M4 Original Assignment - Product Liability and Environmental Ethics

.docx

School

SUNY Empire State College *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

3010

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by oOoSinSeaRoOo

One thing that I have come to realize while doing this assignment is that one cannot use a singular ethical theory to respond to the questions asked. Each aspect of the questions raises different ethical considerations and while one theory may be able to respond to one part of the question, another is more suitable to respond to another part. With that being said, I will respond to the questions asked based on which theory resonates with me at that moment. My responses will use multiple theories as to what I see is just and right. Current news and politics is full of concern about the environment, particularly as it is related to oil use and the auto industry. There are a number of ethical considerations that arise out of these issues. 1. Some propose that these concerns could be alleviated if our use of cars was limited by increased gasoline taxes—if gas is more expensive, we will use less of it and, as a beneficial by-product, improve the environment. What do you think of this proposal and what theory would support your position? Are there injustices built into such measures? From a utilitarian perspective, increasing gasoline taxes to limit car usage can be an effective strategy to reduce environmental impact. By making gasoline more expensive, people would be motivated to use less of it, leading to a reduction in harmful emissions and improved air quality, which is good. This supports the principles of maximizing overall societal welfare. However, it doesn’t take into consideration those that rely on their mode of transportation as a means of providing a life for themselves and their loved ones or other who only have their vehicles to get them wherever they need to be. By Rawlsian standards, one can assume that the proposed change was not developed under those in the first position under the veil of ignorance so it can be considered unjust. Those that propose the change in laws also were not acting justly in accordance with the difference principal which states that inequalities can be justified only if they work to the benefit of the least advantaged (Shaw & Barry, 2016, pg. 124). There are those that rely on their vehicles as their primary source of transportation. It’s how they get to work, get their children to school, see other family members, go to the doctors, or even take their children to the doctor’s. Increasing taxes on gas, thereby increasing the overall cost of transportation for those that are not financially able to adjust to the change, places them at an unfair disadvantage because now they have to decide what is more important to do and must make the decision to forego activities that once were par for the course. What about the possibility that the US auto industry, encouraged by its partial owner, the US government, will no longer produce large gas guzzlers (think Hummer) or will subsidize hybrid or green cars? Is it ethical for the government to essentially prevent a US company from producing a legal good or encourage a company to produce one good over another? What ethical theory supports your position? From a utilitarian perspective, I feel that it is ethically just for the government to act in favor of the betterment of the country with regard to the production of gas guzzling vehicles and their impact on the environment and the health of its citizens. “U.S. automakers, Becker said, are using less-advanced technology than their European and Asian competitors, who make more fuel-efficient vehicles” (Harwell, 2016). I also feel that it is ethically just to encourage the

vehicle maker to limit themselves by providing incentives for them to do so because if not, auto makers would be driven by their bottom line and motivated to produce their products in the most cost-efficient way which would not take the country, its environment, its citizens, or the impact of its practices into consideration. However, I feel that it is necessary to ensure that these policies don’t cause an unfair disadvantage those companies or individuals within the market. Nozick’s first principal of entitlement maintains that “the appropriation of unheld goods or the creation of new goods. If a person acquires a holding in accordance with this principle, then he or she is entitled to it.” (Shaw and Barry, 2016, p115) In this case, the goods produced by the auto makers are the product of their manufacturing by the automaker, and the manufacturing of those goods should not be impeded by any other person or government. A libertarian may view the government’s interference with how the vehicles are being manufactured as an infringement of their rights despite the environmental impact of their actions, and the long-term effects of the increase of vehicles on the road. What are the possible ethical considerations of banning or restricting the import of cars that do not meet certain emission standards? Volkswagen was recently embroiled in a major business disaster when it was discovered that software engineers had inserted a "fix" in their cars that was designed to fool emission tests. While illegal, was that unethical? I don’t believe there should be any ethical considerations with regard to the first part of this question. The government has set standards and regulations on their own vehicles and are holding foreign companies to the same standard. In my opinion, if a foreign company wants to operate outside of its own borders, then it must abide by the rules of its host and must produce vehicles that meets that country’s standards. For example, if there is a rule in my home that profanity is not to be used, and you come into my home cussing up a storm, I am well within my rights to ask you to leave. Simple. In this case, the response is clear. Regarding Volkswagen's actions, they were also highly unethical. The deliberate manipulation of emission tests not only violated regulations but also betrayed consumer trust and demonstrated a lack of corporate social responsibility. "The thing that's going to sell cars is if laws are tough and being enforced and so that consumers don't have to take it as their own responsibility," Claybrook said. "People like a free-market system that's trustworthy. And the auto industry was losing the public trust." (Harwell, 2016). Finally, the world today is full of news about fracking, the process by which a high volume of liquid is pumped into the ground to fracture rock and extract natural gas. What are the ethical considerations of either permitting or prohibiting property owners from using their property in this manner? This last question immediately brings to mind Nozick’ entitlement theory, property rights, and free markets. Nozick’s first principal of the entitlement theory states that “If a person acquires a holding in accordance with this principle, then he or she is entitled to it. If, for example, you discover and remove minerals from the wilderness or make something out of materials you already legitimately possess, then you have justly acquired this new holding… Nozick’s second principal concerns transfers of already-owned goods from one person to another: how people may legitimately transfer holdings to others and how they may legitimately get holdings from others. If a person possesses a holding because of a legitimate transfer, then he or she is entitled

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help