Was Beam morally responsible for engaging in the "aggressive accounting" methods he used? Was his responsibility mitigated in any way? Was he morally responsible for changing the clinic reports to increase the company’s earnings? Was his responsibility for this mitigated? Were those who cooperated in his actions morally responsible for those actions? Was their responsibility mitigated? Do you think Scrushy was morally responsible for the accounting fraud? Explain each of your answers.

Explanation:

Aaron Beam was morally responsible for engaging in “aggressive accounting” methods he used because from the very beginning of the scheme when Scrushy told Beam to fake their financial reports, Beam knew that it was wrong, yet he continued to do it because he knew exactly what he was doing from the beginning which he continued to commit until he finally retired, so Beam’s responsibility was not mitigated in anyway.

Beam responsibility was mitigated because they all knew they were committing fraud and all the individual's whom were cooperated in his actions were all morally responsible for their actions because they all knew that they were committing fraudulent and continued to do so even after Beam has retired.

Furthermore,  Beam was not morally responsible for changing the clinic reports to increase the company's earnings. His responsibility was mitigated as well as others was included in reporting false records. All those people whom were cooperated to increase company's earnings are morally responsible for their actions.  Likewise, Scrushy was morally responsible for accounting fraud because even though he did not work under the financial department, he knew what the consequences in the fraud would be and yet he convinced Beam to join him in starting anyway.

answer; collective security;

where are the choices