Please rate the issue essay

[vijay_dj]

“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 issue stated above concludes saying that anything and everything is right in promoting and creating a new product as long as it is within the boundaries of law. A statement which often leads to a wide and heated debate in every community when presented for one. While one set of people might opt saying the statement is a globally valid statement and agree upon the same, some makes an outright rejection of the statement. we must analyze the statements mentioned by both the parties, To arrive at a conclusion on whether to accept the statement to be universal and applicable to all.
A lots of companies, makes an absolute misuse of the above statement, eg. Tobacco companies. Selling tobacco is branded legal by most of the countries but does it mean making a promotion of the product through advertisements, watched by children and young people deemed ethical? Similarly, a well known software company re-engineers the rival company developed product to promote its own product, though it would fall within the boundaries of the legal systems of most of the countries. Such an act cannot be state
While the companies supporting that issue at stake might come up with a variety of rebuttal saying, “It is the survival of the fittest” and other Darwinism based quotations. It is not an act of survival but an act of exploitation of the boundaries. Law and legal systems are not something which is written and followed but an evolving entity and anything that might be deemed legal might not prove to be one, when people revolting against the issue at stake is involved in re-writing the law.
As per the above passages, the issue thought appearing to be coherent and acceptable to a few individuals, is not quite universally satisfactory. To generalize, the legal system is a subset of the ethical boundaries and hence the same issue statement can even be rephrased saying, anything that’s mentioned in the legal system might fall within the ethical boundaries, but those outside the legal system, might or might not fall within the ethical boundaries.

[kodeprasad]

The issue stated above concludes saying that anything and everything is right in promoting and creating a new product as long as it is within the boundaries of law. A statement which often leads to a wide and heated debate in every community when presented for one. While one set of people might opt saying the statement is a globally valid statement and agree upon the same, some ( could have been better to use others or other set)makes an outright rejection of the statement. we must analyze the statements mentioned by both the parties, To arrive at a conclusion on whether to accept the statement to be universal and applicable ( distorts the llelism) to all.

A lots of companies, makes an absolute misuse of the above statement, eg. Tobacco companies. Selling tobacco is branded legal by most of the countries but does it mean making a promotion of the product through advertisements, watched by children and young people deemed ethical? Similarly, a well known software company re-engineers the rival company developed product to promote its own product, though it would fall within the boundaries of the legal systems of most of the countries. Such an act cannot be state
While the companies supporting that issue at stake might come up with a variety of rebuttal saying, “It is the survival of the fittest” and other Darwinism based quotations. It is not an act of survival but an act of exploitation of the boundaries. Law and legal systems are not something which is written and followed but an evolving entity and anything that might be deemed legal might not prove to be one, when people revolting against the issue at stake is involved in re-writing the law.
As per the above passages, the issue thought appearing to be coherent and acceptable to a few individuals, is not quite universally satisfactory. To generalize, the legal system is a subset of the ethical boundaries and hence the same issue statement can even be rephrased saying, anything that’s mentioned in the legal system might fall within the ethical boundaries, but those outside the legal system, might or might not fall within the ethical boundaries.

Hi i like your essay! Apart from some grammatical errors , the presentation is pretty cool.

Sorry I could rate your essay out of 6 , cause i hardly know the rating scheme!

But i could definitely put forth my points to make it more elaborative.
I perfectly like the tobacco explanation. Here i would say what if TV promotion ad is preceded by one warning note like"eating tobacco is injurious to health" then such promotion won't be unethical.

Plus take some example like in most soft drinks ads like in "Thumps up" Ad specifically states the stunts in the ads are fictitious and it makes it perfectly ethical. So, If everything falls under law and some ethical precaution
is taken then i would most likely to agree to the issue statement.

overall i like your explanation !!

Cheers!!!!