Ethics and Legal Environment Essay Example for Free

Ethics and Legal Environment EssaySomethings Rotten in Hondo is a national wherein a jell manager, George Mackee, needs to decide whether to get rid of the charges shoot the breezeed by the surroundingsal Protection Agency or EPA or to move in Mexico. He is in a plight because if he would choose the former, he has very little chance of eliminating the line since Bill, George boss, refuses to finance the cleaning of the smokestack. On the some different hand, if he would choose the last menti onenessd, he has to lay off his current employees and hire Mexican workers as a trade-off for non being reprimanded ab pop the EPA standards. His boss leaves the purpose up to him. The most limpid good concerns in this case atomic number 18 deuce-fold. The first one is that if George would choose the first option that is to turn out a outline or a technique that would eradicate the problem with the fines imposed by EPA, he would have to follow what his contemporaries are doi ng that is by scheduling the heavy emissions of smokestack during nighttime when the EPA is non in patrol. This entails that he would allow the severance of the purlieual pollution ( peculiarly air pollution) for the exchange of not stipendiary any fines to EPA.On the contrary, if George would choose the flake option that is to relocate in Mexico, he would have to dis channelize most of his current employees in place of the Mexican workers. And much(prenominal) would include the laying off of his friends and elongated families. Further much, if he would choose the second option, he would be tolerant of the air pollution caused by the determines incapacity to reduce air pollutants. In effect, George has a deal eliminated the problem of the party on fines issued by EPA. Application of Ethical Theories The case presented in this paper suggests particular ethical problems.For this matter, the author presents two unequivocal ethical dilemmas for George to decide on Should he decide to relocate the plant to Mexico or should he unless follow the outline used by his contemporaries? But before he could arrive to a decision, he essential first analyze the pros and cons of his decision. If he would choose the former, he could really eliminate the problem with the imposition of fines by the EPA since Mexico assure him that it would not reprimand the plant whatever it does. The only thing is that he has to hire Mexican workers that which implies laying off of his present employees including his friends and extended families.Conversely, if he would agree with that proposal he would besides have to bear the dreadful effects of the plants operations on the environment, particularly on U. S. Nonetheless, if he would choose the latter, he could also get rid of the problem with the fines imposed by EPA because of giveure to meet its guidelines. However, he has to take so much risk by doing the alike strategy being used by his contemporaries. In addition, he a lso has to endure the environmental effects of much(prenominal) strategy just to avoid being reprimanded again by EPA and his boss. Kantian Categorical ImperativeIf he would apply Kantians Categorical Imperative that is by doing his work, he ought not to do the strategy utilized by his contemporaries (his first option). This is for the reason that he has a duty to protect the environment for both the present and future generations. Plus the fact that his workers have to suffer if he would fire them out of their industrial plant. Kants Categorical Imperative suggests two maxims in which a individual could use to examine the holiness of his action. The first maxim states that an action is morally right if one could make such action a universal law.This factor that if one could make his action universal or applicable to all others by making it a rule then such action is morally accepted thus it is right. The second maxim, in contrast, focuses on the idea of eternally treating all military man persons as ends and never as means to an end. This maxim argues that every human person has dignity to be respected and has rights as a human thus everyone moldiness act in promoting others rights and not promoting harm to them On the other hand, Kant would not also choose the second option because it also implies environmental degradation.Though he avoids being fined by EPA as well as not even up being reprimanded by EPA whatever their operation is, for Kant, he would fail to do the maxims under the Categorical Imperative. He could never make his action or decision as a universal law. Likewise, he would treat other people as mere instruments to achieve his close by inflicting heath hazards due to smokestack emissions. Kant would suggest that George must never make a decision that would tend to harm the environment because such would also cause severe consequences to the people. As evident in the two options, both would result to the degradation of the environmen t.Thus, Kant would say that George decision, whichever of the two, would be unethical and morally wrong. Kant would recommend that George must be able to descry ways that would not lead to the toleration of environmental pollution. For example, George could instead persuade his boss that the only way to compute the problem that would not require him to sacrifice the welfare of the environment is to invest for juvenile technologies that would lessen the emission of smokestack. And such would not even require new scrubbers. much(prenominal) action is a long-term advantage for the telephoner as well as for the environment. Mills UtilitarianismJS Mills Utilitarianism would even strengthen the position of not deciding on either of the two options since both would result to environmental pollution. Mills Utilitarianism is premised on the idea that an action is right if it promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest number. In other words, Utilitarian convention is mainly dire cted towards the social advantage of an act. This means that if an action can benefit or inflict advantages to more people then such action is morally right. In the case of George, either of the two options would make him tolerate the harm through against the environment.Environment is an essential mechanism that is necessary for human survival. If he would choose the first or the latter option as his decision, he could save the company only if inflict great harm to more number of people. Mill would say that George must devise a way in which he could drop d bear the crisis in the company without sacrificing the environment because lots people, including him and his family, depend on the environments gifts. Thus, Mill would also recommend the analogous thing as Kant. Convince his boss by arguing that it is risky and unhealthful to the environment if he would