Ethical Issue in the News - Essay Example

? October Ethical Issue in the News: Soda Ban Introduction In everyday life, we frequently encounter ethical dilemmas. There are issues on both sides of the scale, and if we resolve to do something about them, new kinds of issues surface on both sides. In an attempt to make informed decision, we refer to different scales of ethics including our religious and cultural values, and the theory of ethics. Irrespective of what scale we choose, the issue might remain as such and not ethically justified from all aspects. Choice of the scale of ethics is an individual’s decision, and there are always people who can criticize the individual’s approach one way or the other. At the end, we have to take a solid step since it is ethically justified at least from our own perspective. The reality stays as such that ethics has a complex nature, and we as humans have limited tendency to balance all aspects with respect to the issue at hand. In this essay, the issue of ban imposed on the sale of soda larger than 16 ounces imposed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been assessed. I think that Bloomberg’s decision of imposing this ban is ethically justified. Competing Views on the Controversial Issue Growing rate of obesity is one of the major threats to the health and safety of our society in the contemporary age. Obesity is both a public health problem and an individual health problem. On one hand, businesses have a right to sell whatever they want to the customers because they are in business fundamentally because customers have faith in their products and choose to buy them. Likewise, the customers have the right to make their own purchasing choices as they want, rather than having them controlled by the government. In a democratic country, where freedom of speech and expression is encouraged on every level, placing a ban on food items is similar to underestimating the customers’ tendency to make informed decisions themselves. However, on the other hand, if no such bans are imposed on the eatables and drinks known to cause obesity among individuals in the society, the obesity rate keeps growing in the society so as to make the obesity a potential health risk. In addition to that, the healthcare costs associated with obesity maximize with the spread of obesity, and most of the money consumed in taking care of the obese patients is people’s money. It is a fundamental right of every citizen not to pay the cost of obesity in terms of healthcare and disease. As choosing either of the two options i.e. imposing or not imposing the ban on obesity-causing eatables and drinks has certain benefits for the society along with certain consequences, the matter is essentially an ethical dilemma, and poses many challenges for the government. A very important cause of the growth of obesity rate is the consumption of junk food. Fast food restaurants have been upsizing their meals to satiate the food cravings of their customers. Likewise, many fast food restaurants sell soda larger than 16 ounces which is a huge source of calories. Considering this fact, Mayor Michael Bloomberg banned the sale of soda larger than 16 ounces. This step of Bloomberg has attracted a lot of controversy and critics have raised numerous concerns against it. The issue has been hot topic in the social media lately. For example, The New York Times published an article on 31 May 2012 in which Bloomberg’s decision was criticized. The author of the article considers the ban an unnecessary action and a subjugation of the customers’ rights (“A Ban Too Far”). Another author Daniel E. Lieberman has raised his voice in support of Bloomberg’s decision in his article published in The New York Times on 5 June 2012. In view of Lieberman, obesity is a health issue that requires such coercive actions from the concerned authorities as the one taken by Bloomberg. The competing views that have surfaced in response to the controversial move of Bloomberg emphasize on different ethical implications of his decision. For example, the author of the article “A Ban Too Far” considers freedom of choice of the customers more important than conducting reforms to limit their consumption of sugar and calories whereas Lieberman emphasizes upon the need of intervention in the customers’ unhealthy consumption habits by the concerned authorities. My Perspective In my perspective, Bloomberg has taken a good initiative by imposing ban on the soda sized over 16 ounces since this is a very large volume to be consumed by an individual at one time, and anything over this is just too much. Critics of Bloomberg’s ban have commonly said that educating the public is a better way of controlling obesity rather than such bans that limit their freedom of choice. Over the decades, the awareness in our society regarding the importance of staying healthy and the potential ways in which they can stay safe and healthy has generally increased. Paradoxically, the rate of obesity in our society has increased at an equal pace. This obviously suggests that educating people is a very subjective way of controlling obesity if at all it is one. People today know that consumption of calories in excess causes obesity and yet they choose to consume the fast food and soda over 16 ounces in volume because this habit has become part of their lifestyle. In the present age, when people have to look after so many things including their education, job, and family, a dearth of time has been caused. People look forward to opportunities of recreation and enjoyment and fast food provides them with both along with saving their time that would otherwise have been consumed in cooking food at home. Since consumption of soda in excess has become a lifestyle, many people cannot avoid it even if they want to. In these conditions, there is need of intervention by the responsible personnel and agencies who assume the power to modify the menus at the fast food restaurant. Another claim frequently made by the critics of Bloomberg’s ban is that it is a subjugation of people’s right to consume as much soda as they want. This is also untrue! Even though the ban has been imposed, it does not stop people from consuming soda over 16 ounces if they are determined to since an individual can always buy another glass of soda if he/she wants more. The ban imposed by Bloomberg is essentially nothing more than a mere discouragement for the people to drink more. Many people would limit their consumption of soda to 16 ounces respecting Bloomberg’s decision rather than going over to the counter to purchase another glass. So in effect no right of the customers has been subjugated. Even with the imposition of ban, they can consume soda over 16 ounces; just the way has been changed and that too for the betterment and well-being of the customers. Singer evaluates decisions on the basis of utilitarian theory of ethics. According to the utilitarian theory of ethics, a decision is considered ethically justified if it limits the suffering of the people involved in it or are affected by it and also enlarges their interests. “Utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory that places the locus of right and wrong solely on the outcomes (consequences) of choosing one action/policy over other actions/policies” (“Utilitarian Theories”). In the case under consideration, Bloomberg’s decision is ethically justified because Bloomberg’s efforts are directed at reducing the growing rate of obesity. Although it is too preliminary a stage to comment to what extent this move would actually cause a reduction in the obesity of customers, yet it is speculated that the results in the long run would be very favorable. If the obesity rate is reduced, it would limit the suffering of all the overweight and obese people in the society without doubt. At the same time, there interest in sustaining such healthy consumption habits would be enlarged. Therefore, despite all the criticism it has acquired, Bloomberg’s decision of imposing ban on the sale of soda larger than 16 ounces in volume is ethically justified. Works Cited: “A Ban Too Far.” The New York Times. 31 May 2012. Web. 1 Oct. 2012. . Lieberman, Daniel. E. “Evolution’s Sweet Tooth.” The New York Times. 5 June 2012. Web. 1 Oct. 2012. . “Utilitarian Theories.” 2002. Web. 1 Oct. 2012. . Read More