Introduction
Is there an obligation in part of MNCs to be morally upright in the eyes of the world? How wide do moral obligations extend within the global context? MNCs are entities within states that have a large capability in the eyes of the moral law to aid, protect and serve the public. However, in the search for profit, many MNCs will do only as much as they have to in order to be morally upstanding and financially sound. According to some philosophers, including Marx, the public must be protected from and by all organizations in their respective capacity; this includes the state and MNCs that, more often than not, have more power than the states in which they operate. Take, for instance, an MNC in El Salvador, profiting from the affordability of the production process, profiting from the lack of limitations within this one ‘weak-state’ and profiting from the sales accomplished overseas. The state of El Salvador is much weaker than an MNC such as Nike; in this example then, the MNC has the obligation to better the conditions of the state, not deprive it, aid or neglect its social responsibility to uphold ethics while practicing enterprising. This essay questions the reasoning behind Donaldson in Rights and Kinds of Obligations, arguing that O’Neill has a more fair system of distributing the right aid for the protection of all rights. The main question then is: what is the moral obligation of MNCs in the global context after having reviewed both Donaldson and O’Neill’s articles?
Summary
O’Neill in Agents of Justice asserts that to be capable is not the same as saying that one has a capacity. Capacity is different from capability in that it is innate; it is a skill within us that could (if allowed) be used for the (in) justice of mankind. Capability is the freedom to realize the achievements through this capacity, meaning, if one has the capacity but is not capable, one will not be able to exercise it. O’Neill (2001) continues to explain how capacity and capability are different and notes that there are agents in society that are capable, and therefore under obligation, to aid against injustice. Unlike the state that is many times incapable of exercising its duty to avoid injustice, MNCs are non-state agents that have the capacity of promoting justice and injustice, according to their intents, and this means they have the duty to do so. O’Neill (2001) firmly believes that MNCs are, therefore, under obligation to help weak-states who are unable to provide the needed resources for a more just situation in the country. O’Neill (2001) further notes that weak-states do not have the capability to aid their own country, as a result of a lack of resources, power, influence, etc. In turn, MNCs that have the capacity and capability to help and therefore, are under duty to do so.
O’Neill (2001) also differentiates between negative and positive obligations from MNCs to the states they operate in. Promoting justice, providing employment opportunities, being socially responsible are among those positive obligations that an MNC has in a weak-state country. However, negative obligations are also due action upon the receipt of resources that would make this obligation a feasible one to complete. Therefore, even in a strong state where recourses, capacities and capabilities are available, MNCs that operate in it are obliged to consider their contribution to a more justice society. Because MNCs also have capabilities that are beyond certain states, it is inferred that they can promote injustice as well. Nevertheless, the obligation lies under a positive spectrum and the negative capability must be refrained from by all MNCs and weak-strong-states alike in order to be a socially and ethically upstanding part of the globe. As a last note, O’Neill (2001) did not intend this responsibility to go beyond the capacity, capability and resource availability of the parties involved. Also, he did not mean this responsibility to be a general one; instead, he noted that it was meant to serve in certain circumstances. Donaldson (1991), on the very end of the opposite spectrum, believes that MNCs are not under any obligation to aid those who are deprived, meaning anyone suffering from injustice. Unlike O’Neill, Donaldson (1991) believed that there are positive and negative rights and different levels of morality attached to rights. First, he notes that a positive right requires action (goods and services), and a negative right does not require action (the right to non-interference) (Donaldson 1991). Conceptions come from different political umbrellas that allow for these rights to be observed. One, the liberal political party, Donaldson notes, focuses on freedom while the “Libertarian” political umbrella would focus on freedom and entitlement (Donaldson 1991). Rights are determined in the following way: if it is extremely important, subject to several threats, and if the burdens imposed on agents of justice are “economically feasible” and fair, then it is a right that must be observed and protected. Donaldson states that these conditions are all necessary and sufficient to grant protection or aid (Donaldson 1991).
Levels of obligation or duty, according to Donaldson, vary. First, the obligations can be defined as avoid, protect and aid. There are different level of moral obligations tied to MNCs and States, Donaldson notes. First, to avoid deprivation, injustices, etc. one is under the “minimal obligation” to respect that, this infers that it is not an option, that there is a duty to do so even in the absence of resources or affordability. Second, to protect others from these injustices, one is only “minimally” obliged if the resources are available. And, lastly, according to Donaldson (1991), to aid in the prevention of injustices one is “maximally” obliged, which infers that there is no need to do it but it would be “praiseworthy” to do so (i.e., Charity) ( 1991). After some analysis, it is obvious that unless there is an emergency, MNCs are not obliged to help (aid) even given their ability to do so, however, they are obliged to make sure their standards are up to par with the avoiding of and protection from injustices of those they handle business with or interact with as a result of their status and capability.
