Application of Utilitarianism by Shell Company - Essay Example

Application of Utilitarianism Shell Multinational Company is one of the leading companies in the world’s oil industry. It packages oil and also makes pipes and containers for transporting oil to various destinations in many countries of the world. Despite this leading role in the oil industry, its pipes have some leakages that lead to oil leakages and consequential pollution of the environment. Among many of the regions affected by oil spills from Shell pipes, two villages have been the most affected. Most of these problems arise from deliberate acts of Shell’s management to take advantage of low standards of corporate and technological standards in those countries they transport their oil to. It appears that Shell management applies utilitarianism in most of its operations, especially in the manufacture of pipes. This serves as the main stumbling block in getting leakage issues fixed. For instance, it has been unable to send its workers to fix oil leakages in the affected areas because doing so will cut down oil supply to major towns and consequently attract public complaints and reduce its profits. In addition, this will be costly to the Shell Company and consequently oils prices will rise. The number of people pleased by the Shells’ pipeline services is huge compared to villagers who are dissatisfied due to the leakages near their homes. This conclusion makes me believe that the company uses follows the concept of Utilitarianism they it will not be willing to discharge its workers to fix all their pipelines. Utilitarianism is a moral concept that draws its conclusion from the utility principle. According to this principle, an action is right or wrong depending on its consequences (Guidi 26). Any good thing that is taken to be good should produce happiness or pleasure and prevent unhappiness or pain than any other alternative. This means that welfare of the society in which the concept is applied is taken into great consideration. The greatest good is for greatest number and is explained in aggregate terms. As long as more people in the society are the recipient of good, action is approved even if it is harmful to some few members of the society (Mill 10). This concept explains clearly why Shell may not consider replacing their leaking pipes. This is because comparisons between those who benefit from transportation of oil and those armed with leakages shows that those who benefit outnumber those suffering. Application of utilitarianism in this situation is an indicator that no repair will ever be commissioned so as to avoid bad consequence due to shortage of oil for the users. Those who consume the oil in the society are very many compared to those affected by the leakages (Mill 12). As long as the public outcry will not overshadow satisfaction to oil consumers, Shell will not serve to replace leaking pipes. Shell is also taking advantage of low standards of corporate and technological standards in some countries because of the conclusions drawn from utilitarianism concept. This is because most of these countries depend on oil to ensure that their economy runs appropriately. This means as long as majority of citizens in these countries are satisfied with oil transportation, leakages are considered minor occurrences that need not to be dealt with. Utilitarianism puts in to consideration the proportion of the population affected by an action that is happy and pleased (Guidi 13). This means that proportion of people that enjoy the services of Shell are more compared to those who are dissatisfied and therefore this means that it is satisfied to continue to use such fault pipes to transport oil. Economic consequences of stopping oil transportation to do repair and replace broken pipes are very harsh to citizens. Since these counties depend much on oil, possible consequences of low oil supply are increased cost of basic commodities, increased fares and shortage of some basic products among others. This will cause most of them unhappy including some who are affected by gas and oil leakages. Shell has no choice but to continue to serve the interests of the majority of the people in the society. The concept of utilitarianism does no acknowledge individual rights in its definition of good actions (Dombrowski 8). This means that rights of the minority must be violated so that the majority may be made happy. Leakages of oil and its bad consequence to the environment only affect very few people unlike the majority who enjoy access to oil. This means that people in the villages have to continue suffering as long as the rest of the population is comfortable with the services of Shell. Repair and replacement of pipes supplying oil in the affected counties can only take place when majority of the citizens express their contempt with the way oil transportation is handled. Since this has not been the case, many of the people are pleased by the services offered by Shell pipes and therefore faulty pipes will remain in place. Moral aspects of actions are defined by their consequences (McCarthy and Lysaught 2). This means that there is nothing wrong with any action as long as consequences have not proved so. There is no other basis of judging rightfulness of action without emphasis on its outcomes. This approves the action of Shell multinational company to