assignment代写：最大的善行原则

assignment代写：最大的善行原则

最大的仁慈的原则,人们应该行动在某种程度上,他们的决定或行动确保所有利益相关者的最大利益。这道德原则,公司必须采取行动的方式,每个人都应该得到最大利益并不适用于企业米尔顿•弗里德曼(Milton Friedman)说。参数的地方,增加利润是企业的唯一责任,正是因为这一原因,公司让人们工作和维护基础设施有利于自己(戈登,2002)。公司设立的所有者是谁观察公司的结构,必要的纳税,了解公司运行所需的立法,和采购客户等等。不过,该公司没有被忽视的权利,和它对利益相关者与安然公司交易的投资者和公众。公司的成分应该是满足,但所有的利益相关者必须是平衡的。

assignment代写：最大的善行原则
每最大的善行的原则,将为公司不可能满足所有利益相关者的需要。所有财务代理公司,如会计师、财务顾问等将能够做出决定,这样所有投资者获得同样多的利润。显然,有些人在公司里得到一个更高的优先级,为他们的工作奖金等。然而,规则不应该至少都集中在行善或渎职。即使最大的善行不可能一直的原则,应该是没有渎职显示向利益相关者。这是完全的情况。金融中介行为以这样一种方式,他们创造了公司高管的利益为代价的抢劫投资者和雇员的公司依赖于公司及其良好的实践(西尔弗斯坦,2013)。

assignment代写：最大的善行原则

The principle of maximum beneficence states, people should act in a way where their decision or action ensures maximum benefit to all stakeholders. This ethical principle which a company must act in a way that everybody should get maximum benefit does not hold true for an enterprise as Milton Friedman argues. The arguments’ places are that increasing profits is the sole responsibility of companies, and it is for this reason that companies put people to work and maintain an infrastructure to benefit themselves (Gordon, 2002). Companies are set up by owners who are observed to keep the structure of the company, pay the necessary taxes, learn about the legislation that needed to run the company, and procure clients etc. However, the company is in no way acquitted of ignoring the rights, and it had towards stakeholders like the investors and public who traded with Enron. Corporate constituents should have been met, but all stakeholders must have been balanced as well.

assignment代写：最大的善行原则
Per the principle of maximum beneficence, it would not have been possible for the company to meet the needs of all its stakeholders. All financial agents of the company, such as the accountants, the financial advisors, etc would have been able to make decisions in such a way that all investors reap the same amount of profit. Obviously, some people in the company get a higher priority, like a bonus for their work etc. However, the rule should not at least have focused on doing good or malfeasance. Even if the principle of maximum beneficence could not be kept, there should have been no malfeasance shown towards stakeholders. This was exactly the situation. Financial agents acted in such a way that they created benefits for the senior executives of the company at the cost of robbing investors and employees of the company who relied on the company and its sound practices (Silverstein, 2013).