Case study:

The aroma of Tacoma:

1. If the Tacoma community chooses to keep the smelter open, should the EPA go along? What if the community chooses to close the smelter? Are their choices Free? Yes, the EPA should go along the community. It is because they have consented on it. Much of their livelihood is dependent on this only particular thing. If the EPA doesnt go with their decision, they have an obligation to provide them with such an alternative which is equal to the amount of benefits it provides. If the community chooses to close smelter, then the EPA has a responsibility to think and examine critically and work on the utilitarian principal, thus analyzing the total costs and total benefits of smelter and take actions accordingly. The major problem is that any decision is NOT FREE. Each of them carries huge costs and benefits with it. Thus before taking any decision, it is very important investigate and question every single possibility.

2. What do you think the Tacoma community should choose? Why? What would you choose? I think Tacoma community should choose to keep the smelter open. It is beneficial for them because according to cost benefit analysis, it shows that the economy gains $20 million. The first and foremost argument of opposition would be that isnt there any value of a persons life? The reply in favor of my choice is that according to me 570 lives are more important to me than a single life that has disease of lung cancer. I would choose smelter to keep open because it not only benefits the economic life of many people but also benefits the social life of many families. The economic benefit may not suppress the life of a person who CAN have lung disease because of it but the social welfare of 570 families suppresses that one life for sure. I would choose the same because of all the reasons presented and discussed above.

The auto companies in china:

1. Is it wrong for the car companies to help china expand its auto industry? The main motive of companies is to look for the untapped market where there is a demand to be fulfilled by their product. They make profits by doing researches on the demands of the people and by meeting those demands. However, if seen in accordance with ethics, the two major problems that can arise with this decision to help can be an increase in pollution rate that is caused by the burning of fuel and the second one is the depletion of very important recourse The oil. However the question still remains is it wrong to help? The answer to this according to me is that it is! The car companies are helping China because they want to reap the benefits of untapped market and an increasing demand without realizing the harms it will cause. But this decision of NOT TO HELP also doesnt come without queries. Will not it affect the economy if they dont make cars for the people who demand it? Dont the people who demand have the right to get what they wish and are ready to pay the monetary price of it? The companies obviously cannot leave the demands unseen because it will affect the economy very badly. Then what the companies should do? The companies should find the alternatives to meet those demands, for e.g. they can invest that money in R&D to make such a car which produces less or no pollution. In this way they can engage in social welfare by helping to reduce or eliminate pollution, along with making profits by introducing a car with new feature of being an environmental friendly car. Not just this, they can invest their money in finding alternative ways on which the engine can run. For e.g. they can find out how can a car operate on solar energy thus helping to stop the scarce resource of oil from depleting. In this way, they can stop doing wrong to environment and economy alike.

Exporting poison:
1. Does an American company like Velsicol have an obligation to refrain from selling pesticides that are banned in US to developing nations where they are not banned? Yes, they do have this obligation because they cant engage in an action if they dont want others to do this to them. Others life is as important as theirs. The U.S. authority banned it because they affect very badly on the health of many people. They have been classified as very hazardous not only for the people of U.S. but the people of the whole world. They are not banned in developing nations not because they dont want it to be banned but because those people are not aware of the hazardous effects of these chemicals or because they dont have any other choice left. If they will be provided with the same pesticides as the citizens of US use, only then they will be held acceptable.

2. Does an American company like Velsicol have an obligation to refrain from exporting chemicals that are only suspected of causing cancer? They dont have an obligation to REFRAIN from exporting suspicious chemicals but they do have obligation to verify if it does harm the citizens of developing country in any way. Thus if the results of the verification tests are positive then they should not export. The cost benefit analysis should be done to take any kind of decision. The intensity and the probability should be taken into account and checked & verified in the cost benefit analysis as well.

3. Whose responsibility is it to ensure citizens of developing nation are not harmed by exports of pesticides? First of all it is the responsibility of the supplies that is the U.S. Company that is manufacturing this chemical. They should ensure that the buyer knows about its harmful effects and is warned about its effects. Along with that, particular precautions should be communicated related to the chemical. The government of that developing country is also responsible because it is allowing the chemical to be imported so they should also watch upon their use and a random check and verification should be established. After that it is the responsibility of the World Health Organization to make ensure that the particular chemicals are not misused by the buyers and end users. They should also check if someone is lacking in their responsibility.