FCPA did not have a negative effect on U.S. trade. That is why Pastin and Hooker believed that the end-point assessment couldn’t be passed by the FCPA. On the other hand, Frederick stated that if U.S. exports decrease then the exports of another country must have increase. Once we consider everyone affected by it, might be entirely neutral. The Rule- assessment test does not pass the FCPA test for Pastin and Hooker because it does not satisfy the Prima Facie rule. The Prima Facie rule occurs when a rule can be overridden by other moral considerations in appropriate circumstances. An example is to give money to a doctor to save your father. Aristotle believes that bribery is wrong. He claims that if someone tries to make someone do something wrong. The hole of the act is wrong regardless if he accepts or not. Robert E. Frederick explains the two cases of bribery. The Central case and the non-central. A central case is when bribery happens voluntarily and is kind of a social practice. In this case the prima facie rule doesn’t apply. Thus, the FCPA does have a clear moral basis since it prohibits a type of bribery that is always morally wrong. On the other hand, in the non-central cases there is no permissible agreement and it does not happen voluntarily. In the non-central cases it is not called bribery but extortion. Extortion is a threat to vital interests. FCPA as it is presently formulated prohibits most types of extortion, it lacks a completely sound moral basis. To sum up, Frederick believes that Pastin and Hooker are incorrect in claiming that the FCPA does not pass either...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document