Libertarianism And Anti-Landmines

Utilitarianism is a teological ethical framework that offers a way to analyze the transistor company’s dilemma. Utilitarianism is consequentialist in nature, meaning that the theory only takes in account the consequences of an action to determine if that action is morally right. More specifically, Kay (1997) explains “utilitarian ethics defines morality in terms of the maximization of net expectable utility for all parties affected by a decision or action” (p. X). For example, it would be acceptable to a utilitarian to kill one person if it meant saving two more people. This is in stark contrast with deontological ethics, which prohibits actions that use people as a means to an end.

Meaning the distribution of goods, money, and property is according to justice only if people acquired their holdings without violating the rights of anyone and becomes the owner of their possessions.

The main ethical dilemma encountered occurs because two major companies, Woburn, W.R. Grace and J Riley Leather, were responsible for polluting Woburn’s drinking water through the negligent dumping of carcinogenic solvents. This negligence is further compounded by the fact that the companies blatantly knew that their actions were polluting the local drinking water with trichloroethylene, a labeled carcinogenic. Furthermore, the companies made no attempt to clean or contain the hazardous waste, and the companies systematically hide their conspiracy. Their actions can be justified through the utilitarian ethical theory. Utilitarianism is a normative theory that focuses the moral correctness of an action on the consequence rather than the action itself. Additionally, this view is based on the hedonistic view that humans naturally seek pleasure and avoid pain. In regards to the companies in the film, they dumped toxic waste into the water supply to save time and expenses that would otherwise be utilized to hire a company to clean up the toxins. In their perspective, they avoided the pain of extra expenses and sought the pleasure involved in saving the money for personal

The idea of utilitarianism promotes consequences that bring the greatest benefit and the least harm overall. While production wise, sophisticated and perfected machinery have greatly helped to improve the goods production

In Distributive Justice, Robert Nozick aims to clarify the processes of distribution that can be reasonably upheld in a free society. To do so, he examines the origins of how people legitimately come to own things and applies the least intrusive set of guidelines that can be doled out in order to guarantee the most justice possible, while also respecting individual liberty. Nozick provides the Entitlement Theory, which specifies that so long as there is justice in the acquisition and transfer of holdings (things one owns), there is no injustice or infringement upon liberties of others and the parties involved are entitled their holdings. In the event there is an injustice committed, he provides the third topic of “ the rectification of injustice in holdings.” Establishing how individuals may legitimately acquire holdings is crucial to a discussion on the liberty and rights of individuals in a free, yet cooperative society. In order to further clarify how individuals originally come to own things in society, Distributive Justice later analyzes John Locke’s Theory of Acquisition. A diminishing number of unowned resources as well as the inherent problems in a free market convolute the issue.

1. A principle of justice in acquisition - This principle deals with the initial acquisition of holdings. It is an account of how people first come to own common property, what types of things can be held, and so forth.

struggling to overcome its dark history. Even after the post war was over, excess numbers of landmines are yet to professionally remove. These landmines are still scattered in deep forests of Cambodia, serving as dangerous remnants of war and resulting in an alarmingly high number of disabled people. Due to the weak and sometimes ineffective government, several illegal activities such as children sex trade continue to operate within Cambodia's borders (Yale University, 2003).

Classical utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory which holds that an action can only be considered as morally right where its consequences bring about the greatest amount of good to the greatest number (where 'good' is equal to pleasure minus pain). Likewise, an action is morally wrong where it fails to maximise good. Since it was first articulated in the late 19th Century by the likes of Jeremy Bentham and later John Stewart Mill, the classical approach to utilitarianism has since become the basis for many other consequentialist theories such as rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism upon which this essay will focus (Driver, 2009). Though birthed from the same

The issues regarding the arms trade discussed in Sowing Weapons of War include the free market in arms, moral responsibility, policies for curbing the trade, and the banning of landmines. Regarding the free market in arms, the Unites States’ activity in the trade has increased dramatically since the Cold War and this increase has led to an increase in lives lost in third world countries due to violence. As a supplier of war weapons, the United States has a moral responsibility to ensure that they follow the process for a legitimate trade. The trade is legitimate if it promotes legitimate defense or follows the principle of sufficiency. However, even though there are instances where the trade can be justified, measures should be taken to curb the trade. Strict controls in the United States as well as internationally can curb the trade; as well as finding nonmilitary ways to protect jobs. Landmines claim the lives of civilians every week; measures need to be take internationally to reduce the number of landmines hidden across the world. In conclusion, weapons of war take the lives of several people everyday, but it does not have to remain this way as there are many steps that the country and the world can take to put an end to the illegitimate

In Robert Nozick’s piece, “Justice as Entitlement”, he discusses the framework of what a just acquisition of an object consists of and what would be considered a just transfer of said object between persons. He also provides guidelines for occurrences of unjust distributions and how to appropriately rectify them. The primary grounds of Nozick’s philosophy involve justice in acquisition or holdings.

There are numerous organizations and charities that are overlooked by the public since they are not as well known, but when many innocent civilians are losing their lives due to past horrific events, that is when action should be taking place. The author of “First they Killed my Father”, Loung Ung, is partnered up with the organization, the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, (ICBL), so that countries like Cambodia are able to discard dangerous landmines that are hidden beneath the country’s soil. Not to mention, this f0undation won the

Nozick’s principles of justice in holdings can be described as only objects that were acquired justly are just. So, for an object that is justly acquired means the object was created or taken justly from natural resources. Just because you bought an object does not mean it was acquired justly. If the person or company you bought the object from acquired the object through robbery, theft, or fraud, then the object has not been justly acquired. Fraud is not considered a just transaction because you are being given false information. If something was stolen then passed down for generations to generation, Nozick would consider this object to be unjustly owned in this family. For a transaction to be voluntary, no force, coercion, threat of force,

However, if one of the principles is violated the property and any advantage or profit made from property is unjustified and is not yours. (Shaw et al. 2009)

Utilitarian Case Study In the business world, sometimes it is difficult for high corporate officials to pick decisions with both consumer safety and profit in mind. Sometimes business, however, will choose to overlook safety hazards in order to avoid low profits and negative reputation. To a utilitarian, the best option would be the choice that has the highest net balance of happiness over unhappiness. In the case of “Stirling Bridge’s Unloading of Surplus Tools” (Beauchamp 199-203), utilitarians would view the contract Sterling Bridge Tool and Machinery Company wrote up as wrong.

The utilitarian theory would approach the ethical dilemmas by a identifying the stakeholders for the situation, and the possible consequences on these stakeholders, also it requires thinking broadly for consequences and impact on the society level not only on the close circle around the dilemma (Trevino p40).