Ethics without the Sermon: Love Canal - Case Study Example

Had they not allowed construction of the buildings there, the area would have not witnessed the spread of cancer and other diseases, along with the occurrence of abnormal births in that region (Business Week, 32). Thus, the main problem is the appropriate allocation and use of the land without cleansing it for residential, educational and commercial purposes. However, since Occidental Petroleum Company had informed about the presence of heavy toxic wastes buried while selling the land to the Niagara Falls Board of Education, in the wake of the latter’s threatening behavior, the Company did not have any responsibilities for the losses in men and material to be occurred for the future years to come.

On the contrary, the Board of Education, land developers, and governmental agencies are liable for the losses took place in the form of seepage and leakage of the toxic wastes. Thus, the loyalties certainly go to the Occidental Company, and the poor masses due to the very fact that the former agreed to pay heavy ransom for the loss it did not have any involvement or intention to get involved, while the latter suffered in the form of experiencing seepage, breakout of diseases, and demolishing of their residences and workplaces at large (Business Week, 33).

Another important issue, which appeared while analyzing the case under-investigation, includes discussing the problem with all the parties involved in the case while making the final decision on the same in order to settle it down. Although, the Occidental Company had obtained legal permission for using the trench to bury the dangerous toxic, yet it should have taken appropriate and long term measures in order to save the masses and environment as well from any future calamity and disturbance subsequently.

Since the company was well aware of the very reality that the waste had not been buried properly, and could cause seepage in the future, endangering the lives of thousands of precious lives. Thus, it handed over the land to the education board without taking steps to cleanse it or destroy the waste permanently. However, no single party could be held liable for the entire state of affairs; consequently, discussing the entire matter with all stakeholders could be supportive in solving the matter in an amicable way, and without imposing fines and penalties on one party only (Nash, 26-27).