follow what his contemporaries are doing.If EPA would find out such underground activities, the company could even be sanc tioned more than the imposition of fines. The same thing goes with the second option. If the government of U. S. would find out that the companys operation cause harsh effects to their environment then in that respect is a big possibility that U. S. would inflict undesirable measures against the company. Rights-based Theory on Decision-making The rights-based theories suggest that it is not always the case that the morality of an action is based on the great benefit that it can produce.At the same time, the rights-based theories do not solely advocate the respect of rights of human persons. These theories suggest that while everyone has a duty to recognize and value the rights of other people (negative rights) it is also everyones duty to promote for others goals (positive rights). In such manner, the contending ethical theories of Kantianism and Utilitarianism are reconciled in a way that both their concerns are being considered. In the first place, rights are inviolable. They are inalienable or cannot be taken aside from human persons no matter what the situation is.Thus, there is no sufficient and rational reason to go against their rights without their consent. The rights-based theories are premised on the idea that every person has the right to choose on how he would like to live his own life. It is not only a persons duty to respect these rights but also to promote the accomplishment of the goals of other people. By doing so, the rights defined earlier are more strengthen and more realized. In the case of Hondo, George, as a manager, has a duty towards the company. Still, he has duty towards other people.Choosing either of the two decisions would disrespect the rights and disregard the goals of these people. For the rights-based theories, such decision is unethical. The more appropriate way to solve the problem is for George to lend money from a bank so as to install new applied science that would lessen the emission of smokestack. He does not really need to hire new scrubbers. By having new technology, for instance machines that clean smokestack, he would not have to result to environmental pollution. It is costly in the inauguration but its benefits would be greatly appreciated in the long run. Justice-based Theories in Decision-makingIn justice-based theories, the overriding principle is focus on the idea of fair. According to John Rawls, the morality of an action can only be measured by appealing to the principle of justice. In his A Theory of Justice, he suggests two principles indecorum and wealth. The former is expressed to explain justice by saying that all must have an tint extent in which they can enjoy and practice their liberties. A least extensive curtailment of acquaintance is advocated on the condition that such would be shared by all. This entails that an act is right is the product of such act is amenable to all.Hence, justice, in such context, is morally right. In resolving the ethical dilemma approach by G eorge, Justice-based theories would advice him to consider if his decision would be fair to all. Obviously, both options are not beneficial to all. And at the same time, these two options are not the only available options which George has. If he would employ either one of the two options, he would not be just knowing that if he would be in the place of other people who depend on and survive through environment he would not also endure such nor be entrusting to agree with such idea.It could be the case that the he and the company are amenable to either of the two options. Nevertheless, others are not really disposed to accept such. Hence, George must not employ such decisions. For George, he could, instead, make control-strategies that would monitor and regulate the emission of smokestack before, during, and even after the plants operation in order to examine well the problems concerning the smokestack. Furthermore he could meet with his workers and discuss the problem. He may soli cit suggestions on how they could lessen the pollution secreted by their plant onto the environment.After that, he may ask for support from banks by lending or getting loan. Kohlbergs Moral Development Lawrence Kohlberg was from the line of Piaget who used moral framework to discuss the psychological development of a human person. His thesis on Moral Development suggests that there are six stages wherein a person passes through before he reaches the ultimate state of being a moral person. This theory will be used to show how Kohlbergs method would help George in resolving his faced ethical dilemma.The first stage is focus on the idea that one person is initially instructed to obey laws such that he could avoid punishment. This is the primary conception on morality that a person has during his early years. With regards to the case presented in this paper, the appeal to laws and rules concerning environmental protection is the most obvious consideration for Georges decision. He would not decide either of the two options since both would make him violate the law regarding the protection of the environment.On the other hand, if he fails to solve the problem immediately, he might receive punishment from his boss (i. e. termination or demotion). The point is that which of the two punishments could George endure more? More likely than not, he would choose not be imprisoned than being demoted or terminated by his boss. The second stage suggests that every person has his own way of thinking which makes every topic or matter subjective to each person. The thing that works for someone or the thing that is considered right by someone may not be the same for another person.Thus, morality in this stage is relative. George could say that the least that he could that would benefit him and put him out of the dilemma that he is in is by either doing the first option or the second option. both(prenominal) would mean resolution of his problem yet would cause damage to the enviro nment. If he is a nature-lover he would not go for such decision. But if he is a money-lover, he would employ one of the two alternatives.The 3rd stage is concern on the character in which a person thinks of ways on how he can do good things to the persons close to him (e. . family and friends). This means that his initial moral outlook is directed towards the things that he can do for the sake of his loved ones. In the case, if George is at this stage, he would be more habituated to decide and act so as to promote his family and friends welfare. Thus, if he would decide on his problem, he would not choose to relocate since his wife is not in favor of this idea and such will inflict great personal unhappiness to his friends who work in the plant.