Imagine a scenario in which Aristotle and Confucius sit down to discuss Chiquita Brands International, a global produce conglomerate that paid protection money to right-wing and Marxist guerrilla groups in Colombia between 1997 and 2004 to ensure there would be no violence against its employees, banana plantations, and facilities. The payment violated the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (1977), which prohibits bribes and kickbacks to foreign officials. Chiquita claimed it was the victim of extortion and had no choice. However, for its actions, it eventually paid $25 million in fines to the U.S. government. In 2007, a group of Colombians filed a lawsuit against the company under the Alien Tort Claims Act, alleging that, because of its illegal payments, Chiquita was complicit in extrajudicial killings, torture, forced disappearances, and crimes against humanity perpetrated against plantation workers by the guerilla death squads.³⁶ Links to an external site.The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2015, but the Court declined to hear it.

Critical Thinking

What do you suppose Confucius and Aristotle, teachers of virtue ethics, would say about the Colombians case, and how would they go about assessing responsibility? What would they identify as the crime committed? Would they think the executives at Chiquita had acted prudently, cravenly, or deceitfully?

What would you do if confronted with this case?

In your case study submission, consider how lessons learned in the module readings apply