In this discussion I will analyze a situation in which a chemical spill occurred and it was large enough that it is required that the incident is reported to the state. I will discuss what I believe the correct actions are and I will also consider different people groups who follow different ethical theories. The first person perspective is that of a member of the state 's environmental protection agency following the ethical theory of rights ethics. The next is the CEO of the company that made the spill following duty ethics. After that I will discuss the viewpoint of an attorney of the company that made the spill who handle environmental affairs following rights ethics. Next would be other industries faced with similar environmental problems
…show more content…
As a CEO it is probably best to use the ethical theory of duty ethics. Duty ethics contends that there are duties that should be performed (for example, the duty to treat others fairly or the duty not to injure others) regardless of whether these acts lead to the most good. As the CEO of a company it is your responsibility to improve the company and increase growth of the company. The CEO would therefore take actions in support of the company regardless of whether these acts lead to the most good of people or things outside the company. Taking this into consideration it is best to avoid situations that would have negative effects on your company, such as a spill of dangerous chemicals. There are two ways that this might go. A more corrupt CEO you would probably avoid reporting the incident so as to protect the company. If following duty ethics it might be said that is the duty of the CEO to further the company and therefore the CEO should lie about the spill despite the negative effects it might have on people and things outside of the company. One also can say that is the duty of the CEO to make decisions that will keep the company in good standings and ensure that people are not harmed by the company thus the CEO would then report the spill to ensure other safety of others despite the negative it may have on the …show more content…
However one must note that this is a general category so we will talk in generalities. In this situation we will be taking the point of view of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism seeks to produce the most utility, defined as a balance between good and bad consequences of an action, taking into account the consequences for everyone affected. If all companies took into consideration how they and their products effected and took their opinions into consideration, the world would be a different place. Utilitarianism is a game of balance between good results and bad results with the goal of usefulness. In the point of view of the plethora of all other companies it would be probably that a different result would occur depending on the company in question, especially since they would be following the ethical theory of utilitarianism because hiding a chemical spill may have more negative effects on one company then
As a CEO it is probably best to use the ethical theory of duty ethics. Duty ethics contends that there are duties that should be performed (for example, the duty to treat others fairly or the duty not to injure others) regardless of whether these acts lead to the most good. As the CEO of a company it is your responsibility to improve the company and increase growth of the company. The CEO would therefore take actions in support of the company regardless of whether these acts lead to the most good of people or things outside the company. Taking this into consideration it is best to avoid situations that would have negative effects on your company, such as a spill of dangerous chemicals. There are two ways that this might go. A more corrupt CEO you would probably avoid reporting the incident so as to protect the company. If following duty ethics it might be said that is the duty of the CEO to further the company and therefore the CEO should lie about the spill despite the negative effects it might have on people and things outside of the company. One also can say that is the duty of the CEO to make decisions that will keep the company in good standings and ensure that people are not harmed by the company thus the CEO would then report the spill to ensure other safety of others despite the negative it may have on the …show more content…
However one must note that this is a general category so we will talk in generalities. In this situation we will be taking the point of view of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism seeks to produce the most utility, defined as a balance between good and bad consequences of an action, taking into account the consequences for everyone affected. If all companies took into consideration how they and their products effected and took their opinions into consideration, the world would be a different place. Utilitarianism is a game of balance between good results and bad results with the goal of usefulness. In the point of view of the plethora of all other companies it would be probably that a different result would occur depending on the company in question, especially since they would be following the ethical theory of utilitarianism because hiding a chemical spill may have more negative effects on one company then