Utilitarianism, Rawl's Theory of Justice and Kantian Deontology - Case Study Example

Name Student Id Lecturer’s Name Date Introduction Business ethics are the guidelines on what is right and what is wrong in the society and in the business world. Ethics are the rules that govern day to day running of the corporate world. They are rules that provide a direction on how different stakeholders should behave while performing their duties (Carey 2013). Business ethics act as the guide to decision making and ensure that moral standards are adhered to. This means that if there is failure in business ethics the business world will collapse (Arnold, Beauchamp & Bowie 2013). Ethics is largely considered to be the ‘science of conduct’, whereby, what is right is based on the moral principle, the situation at the time, or even upon the individual (Kotler & Lee 2005). Utilitarianism Utilitarianism refers to a situation where the action taken is of benefit to the majority stakeholders or people, as being right. The theory argues that every action taken should bring happiness to the majority who are being involved (Ferrell, Fraedrich, & Ferrell 2013). The consequences of an action taken should be more positive, and bring good to the people affected by the action, for it to be right. Utilitarian demands that individuals should sacrifice their self interest for the sake of the majority in the society. The theory demands that every action that is taken should be aimed at maximizing utility (Jones, Parker & Bos 2005). The reason behind this is that the central basis of utilitarianism is the society as a whole but not an individual. The initial decision reached by the government of Papua New Guinea (PGN), to allow BHP to continue developing the Ok Ted mine, and construct, a permanent waste storage pit and, the fact that BHP had gone ahead and started the construction, reflects utilitarianism. This is because the action taken was to benefit the people of Papua New Guinea as a whole by reducing the environmental hazards and damages that were likely to come up as a result of opening up the Ok Ted mine (Jones, Parker & Bos 2005). The principle of utilitarianism is compromised by BHP self interests after the collapse of the mine because BHP pushes the government to open the mine even if they do not have storage, this action would affect the people of Papua New Guinea due to raw waste coming from the mine. The delays in opening the mine wasted more time of the company and meant that they would incur extra cost in setting up a new storage system, these two factors represents BHP self interests which the theory works against. The government also decided to open the mine before the storage system was completed, this was to benefit majority but only for a short term. This is because the action had far reaching consequences to the people of Papua New Guinea because it will lead to environmental damage (Kotler & Lee 2005). According to utilitarianism, an action is deemed right or good as long as it provides utility for the majority. This is seen where the government decides to continue mining even after there was damage to the environment. This after BHP wanted to close down the mine so as to stop the damage. The government so the mine beneficial to the people in terms of social and economic benefits. Kantian deontology Kantian deontology focuses on the ethics of duty; this is how an individual performs a given duty (Bowie 1999). According to Kantian deontology morality is based on the willingness of the one performing the duty but not the end results. The theory emphasizes that people should be seen as end but not means. The reason behind this is that people cannot control the future. Kantian ethics opposes pure reason as utility but presents it as morality. BHP agreed to compensate the people mostly affected by the mine, not out of duty, but because they were forced to do so due to the legal battle they were facing (Ferrell, Fraedrich, & Ferrell 2013). In this case, they did not compensate the people out of will, but they were avoiding the consequences that would come as a result of the legal suit against them, hence did not act according to Kantian ethics of duty (Kotler & Lee 2005). The government of Papua New Guinea, on the other hand, while faced with the possibility of closing down the mine after BHP reached its decision, acted purely out of duty to the people (Velasquez 2006). The government did not focus its decision on the consequences of closing down the mine, but what would help the people, and what the people wanted; providing social and economic amenities and benefits to the people like health facilities, education and employment, which are basic for the survival of the people (Kotler & Lee 2005). Justice Rawls theory of justice is based on fairness, equality and free choice (Hartman & De Jardins 2011). Rawls accepts the Kantian approach, and advocates for rationality acceptable to all, respect for all people as well as the universal notion (Freeman 2007). He also tries to reach the distributive justice principle acceptable to all rational people. Rawls emphasizes equal distribution of resources except in cases where unequal distribution is beneficial to everyone (Freeman 2007). Basing on Rawls theory of justice, the actions taken by BHP and PNG government provided justice to the people (Hartman & De Jardins 2011). This is because, BHP had 52% shares of the mine and regardless of the inequality, and the people benefited a lot socially and economically through education, health facilities as well as through employment. BHP was also paying a lot of tax to the government, which was used in developing the economy of the country. Nozick’s libertarian theory of justice emphasizes on economic and social entitlement