Pick 2 of these discussions options and reply each with a short

Pick 2 of these discussions options and reply each with a short paragraph. Include thoughts, opinions, etc.
Option 1:
Feuerstein was guided by ethics. Ethics plays a huge role in Aaron Feuerstein business point of view because he did what he felt was right in this situation. He felt that is was the right thing to do, to pay is employee for months while they waited for the rebuild of the company. As stated in the article he didn’t take the money and retire like most business advisor’s would suggest because he felt like it was not the right thing to do.  Ethics is what an individual thinks is right and wrong in a certain situation. I feel like Feuerstein acted on his personal ethics virus morals. Morals are fixed codes that people have established that commonly shared views or society says is correct.
I believe that if Malden were to be a publicly traded company, Feuerstein would not have been able to make this decision. If the company was a public trade this decision would be up to everyone involved in that company. Shareholders would have a say on this decision. I believe that if shareholders were involved they would not have let Feuerstein pay his employers over the course of the rebuild because of how much money was lost in the process. In the video the interviewer stated that most people said that it would be smart to take the 300 million dollars in insurance and retire. I feel like if it would have not been a private company this would have the outcome because Feuerstein would have been outnumbered in is decision.
I think he was criticized for his decision because most business officials would have faced this situation completely different. As stated in the article that even with good ethics it does not guarantee success for the company. Most businesses do what is best for the company not necessary what benefits their employees. It seem that most people thought he should just retire with the money from the fire insurance not give it to his employees or put it toward the rebuild.
Option 2:
Aaron Feuerstein was guided by his own morals. His decision to pay the salaries of employees, at Malden Mills, was based solely on what he believed was the right thing to do. His decision was based on his beliefs on religion, and he did as the Torah deemed, and “not take advantage of a hired worker who is poor and needy,” showing that  What is more, Feuerstein could have cashed out the insurance for the company and retire in a very luxurious manner, as no one would have criticized his decision, but instead he decided to rebuild the factory and pay the employees their full salaries until the factory was finished.
Given that Aaron Feuerstein was the private owner of Malden Mills, his decision was truly only his, and it was final. If Malden Mills were to have been a publicly traded company, the decision would more than likely not stand, as he would have had to make the logical business decision in order to maximize profits to keep the shareholders happy.  
Ultimately, Feuerstein’s decision brought around many critics who claimed that he made the wrong decision, and it is easy to see the reason behind such harsh criticism. The decision to continue paying the full salaries of all his employees while the factory was being rebuilt was probably not the wisest decision solely from a business perspective. Furthermore, he used his beliefs in religion to make his decision, which probably got seen by other business minded individuals as unconventional. Moreover, Feuerstein also decided to rebuild the factory in Lawrence, Massachusetts, when most of his competition moved oversees for cheaper labor, making it nearly impossible to compete against its main competitors in the textile industry.
Option 3:
In my opinion, Feuerstein was guided by his morals. As he mentioned in the interview, he was guided by his belief in helping his employees. He did what he found was the right thing. If Malden was a publicly held company, the story would have been very different. Shareholders would likely have forced Feuerstein to go to other countries to keep making a profit. At the end of the day, shareholders are only making a profit if the company makes a profit. Because the company was privately held Feuerstein was able to do whatever he wanted with the company. He did not have to wait for approval from the shareholders.
I think that a lot of people disagree with his decision. Even when he had good intentions, he overlook the market changes that were happening at that time. With more companies fabricating textiles abroad, the prices went down. As the article mentions, the fire did not cause the bankruptcy of the company. The cheap prices of textiles did. In this case, Feuerstein was more focused on being moral. As the article said, happy employees, do not prevent the company’s bankruptcy. I consider that at the moment he did the right thing. Yet due to the shift in the market, if he did not adapt, he was going to go on bankruptcy either way.  
Option 4:
In this case, Aaron Feuerstein was guided by morals as he knew it was morally wrong to take the insurance money and leave all of his loyal employees without jobs. Instead of either taking the insurance money or moving the business to another labor market, he continued to pay all of his employees until the new factory was built. He was not guided by ethics because ethics is based on rules and laws whereas morals is based on one’s personal thoughts and beliefs.
If Malden were a publicly traded company, I believe the decision could be different. It would be another case because as a publicly traded company ownership is spread out among public shareholders that can be directly affected by company decisions. In this case, Feuerstein would have to take into consideration the thoughts of the shareholders because a publicly traded company’s main goal is to maximize shareholder value.
I believe his critics were mostly business minded people as his decision might have not been wise for the business since the insurance money was most likely used for the employees’ salaries. However, his decision helped around three-thousand employees as they kept receiving their salaries until the factory was rebuilt.
Option 5:
Ethics is when you decide for yourself with no social influence. Ethics guided Aaron Feuerstein. Aaron believed that his business philosophy was correct and that he shouldn’t worry about company debt in a time of crisis to take care of his employees. He thought it was the right thing to do for his employees and save the factory’s town. As an individual, Feuerstein followed his code of ethics. He believed in putting employees first among everything else.
    I don’t believe he could have made the same decision if Malden were a public traded company. To decide on a public company, he would have to work with board members and different perspectives. Ultimately, When a company is public, the board members will make moral decisions based on what is best for the company to maximize value for shareholders. In this example, Malden was a private company, so Feuerstein did not have to answer anybody. He made a decision based on his ethics. 
    Feuerstein was applauded throughout the country for his business decision to rebuild the factory and supply his employees’ salaries while out of work. The employees praised him, The media worshipped him, and customers rewarded him. He was known as the “Mensch of Malden Mills,” but eventually, the company filed for bankruptcy, which brings up the question was he right?-    In business, there will always be a pro and a con when you make a decision. There will be critics who noted how he could have retired and lived a happy life. Some won’t let personal ethics get in business decisions and will do anything to keep profits up so the next quarter can look good. Whatever your view is on a business decision, it’s to benefit the business how you see fit because there will always be a pro and a con. It’s your decision on how you manage those pros and cons. There will always be critics for any decision you make in a business aspect. It is your choice to decide when do you draw the line between morals and ethics.