Analysis of Moral Obligations on a Global Context
According to O’Neill (2001), the moral obligation extends to the entire globe when it comes to acting as agents of justice. The location of an MNC does not make a difference to their level of obligation. According to Donaldson, however, the obligation of an MNC extends only as far as their ability to help. In my opinion, a corporation has the obligation to aid in the prevention of injustice no matter its location. Furthermore, MNCs have the obligation to provide to the state in order for the state to render aid in the prevention of injustices, which MNCs currently do through income taxes. However, if the MNC is outside of the primary location where their products are sold, then the MNC must provide income taxes payments to the location where their products are sold. It is not fair to have the least in production overhead, gain the most from international distribution and handling, and have no obligations to the states rendering their products freely to the public (without limitations to sales). In this sense, O’Neill (2001) would be most on par with my argument; he too argues that if a corporation has the capability, then they must render aid anywhere where needed. MNCs cannot be excluded from the equation of aid in this long-term battle against injustices because they hold most of the money available in the world, without this, aid is almost impossible. Therefore, it is their duty as capitalists to help those at the bottom of the chain (figuratively).
O’Neill (2001) argues that when there is capability, there is a duty to help those without it. I believe the same thing, there must be a level of obligation for those who are ‘better off’ to aid those who are not. Injustices such as torture must be avoided at all costs, if MNCs have more resources or could supply the state with more resources; they then have an obligation to do it. The public may be capable but not allowed because of certain restrictions within the law, therefore, an unlimited entity with as much power as an MNC must have the duty to aid, protect and help prevent injustices.
When an MNC faces scenarios of injustice, they ought to be able to intervene. O’Neill notes that they have the ability to promote justice or injustice, if they do not act, then they are denying life, therefore, acting in a unjust, torturous manner. With this, then, they are being unjust to the populations they serve, and the rest of humanity. For instance, a poor country with children dying of AIDS should be reason enough for an MNC to collaborate towards the end of this type of deprivation. While some MNCs will look for ways to help, many times they neglect what is going on outside their production sites. If an MNC is producing in a poor country and does not aid in the prevention of injustice, this MNC is not acting according to any known moral code. Instead, they are acting towards the promotion of injustice.
In the fight against drugs, war and poverty, all private and public institutions ought to have some level of moral obligation being that they are earning the capabilities to do so through consumption and capitalist gains. Developing countries are seeing a lot of MNCs camping in their land without giving much back to their society. In the same way, states are allowing this to happen. With this, then, the only possible solution would have to be for state intervention. If the state is weak, like O’Neill (2001) would argue, without the resources needed, then it is up to the global community to help, intervene, aid, and prevent the neglect of the states’ needs while also taking advantage of the state’s affordable land and lack of legal restrictions.
Many MNCs do provide a level of support, however, this cannot be denied. Many are involved in charitable functions; pay more than above the needed income tax, and so forth. But, this is the obligation level that stands at the bottom of what else can also be done. Donaldson (1991) clearly stated that there is an obligation only if one can, and only if the action would, alleviate the present pain of those suffering from injustices. However, how can one ascertain that an MNC does not have the resources needed to help in the prevention and stopping of injustices? Only the state would be able to know if the MNC is able to or not. Without this state intervention, MNCs get away with not having the obligation to do anything, as they can easily say they do not have the resources. This is where O’Neill (2001) is right in saying that all public and private entities have the obligation to help prevent injustices, regardless of their income or availability of resources. Ultimately, it is up to the state to make sure all obligations are carried forward. It is up to public, in my opinion, to enforce that the state is following their duties and demanding a certain level of moral obligation towards the state by MNCs.
Conclusion
To conclude, both authors, O’Neill (2001) and Donaldson (1991), argue that there is a level of obligation and duty towards the state by MNCs that must target those suffering from injustices. However, one author argues that only capability can constitute duty while the other argues that capability does not constitute duty so long as the profit is reaching the hands of the state (through taxes). With this said, I must argue that all entities in society have a duty towards the aid, prevention and alleviation of injustices. Be it through income taxes, charitable donations, change of actions, legislative amendments, and more – the idea and only focus is to allow for freedom, non-interference, and to subject everyone to the obligation of helping one another out, in any level, at any time, at any location, to end injustice. O’Neill (2001) made a great point that I will never forget, just like MNCs have the potential to promote justice, they also have the potential to promote injustice. By not acting, they are committing an injustice.

Bibliography
O'Neill, Onora. "Agents of justice." Metaphilosophy 32.1‐2 (2001): 180-195.

Donaldson, Thomas "Rights in the Global Market." Business Ethics: The State of the Art (1991): 499-510.