Arguments have rules and regulations that should be followed to make them creditable, logical, and understood by the audience. Milton Friedman ideas can be agreed with, but his argument is not convictable. Friedman had agreeable ideas, however his thoughts were unorganized, making it challenging for his audience to stay focused. Friedman gives an example to support his theory that capitalism is essential to have total freedom using the Amish. These two ideas are different, therefore they should not be expected to flow together. To make a good argument, ideas should be complete and link back to the question that is being argued.
During my research I found that Friedman is often criticized for being too classical. There is however one condition that makes his perspective more complicated, not only for me, but also for several well-known authors. And need we any concern if it fails to do so? To fully answer the questions, I first need to explain the two different parts of the first question: responsible international management behavior and moral international management behavior. In businesses nowadays they combine these two parts, respectively responsible and moral become social responsibility in international management. However before I go in further detail, I first explain more about the concept social responsibility.
The question of how ethics and morality can be applied to human experience is a vexed one. Though philosophers have discussed abstract ethical dilemmas for most of recorded history, there appears to be no universal answer to resolve ethical problems. The varied works of philosophers have led to the development of ethical frameworks that may be applied to any particular situation.
Friedman do not affirm that the executives can act in any way as are used in accordance with the law and follow the ethical custom. But he closed the charity activity since they do not contribute straight to the victory. One of the main reasons for Friedman to the exclusion of the corporate social responsibility is from Friedman views on ethical management spending. Friedman claims that it is not applicable for a business director or executive to start socially liable programmes, therefore, in particular, that a rational expenditure income is the money payable to shareholders dividends.