Ethical Arguments on Huge Corporation - Essay Example

? Ethical Arguments This paper entails the international market with regard to Huge Corporation, Inc a U.S company that has been very successful and of high profile. The company is interested in expanding its market for the sale of human organs and instruments of human torture through the formation of subsidiaries in some parts of the world. However, before it is achieved there must be an analysis on the pros and cons of the business areas as discussed below. HUGE CORPORATION, INC MEMORANDUM TO: Chief Executive Officer FROM: Marketing Manager DATE: September 25th, 2012. SUBJECT: EXPANSION OF MARKET ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­______________________________________________________________________________ As our future outlook continues to improve we have decides to form more subsidiaries to expand into two very lucrative areas: the human organ sales and the instruments of human torture. Organ trade basically involves the sale of the human inner organs like the heart, liver the kidneys and other vital organs for transplant. As of now, there is a worldwide shortage of organs that are available for transplant. Essentially, a lot of wealthy people who unfortunately require organ transplant are capable of paying any amount of money to have the treatments as long as they do not have to wait in line for donated organs. Conversely, a lot of poor people will gladly sell their organs to make a living. However, a large percentage belongs to those who die will waiting for organs due to shortage (Chia, 2009). The sale of these organs has three major implications: ethical, legal and financial implications. Although the sale has had loopholes in a number of issues, there is a need to look at some of the implications since they affect the international market in which we are a part of. The legal aspect of organ sales is to ensure that there are legal procedures that are taken into consideration during the transactions and procedures. The financial aspect of the sale of human organ is that, it offers financial solutions to the sellers who in this case are the poor people. According to Chia, 2009, proponents of the organ sale campaign argue that, saving lives and reducing human suffering is a moral duty for every human being whenever they are able to do so. This is because, thousands of patients die yearly due to shortage in supply of organs, while others undergo painful and pricey dialysis treatments. Consequently, consenting to a commercial market in organs is highly likely to reduce the needless deaths and sufferings that are present as it increases the supply of organs. Moreover, the cash payments will increase people’s enthusiasm to donate their body parts, as well as, contributing to the fall of the same prices and making them affordable to more patients. On the contrary, the opponents for the sale of human organs argue that, although the society may claim to have the obligation of preserving life and easing human suffering, this may not be fully applicable. In particular, they argue that the society in not in a position to assume any practices that would violate the rights of its members or cause injustices. Additionally, the society has the obligation to ensure that each of its members whether rich or poor has an equal right to accessing medical benefits. The issues of having the rich buying organs from the poor appear to benefit the former as compared to the latter, hence inception of unequal allotment of health becomes unjust (Wilkinson, 2011). Needless to mention, individuals have the right to live their lives with much freedom and dignity. Wilkinson, 2011 argues that, the organ market would undoubtedly lead to abuse that entails the violation of freedom and dignity of persons. In essence, they say that such a scheme will give confidence to the most defenseless, who in this case happens to be the poor through treating hemselves and be treated as commodities, as well as, giving others the opportunity to violate their rights in order to gain commercially. The other expansion that the company is looking at is the market for instruments of human torture. This decision has been reached due to the fact that very few other companies are serving this market (Steiner et.al, 2007). The instruments for human torture are been used in most of the countries in the world hence the necessity to expand our market. However, there is a need to look at the pro and cons of this business. The proponents of torture especially through the use of the instrument or better still, the use of mind altering drugs used to alter or distort the normal function of the brain argue that, the instruments of torture are very essential especially when is comes to conviction where offenders are supposed to give out information about the crimes they have committed (Wilkinson, 2003). The torture methods help save time as they force offenders to speak out in a more fast way than they would have other wisely done without the torture. In essence, the credible thought of torture is enough reason to extract any kind of information from many people. Additionally, the use of torture instruments has been used politically and legally to give punishment to people who are said to have committed heinous crimes all over the world. The opponents of instruments of human torture argue that, they are cruel, inhuman and lead to degrading experiences. In particular, they say that no human being should be subjected to such unusual punishment with regard to time, place and other circumstances. Scenes related to the use of instruments of torture are shocking especially when they are put for viewing. The issue of shocking connects with morality when a human being is treated in a way that is inhumane through forcing him/her something that is not common to him or her and one that does not make him / her comfortable. Due to this, opponents of torture affirm that torture is of painful death as demonstrated by most of the involved people (Budiani-Saberi et al, 2008). Hence, there is no form of an offence that should be capable of exposing human being to torture as every individual has the right to life. Besides, the prohibition of torture can be justified on the basis of having much greater impact than they practically seem because they generate not merely physical or mental harms but also other additional special harms that may not present themselves during the use of these instruments. Recommendations As for the first business adventure, it is essential to consider the health of other people for the reason that life is precious. Those who are in a position to sell the organs should do so in order to help those that are sick and yet capable of buying the organs. The laws should also put into scrutiny this issue to prevent any tricky situations that may arise during the buying and selling plus the actual procedure. With this in place, I would recommend Huge Corporation to go into the market because there is a dire need to help patients who need a transplant all over the world thus, reducing needless deaths and sufferings. Over all, the company will have a great opportunity of making money in this. Conversely, the second business adventure may not be a good option for the company as for now. This is because, the issue of instruments of human torture has received more opposition that proposition. The mention of torture especially in the international market denotes lack of respect for human dignity and the right to life. Although it has it own pros especially in the criminal justice where making offenders give confessions without necessarily having to be pushed, the bottom line is that no human being should be subject to ‘inhumane acts’ even if they have committed heinous acts. Venturing into the market would suggest that Huge Corporation is in support of torture to humanity. Overall, the company risk economically, if it decides to take on this adventure. References; Budiani-Saberi, D. A. and Delmonicob, F. L. (2008). Organ Trafficking and Transplant Tourism: A Commentary on the Global. Realities, American Journal of Transplantation, 8: 925– 929. Chia, R. (2009). The ethics of human organ trading. Singapore: Jointly published by Genesis Books and National Council of Churches of Singapore. Steiner, H., Alston, P. & Goodman, R. (2007). International human rights in context: law, politics, morals: text and materials. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. Wilkinson, S. (2003). Bodies for Sale: Ethics and Exploitation in the Human Body Trade. New York: Routledge. Wilkinson, T. M. (2011). Ethics and the acquisition of organs. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. Read More