Uploaded by kamogelo molale

SUS1501 assignment 2

Assignment 2
1.State your proposed act as a maxim:
“van Dijk will take ZAR 1.9 billion (A) when he's done a year's work (C) in order to get really,
really rich (E)."
2. Restate this maxim as a universal law;
"All people (7 billion of them) will take ZAR 1.9 billion when they've done a year's work in order
to get really, really rich.”
3. Ask whether your maxim is conceivable in a world ruled by the universal law
The maxim law is not conceivable, for one to earn such a huge amount of money as remuneration it
is unreasonable and also abuse of power. It is just greed as him and the top management are getting
wealthier and the poor get poorer of which is the lower level staff.
4. Ask whether you would rationally act on your maxim in such a world
If everyone was to earn that money as remuneration it would create a problem in the economy as it
would disturb the economic system. Everyone will be rich and no one will want to work and the
demand for goods and services will be high and that will create a shortage of supply of goods, there
will be more money with limited resources.
1. Since Kant’s main ethical idea is to do what is right unconditionally, he would not agree with Van
Dijk’s exorbitant salary, bonus and other benefits that he has received at Naspers. He would say that
it is unfair for the top management to receive that kind of money whilst on the other hand there is a
huge gap of salaries and bonuses between the top management and the employees at the lower
level. And the fact that there is no transparency it is not right.
2. I think it is not fair for him to earn that much, the salary is not even market related and there not
even transparencies on the remuneration of the top management.
3. I think this is due to the fact that this is just greed from the top management for him to get that
amount of money and for the mere fact that there is no transparency it means that management
were enriching themselves and taking advantage of the fact that there is no remuneration policy. It
is unethical for him to get that kind of remuneration hence after the scandal his salary was reduced
and thereafter it was published in the annual report that his salary has been reduced with roughly 4
%. It is quite surprising that the auditors did not question this and that there was no transparency
regarding this matter. I believe that if there was nothing unethical that the top management were
doing there would have been transparency and for a big company like Naspers not to have a
remuneration committee and policy it is questionable. Lower level employees should also receive
other benefits as much as the top management is benefiting as the work that the top management
is reporting on is based on the work that is done by the staff at the lower level.