Social Responsibility

Social Responsibility
There is a very fine line regarding social responsibility in a society
as a whole that has become even more prominent since the tragedy that
occurred on 9/11. If one had prior knowledge of this tragic event,
knowledge of exactly when and how it was going to occur, and how many lives
would be affected, shouldn't one report it to the proper authorities? No
matter how the information was discovered. If one doesn't tell anyone, and
the event occurred as it did, with almost 3,000 people dead or missing,
could a responsible person have lived with themself knowing how many
people's lives were affected? If America's well-being is being threatened,
and someone knows of the threat in advance, then not doing something would
be even more detrimental than any pre-emptive measure would be. What would
have happened if an injured party or family of the injured party had
discovered this prior knowledge and knew that the person with that prior
knowledge still allowed the event to happen? People are being prosecuted
for the 9/11 travesty, why should the results be any different when
applying this same methodology to a business, or an individual?
On an individual level, people are so far removed from each other that
it takes an increased effort to create a relationship where none exists.
Look around the neighborhood. How many of your neighbors do you know by
name? Are there block parties anymore, neighborhood potlucks? No. Why?
"I don't want people that I don't know in my house. Do you?" People don't
know their neighbors, because that takes too much effort. If one doesn't
introduce themself right away, then when? If one waits, how easy is it to
approach someone at a later time and introduce yourself? "Hello, I have
lived next door to you for four years now. My name is Kari." Not
appropriate anymore, is it? All relationships take effort, even family
relationships. How many friends do most people socialize with? When
you're young, one may have six to eight friends to 'hang out' with. As one
gets older, that number dwindles to about half, or even less, because one
may choose to be content with partners and family members, and maybe a few
close friends. Those close friends would be the ones that are sent email,
called, or make social plans on a regular basis. If one stops emailing,
calling, and planning events with them, how long would that friendship
last?
On a business level, it is interesting how people say that reading
another employee's email is an invasion of privacy. But Oh! In this case
it is okay because it saved people's lives! Where does one draw the line?
It either IS or it IS NOT an invasion of privacy without regard to what the
content is. If the content does involve or include information or plans
that may be a detriment to others in any manner, specifically a criminal
manner, is it okay for the company to step in and take measures to protect
what is theirs; for example, employees?
On that same business ideology, what if the information is not a
criminal threat; however, it is an imminent threat to the business, like
the Coca-Cola recipe? This is intellectual property that belongs to the
company. Individuals and companies alike should be able to protect what is
theirs, and protect the public at large as well. The two should work in
conjunction, not in opposition. The public should not have to suffer for a
company policy. If there is a known factor or product that fatally affects
a sector of the public, but only about a 4% rate, is it still okay to move
forward with that design flaw still in place? What would the families of
that 4% say? I believe that companies have a social responsibility to
uphold. Companies should set an example, and not accept the percentage,
any percentage of harm, however minor it may be. Since when is death a
minor event?