The author seems to suggest that businesses should consider advocacy groups, a.k.a., interest groups, stakeholders, but which interest group? When one considers the reality, as predicted by James Madison in Federalist Paper No. 10, of numerous advocacy groups with oftentimes conflicting aims, goals and beliefs, as well as the oftentimes tremendous disproportionate political power that one advocacy group may have above others, is this entire suggestion of considering interest groups as stakeholders itself even ethical?

In other words, how often do we hear the claims of big oil, or big tobacco, or big labor having too much influence in politics. Is not the author's suggestion simply inviting this undue influence into the corporate business world? To the extent ethics is about determining "right" actions from "wrong" actions. What do you think is ethical in this case? To provide further background: I invite you to consider "The Role of Business in Society". Within the section the author proposes two, arguably, diametric positions, i.e., Business as a Profit Maximize versus Business as a Corporate Citizen. Should a business do what is best for the business or should being a corporate citizen take precedence?

Today, or recent history, suggests that these "ethical" questions are quite relevant. It is always comforting to suggest to-do little bit of both, but today that comfortable middle ground may not be practical. Could you imagine a circumstance where it actually might be more ethical for a business to refuse to go along with what is politically popular or by making a business decision that is decidedly against popular sentiment?

Could you imagine an interest group that isn't ethical? If you can so imagine, where does that leave a business? Is it ethically "good" for businesses to be politicized? Which business would be more affected by advocacy groups, the business that followed a duty-based ethics or the business that followed an outcome-based ethics?

Answer any question you deem fit to answer.