How would you defend the idea that the suggested ethical duty of the industrialized world to relieve poverty in developing countries is more than an act of charity, more than just acting out of compassion for fellow human beings living in less than humane conditions?

Need a Hint?

Managers of businesses located in some foreign countries are often forced to make "grease" payments to government officials in order to operate in their country, e.g., payments to customs officials to move goods and materials through customs. In effect, these are payments to officials to get on with doing their duty in contrast with a bribe, which is usually a payment for someone not to do his or her duty. Are these grease payments ethically justifiable? If managers cannot operate without paying them, are they victims of extortion and morally blameless for contributing to the corruption of these officials? If reporting these officials would stop the practice, do the managers have a duty to do so?

One way to protest a corporation's operating in a country that ignores basic human rights is to sell one's shares in that company. Is this really effective? If I sell my shares in the corporation, that entails that there is a buyer for them. Isn't this simply swapping one impersonal owner (as far as the company's management is concerned) and one person's ethical responsibility for another's? How might corporate leadership be influenced by this act?