use faulty pipers in countries with low standards of corporate and technological standards. The original objective of Shell pipelines is to transport oil and gases to the members of the public so as to supplement daily economic lives. This objective is achieved as there have no meaningful complaints about ability of Shell to supply oil. Use of faulty pipes in this case is justifies as it the desperate need of these products transported through pipe is met. Cost-benefit analysis which is the most applied technique used to approve or disapprove action approves this move to use low quality pipe (Dombrowski 13). Analyzing the whole process of making and selling faulty pipes makes us come up with a conclusion that it is justified by use of utilitarianism concept (McCarthy and Lysaught 5). First, making substandard pipe brings large proportion of profit per unit cost. Business entities are made to make profit which is undisputedly achieved by Shell multinational company. This means that the management and all other staff members have approved it. This brings pleasure and happiness to all stakeholders in the Company. The ultimate goal of countries using Shell pipes is to transport oil and gas to various destinations to boost economic activities. This has also been achieved as there are no complains about it. The only complain comes from villagers who are the minority in the whole process. This means that cost-benefit analysis is in favor of continued use of faulty pipes a long as those who suffer are few compared to those who benefits. According to utilitarianism concept, Shell Multinational Company has done no crime to take advantage of low technological started in some of the countries it supplies pipes to. This is because its employees and majority of its customers in these countries are pleased with the pipes it is supplying to them. As per my view, Shell Multinational Company is wrong to use utilitarianism related conclusions to serve its customers. Pipe products it makes should be faultless. It should not take advantage of low standards of corporate and technological standards in some of the countries. This is because it makes villages to suffer from widespread leakages while being concerned with maximizing total utility (Mill 24). By doing this, Shell does not respect the separateness of persons. It should consider how utility achieved is distributed among concerned people. Aggregate happiness and pleasure does not show proper respect to humanity. Few people should not be singled out to suffer so that many others may be pleased (Dombrowski 13). Management of Shell and its staff have failed to take moral responsibility to protect humanity. Although stopping oil supply will not please many, it remains to be the only option so as to protect integrity of humanity and ensure respect that every person should be entitled to. This is because no person or group of people who should be treated as subhuman (Dombrowski 18). The whole situation should have also been cared for had Shell manufactured pipes of the desired quality. Although repair of the pipes is likely to anger many as well as interrupting economic activities in target countries, it could have been avoided by use of right pipes to transport gases and oil. Negative consequences of using sub-standard pipes could be projected by the workers and the management of Shell before the pipeline was laid. Utilitarianism encourages us to be impartial as we measure utility. This should however not be interpreted in terms of aggregate pleasure and happiness which curtails minorities from enjoying their lives as they should (Dombrowski 6). Impartiality in this case is not traceable and therefore Shell should go back to drawing board to ensure that its products are not harming lives and environment of some of the members of the society as it is the case. This is because utilitarianism it has applied inhibits moral responsibilities among people and therefore it is not acceptable. In conclusion, Shell should stop using advantage of low standards of corporate and technological standards in those countries they transport their oil. This is because it is not fulfilling moral responsibility of any company which is to ensure safety to consumers of its products. Complaining villagers have a right to enjoy their lives which not possible for now due to pollution of their environment and health problems caused by leakages. It should also not use utilitarianism concept to judge its actions. I recommend use of formalism concept which acknowledges categorical imperative, good will, humanity and universal acceptability as the determinant of the rightfulness of actions. (Word count 1622) Works Cited Dombrowski, P (2000) Ethics in Technical Communication. The Allyn & Bacon Series in Technical Communication: Boston & London. Print. Guidi, M. E., Ethics and ethical theories. Web. 2/6/2014. http://dse.ec.unipi.it/~guidi/Utilitarian%20Ethics/Unit01%20ethics.pdf McCarthy, David Matzko and Lysaught, Therese M., “The Moral Course of Thinking”, Gathered for the Journey. Moral Theology in Catholic Perspective. Grand Rapids: Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2007. Print. Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism, Batoche Books Limited, 2001. Web. 2/6/2014. http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/m/mill/john_stuart/m645u/chapter2.html Read More