Question

Was Beam morally responsible for engaging in the "aggressive accounting" methods he used? Was his responsibility mitigated in any way? Was he morally responsible for changing the clinic reports to increase the company’s earnings? Was his responsibility for this mitigated? Were those who cooperated in his actions morally responsible for those actions? Was their responsibility mitigated? Do you think Scrushy was morally responsible for the accounting fraud? Explain each of your answers.

Answer 1

Beam's engagement in 'aggressive accounting' methods and altering of clinic reports to inflate company earnings is morally irresponsibile, without significant mitigation of responsibility. Those who cooperated are also morally responsible, with possible mitigation if under duress. If Scrushy was aware or directed the fraud, he is morally responsible for the actions.

Step-by-step explanation:

The ethical aspects of the actions of an individual in a corporate setting are crucial to the integrity and reputation of the business. When considering the case of Beam, engaging in "aggressive accounting" methods is generally considered to be morally irresponsible. These methods often involve manipulation of financial information to present a more favorable position of the company than is factually accurate. It is difficult to argue that Beam's responsibility is mitigated because professionals in the accounting field are expected to adhere to strict ethical guidelines and accounting standards.

Similarly, altering clinic reports to inflate company earnings is a clear-cut case of fraud and is also morally reprehensible. This form of accounting fraud is a direct deception of stakeholders and the public, and as such, the responsibility for such actions is not mitigated by external factors. In terms of legal and professional responsibility, it is undeniably significant.

Those who cooperated in Beam's actions are also morally responsible. This is based on the premise that each individual has a moral obligation to act ethically and legally within their professional responsibilities. The mitigation of their responsibility could be considered if they acted under duress or misinformation; however, this does not absolve them of their responsibility to uphold ethical standards.

Regarding Scrushy, if he participated in, directed, or even knowingly allowed the accounting fraud to occur, he is then equally morally responsible for the unethical actions and their consequences. Leadership bears the responsibility of setting the ethical tone and ensuring compliance within their organization.

Answer 2

Step-by-step explanation:

Aaron Beam was morally responsible for engaging in “aggressive accounting” methods he used because from the very beginning of the scheme when Scrushy told Beam to fake their financial reports, Beam knew that it was wrong, yet he continued to do it because he knew exactly what he was doing from the beginning which he continued to commit until he finally retired, so Beam’s responsibility was not mitigated in anyway.

Beam responsibility was mitigated because they all knew they were committing fraud and all the individual's whom were cooperated in his actions were all morally responsible for their actions because they all knew that they were committing fraudulent and continued to do so even after Beam has retired.

Furthermore, Beam was not morally responsible for changing the clinic reports to increase the company's earnings. His responsibility was mitigated as well as others was included in reporting false records. All those people whom were cooperated to increase company's earnings are morally responsible for their actions. Likewise, Scrushy was morally responsible for accounting fraud because even though he did not work under the financial department, he knew what the consequences in the fraud would be and yet he convinced Beam to join him in starting anyway.