Hi, this is my philosophy course assignment in which you have to write an Argument Reconstruction paper of 800 to 1000 words. In this assignment, you have to reconstruct the argument into the standard

“The short-sightedness [of ethical business advocates] is also exemplified in speeches by businessmen on social responsibility. This may gain them kudos in the short run. But it helps to strengthen the already too prevalent view that the pursuit of profits is wicked and immoral and must be curbed and controlled by external forces. Once this view is adopted, the external forces that curb the market will not be the social consciences, however highly developed, of the pontificating executives; it will be the iron fist of Government bureaucrats. Here, as with price and wage controls, businessmen seem to me to reveal a suicidal impulse.” (Friedman pp. 5-6)

Milton Friedman, as discussed during class time, has argued against the notion that corporations and corporate executives carry with them principal social responsibilities which extend well beyond the profit motives of company owners and shareholders. But that is not the main argument in the passage above, although the title of the paper (The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits) can be one of the supporting propositions for it. The argument here, is that businesses should be not “ethically regulated”, that is, ruled in greater or smaller part by exogenous political forces rather than their own internal motivations of maximizing profit.

Below is the argument of the passage above in standard format. Effort was made replace some of the exaggerated original wording (e.g. “suicidal impulse”, “evil”) to make this argument relatable to the more germane libertarian attitude towards business regulation seen in Friedman’s paper as a whole.

(1) If we advocate “ethical business” → then we also believe that the profit motive should be curtailed by external forces. premise

(2) If we believe that the profit motive should be curtailed by external forces → then political interests will interfere in the market. premise

(3) If we advocate “ethical business” → then political interests will interfere in the market (1,2) sub-conclusion

(4) If political interests interfere in the market → competitive businesses cannot thrive to their full potential. premise

(5) Therefore, if we advocate “ethical business” → competitive businesses cannot thrive to their full potential. (3,4) sub-conclusion

(6) if (5) is true, then we should not advocate “ethical business”. premise

(7) Therefore, we should not advocate “ethical business”. (5,6) Conclusion

Premise (1) may as well be a descriptive statement such as [to ethically regulate business is to curtail its profit motive for ethical reasons]. Friedman would argue that to impose ethical regulations to businesses is to dictate how they conduct their business, which in turn is to dictate how they should earn and spend their money, effectively resulting in taxation. Since ethical regulation of business presumes a form of taxation, advocating “ethical business” is to believe in curtailing the profit motive of firms with external forces (government or some other entity).

(2) Could have also been another descriptive statement such as [these external forces are those political interests], and such reasoning is in fact Friedman’s reasoning. But stating is as such would lose the consequential form of Friedman’s writing. The implication is that once popular opinion sides against the corporate profit motive, political interests will demand monies from businesses and thereby interrupting the otherwise free economy.

(3) is a Hypothetical Syllogism following from (1) and (2).

(4) If political interests interfere in the market, then that market is no longer free. Friedman would argue that the free unregulated market is a precondition for competitive businesses to succeed.

(5) is a Hypothetical Syllogism following from (3) and (4).

(6) This is more-or-less a moral statement, rather than a premise with internal logical structure. The IF-THEN formation is only superficial. The moral statement is that we should not advocate ideas whose adoption will be detrimental to the success of competitive businesses. Friedman would argue in this vein to advocate free competition in the marketplace.

(7) is a conclusion from Modus Ponens (Affirming the Antecedent) from (5) and (6).

Clearly, the premises that an opponent of Friedman’s argument would reject first would be (6). While someone who takes the opposite view may happily agree with Friedman’s analysis about how advocating ethical business will result in political interests taking shares of the market, he/she might argue that such a cost is worthy of taking in consideration of the expected welfare benefits to society. That is to say, he/she might argue that it is okay if competitive business do not thrive to their full potential, so long as the benefits to society outweigh the costs of the firms.