Response

I think some very valid points have been brought up.

Chris brings a very interesting point in saying that regulatory bodies are less efficient in enforcing ethics due to the fact that punishment and regulation is dealt out after the violation has occured. Although I believe this to be true, I don't think regulators can be off the hook so easy. I think there are some instances where the regulatory body doesn't necessarily have to wait until after the fact of the violation. Afterall, this is why regulations are present, to prevent gross misconducts of unethical acts from occuring. Is it necessarily true that something needs to happen before a rule is established to prohibit the action from ever happening again? An example would be the set environmental standards set on industrial firms. Most of the time, these firms are restricted and prohibited from going past specified PPM values before issued a fine.

I'm not saying that it's completely possible for regulators to see everything coming before it happens. But I also believe that regulators should have enough knowledge of the field that they cover in order to establish basic limits and controls that can be later improved upon. Of course the future always presents regulators with more special case scenarios that require fine tuning of legislation, but I believe the regulator should have some kind of ability to check up on businesses and hold them accountable to acceptable conduct. If such a setting didn't exist where regulators couldn't actively pursue corporations and enforce such laws, then there would be no need for regulations to begin with as there would be no one to enforce them. This is why in the Canadian legal system, there is a set body designated to creating the law or regulation, and another body that is designated to enforcing them.

The bottom line is that people are greedy, and self centered by nature. If given the opportunity without the chance of being caught, people will most definitely participate in unethical behavior to get ahead. This is partially because there is no set base of values that has been globalized. So people can simply reason that their values are different from the next person's.

I think Ryan brings up a really good point as well that I agree with. Too often individuals aren't held liable to their actions just because they claim the excuse of no relative power. My ethics prof put it very well in a famous quote that he recited in class, "The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing." I think we all have a stake in the grand picture of things, and that it needs to start with at least one person to make a ripple effect. And like Ryan said, it is dangerous for someone to be the whistleblower in most cases and often suffer negative consequences because of it. But I believe that these consequences have to be endured courageously for the betterment of the entire community. If I lose my job because I refuse to mix an addictive substance into a popular chocolate snack, then I have to accept those lower consequences in comparison to the great effect that my actions would have had. This is one of the reasons why I love the rules when it comes to auditing. If you're found auditing in an unethical manner (ie: hiding numbers or readjusting them to look favorable for the company when they're really not), then you're just as liable as the company. It doesn't matter what they told you to do or what kind of agenda they had, the onus comes to you to be ethical in your profession. I love the fact that auditors have to be so careful about that.