PRODUCT LIABILITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS 7
ProductLiability and Environmental Ethics
ProductLiability and Environmental Ethics
1.1. The proposal does not seem logical. An increase in the price ofgasoline will only lead to discrimination of income earners in asociety. There will be a small number of citizens in society who willnot be able to purchase the gasoline hence consuming it becomes aproblem. I encourage curbing to be used simultaneously with theinclusion of all classes. My proposal is due to the fact thatamending this plan in its nature will only serve to be of disservice.It will only deter the lower class from using gasoline. The policywill end up having direct effect on the poor in society.Subsequently, the people who mainly drive to the workplace are themiddle class. It is ethical for government policies to have an impacton the society on an equal basis. Nationals usually draw moralfoundations to direct them in the drafting of policies (Shaw &Barry, 2015). Liberalism, Utilitarianism, and theory of human rightsare just a few ethical foundations guidelines found in the UnitedStates. The policy to increase the prices of the gasoline is incontrary with utilitarianism, which calls for the common good tomajority class. Transportation is viewed as an important aspect ofthe people of the US. In our modern society it is very critical foran individual to travel out of the city. Going as per the record, gasprices inflated on long island, a few years back, the usage of thevehicle did not significantly decrease.
1.2.Self-interest and egoism will make someone naturally to exploit gasguzzlers regardless of the stylistic taste. The approach of Kantianand Rawlsian supports gas tax increment strongly. However,utilitarian tends to find out practical significance of more gasguzzlers driving (Shaw & Barry, 2015). The major benefits thatcome with this policy will be put into questioning, especially on itsrelative importance to the general public as compared to the negativeimpacts and costs associated with this approach. Past studies haverevealed that majorly gas guzzler has no any practical necessity forthe vehicles when it comes to its market. Going by this argument, itwill be of great importance to the general public. There will be areduction on the injustice that would have been imposed to the ‘gasguzzlers. "Analyzing the proposal, it does not intend to imposea ban on the production of a gas guzzler. As per economic theoriesand guidelines for auto manufacturers to optimize on their profits,there will be need for increased production regarding units. It willbring in place sufficient supply to meet the needs of both theutilitarianism and the Kantian ideologies, leading to the greatestbenefit to the society.
Thefinal the decision maker on the difference legal right and the hotone is the government. Tracking history, laws and regulations havealways been constantly replenished, changed and replaced. It will bethe best approach by government to amend regulations on fossil fuelsand petroleum products once it is established that the use andconsumption of these products has no true mutual interest to thegreater society scientifically. Kantian and utilitarianism theoriessupport measures that are tailored to bring the biggest benefit tothe most significant number of people. The US government has no basisfor ethical considerations on the matter of decisions pertainingauthority over products in the market based on ownership positionvirtue .There is always an inclusion of direct incentives as opposedto the outright bans.
1.3. It is unreasonable and of self-interest, as the US has nojurisdiction over foreign land. It has no authority to ban productionof energy and impose responsibility on matters of the environment toother nations. However, the theory of utilitarianism backs politicalpressure in trying to lure other countries from committing the samemistakes our government did the long time ago. Since the standardbenefit is intended to the people of those countries and the rest ofthe globe as opposed to just Americans (Shaw & Barry, 2015). TheUS government is ethically right to impose pressures on the remainderof the world in trying to solve environmental issues and bring thebest benefit to the majority as supported by utilitarianism.Developed countries are of great importance to the developing nationsespecially due to their research and experience. Maximum useful for anumber of people dictates that knowledge availability is ofimportance to humanity hence it should be shared extensively.Ethical considerations on the environment are the vital guidingfactor in restricting the transfer of cheaper technologies to thedeveloping nations as history has shown these technologies havenegative impacts on our planet.
1.4. A decade ago, hydraulic fracturing in the United States was aproblem. Today the problem has spread fast to all nations in theworld. The most deployed method is island drilling. The process isnot only limited to wells of natural gas but also in crude oilextraction. The fracking process has never gone in line withenvironmentalist. It is unhealthy to the environment and brings theworst benefit to the majority of people. The method goes in contrarywith the principles of utilitarianism and golden theory. In trying toaccess to previously inaccessible reservoirs fracturing permitspercolation of chemicals and imbalances in the core of the earth.
2.1.As discussed in Shaw and Barry, settling on the public good requiresapproach of utilitarianism considerations. It can be argued to beunethical to export capital as it can be deployed locally (Shaw &Barry, 2015). Every individual is supposed to have equal right whenit comes to compatibility of the same liberties for all. Theinequalities in socio-economic settings enhance two ideologies.First, the positioning attachment to offices should be open to thegeneral public equitably. Secondly, there should be greatestimportance to the most significant number of people in society. Thecapital ought to be employed locally in improving the lives of ourcitizens alongside bringing benefit to the people, and it should notdeter necessity of our local sector. When there is the exportation ofcapital, then its availability locally is lost.
2.2.All nations should ban the sale of any product that has been bannedin the United States. It is against the morality of golden rule andutilitarianism to trade in banned products in particular nations. Asoutlined in the Shaw and Barry, application of utilitarianism oughtto be applied to ethical codes in generality as opposed to actions ofan individual. The major question should be what is the moral codethat can bring the greatest benefit to the entire society inmaximizing happiness. Regardless of neither profits nor the market,it is believed once a product has been banned it is of negativeimpact to the whole population of humankind.
2.3.In case of economic difficulties, companies should be downsizedhowever, it is of detrimental to the rest. There is a differencebetween the two types of utilitarianism by Shaw and Barry. First, actutilitarianism is the straightest version considered to be forwardand classic type of utilitarianism. Here we have only one ethicalobligation, happiness maximization to the majority. Each action hasto be judged on the basis of how well it conforms to the standards(Shaw & Barry, 2015). The greatest happens is brought to themajority people regardless of the impact. On the other hand,utilitarianism rules out those utilitarian set standards that shouldconform to actions of individual as opposed to the morality codes. Itdictates the kind of moral codes that has to maximize happiness inthe society. The guidelines that form these standards should aim atdifferentiating between what is wrong and right in actions.
2.4.The fact that a contract exists, which cannot be done away with,makes it unethical to implement the policy. It contradicts the theoryof least harm alongside Golden theory. In the text, it is explainedexplicitly every person should granted a right on an equal basis tocompatible liberties (Shaw & Barry, 2015). There should be openoffice and position attachment on fair basis economically. Thereshould be the greatest good to the group that is disadvantaged insociety. The idea is not wrong in explicitly in itself. It onlyoperates in enhancing the worst off position.
Inconclusion in answering the above question, I used at least twotheories in defending my positions.
Shaw,W., & Barry, V. (2015). Moral Issues in Business. CengageLearning.