"So long as no laws are broken, there is nothing unethical about doing [b]whatever you need to do to promote existing products or to create new [b]products." [b]Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion [b]expressed above. Support your point of view with reasons and/or examples [b]from your own experience, observations, or reading. [b][b]The arguer asserts that in creating and marketing products, companies act [b]ethically merely by not violating any laws. Although this position is not [b]wholly insupportable, far more compelling arguments can be made for holding [b]businesses to higher ethical standards than those required by the letter of [b]the law. [b]On the one hand, two colorable arguments can be made for holding business [b]only to legal standards of conduct. First, imposing a higher ethical duty [b]can actual harm consumers in the long term. Compliance with high ethical [b]standards can be costly for business, thereby lowering profits and, in [b]turn, impeding a company's ability to create jobs (for consumers), keep [b]prices low (for consumers), and so forth. Second, limited accountability is [b]consistent with the "buyer beware" principle that permeates our laws of [b]contracts and torts, as well as our notion in civil procedure that [b]plaintiffs carry the burden of proving damage. In other words, the onus [b]should be on consumers to protect themselves, not on companies to protect [b]consumers. [b]On the other hand, several convincing arguments can be made for holding [b]business to a higher ethical standard. First, in many cases government [b]regulations that protect consumers lag behind advances in technology. A new [b]marketing technique made possible by Internet technology may be unethical [b]but nevertheless might not be proscribed by the letter of the laws which [b]predated the Internet. Second, enforceability might not extend beyond [b]geographic borders, Consider, for example, the case of "dumping." When [b]products fail to comply with U.S. regulations, American companies [b]frequently market-or "dump" such products in third-world countries where [b]consumer-protection laws are virtually nonexistent. Third, moral principles [b]form the basis of government regulation arid are, therefore, more [b]fundamental than the law. [b]In the final analysis, while overburdening businesses with obligations to [b]consumers may not be a good idea in the extreme, our regulatory system is [b]not as effective as it should be. Therefore, businesses should adhere to a [b]higher standard of ethics in creating and marketing products than what is [b]required by the letter of the law. [b]