and liberty. Nozick argues that justice is when there are rights of property ownership as well as rights to transfer. This theory of justice is reflected in the case study of Ok Tedi copper mine, whereby justice is reflected in the fact that BHP, as a private investor own 52% shares of the mine, and this is allowed by the government of PNG, which owns less shares. Justice is also displayed when the government of PNG allows BHP to transfer its shares to a trust for the people, when it chooses to close down the mine. Justice is also displayed, according to Nozick, when the government plays a minimal role in the running and ownership of the mine; BHP owned the majority shares, before it transferred its shares to a people’s trust (Velasquez 2006). Rights Rights are things entitled to a human being and give a person freedom to do something and entitle them an obligation from other in manner that won’t violate their rights (Carey 2013). According to the ethical theory, there are two types of rights; positive and negative rights. Negative rights are the ones that can be interfered with by others, while positive rights is where the entitlement is accompanied with something, or there is an action carried out in relation to that entitlement. However, these rights have limitations (Hartman & De Jardins 2011). Positive rights are limited by only a fair share of the available resources. The negative rights are limited by the equal rights of other persons to freedom (Ferrell, Fraedrich, & Ferrell 2013). After BHP suggests the complete closure of the mine, the government of Papua New Guinea made a decision to protect the people’s rights to social facilities as well as right to education. The mine was the backbone of PNG’s economy and closing it would deprive the people some of their rights like right to health care and their rights to education (Velasquez 2006). On the other hand, BHP decided to close the mine so as to stop depriving the people their right of being protected from environmental hazards. As a matter of fact, BHP had a right to continue operating the mine since it owned majority of the shares and the contract with the government of PNG was yet to expire. However, that right was being limited by the people’s right of staying in a healthy and safe environment without pollution from the mine (Arnold, Beauchamp & Bowie 2013). Normative ethical relativism Normative ethical relativism asserts that there is no universal truth in ethics. It also argues that the good thing is accepted socially and a bad thing is an unaccepted in any given society (Ferrell, Fraedrich, & Ferrell 2013). Every society has its own code as it is presented by normative relativism. According to the theory there is no truth in morality because right and wrong are just varying opinions in different societies and cultures (Hartman & De Jardins 2011). This is seen to be true in this case when the government of PNG of allowed BHP to open the mine without taking any measures to conserve the environment (Hartley 2005). BHP also portrays that when it pushed the government to allow the opening of the mine without any waste storage facility, just because the one which was under construction was destroyed by a landslide, and a likely hood of any other being destroyed the same way. These arguments including delaying the opening of the mine if another storage facility was to be built diluted the wrong of operating without minimizing environmental damage and made it right and socially acceptable (Velasquez 2006). Conclusion Ethical theory discussion can go on without an end because the theories themselves complicate each other with their different explanations. The reason behind this is that there is a lot of difference in culture as well as interests in different societies. This leads to every society giving its own interpretation to suit their understanding and culture (Carey 2013). This is because; most theories and ethical issues are put in a way suit selfish interest of individuals (Hartley 2005). Ethics is seen as science of conduct and it lays down what is right and what is wrong. This is what has given rise to the ethical theories as guidelines to the human race in day to day running of their lives. Therefore, to have a sane society there is need to consider application of these theories because they promote morality in the society. References Arnold, D .G., Beauchamp, R. T., & Bowie, N. E. 2013. Ethical Theory and Business (9th ed.). Pearson: Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Bowie, N. E. 1999. Business Ethics: A Kantian Perspective. Blackwell Publishers: Malden, MA. Carey, L. E. 2013. Business Ethics Managing Values and Corporate Responsibility. Pearson: Frenchs Forrest, Sydney. Des Jardins, J. R. 2001. Environmental ethics: An introduction to environmental philosophy (3rd ed.). Wadsworth: Belmont, California Des Jardins, J. R. 2011. An Introduction to Business Ethics (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill: Boston, MA. Ferrell, O. C., Fraedrich, J., & Ferrell, L. 2013. Business ethics ethical decision making and cases (9th ed.). Houghton Mifflin: Boston. Hartley, R. F. 2005. Business Ethics Mistakes and Successes. John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, N. J. Hartman, L .P. & Des Jardins, J. 2011. Business Ethics Decision Making for Personal Integrity & Social Responsibility (2nd ed.). Mc Graw Hill Irwin: New York. Jones, C., Parker, M. & Bos, R. 2005. For Business Ethics, Routledge: Oxford. Kotler, P., & Lee, N. 2005. Corporate Social Responsibility: Doing the Most Good for Your Company and Your Cause. Wiley & Sons Ltd : New Jersey. Velasquez, M. G. 2006. Business ethics concepts & cases (6th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall: New Jersey. Read More