Unit 8 DB

Unit 8 DB: The Morality of Environmentalism

Some environmentalists claim that the ways we raise and collect animals and fish for food are fundamentally unethical. They point to the suffering of animals within the factory farming industry, the pollution caused by untreated animal waste, the use of hormones and antibiotics, the decimation of fish populations, and the fact that current farming practices are ultimately unsustainable in terms of their environmental impact. Making the changes that these environmentalists claim are necessary, however, would likely be devastating to the agricultural and fishing industries, to the chemical and biochemical companies that support them, and to the way of life of millions of people. These changes might also result in increased food prices and less food being available to the ever-increasing human population.

· How do you think we should balance the moral claims on this issue?

· Should the concerns of environmentalists and animal rights activists impinge on your desire to eat however you so choose?

· Does the protection of jobs and communities trump environmental concerns? Why or why not?

Read and respond to two classmates' posts.

Final Discussion: Course Reflection

After having the opportunity to complete the course, what would you change and why? What topic particularly caught your interest and what do you want to know more about?  Last, but not least, if you could share with the next class one piece of advice about this class, what would it be? Please note that this pertains to the class, the materials, flow/organization, etc.

Your comments may be shared with incoming students with no identifying information. Thank you and good luck on your educational journey! (No participation replies required but encouraged!)

15.1: Business Ethics Is Not an Oxymoron

1. 15.1 Review the validity of the opinion that there is no such thing as ethics in the business world

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

Some people argue that, like “military intelligence,” the phrase “business ethics” is an oxymoron, and many businesspeople would agree that “all’s fair in love and business” or that there is no such thing as ethics in the business world—there is only profit and loss, and the highest goal is to make a profit. They would go on to say that what they do in business has nothing to do with their religious or moral values outside of the workplace. A perfect example of this is the Enron—Andersen fiasco.

These statements are all false and very injurious to the character and reputation of both businesspeople and their businesses. Our everyday lives are fraught with moral decisions, and why should our jobs, where we spend eight hours or more of our days, be exempt from ethical values? The answer, of course, is that they are not. Business ethics, like bioethics, is a specialized area in which an awareness of ethical issues and a systematic approach to solving them are particularly important. As is true of other areas of ethics, business ethics has to do with the establishment and maintenance of vital and significant relationships among human beings—specifically, in this case, among employers, employees, shareholders, businesses, and consumers. As in other areas, ethical principles, such as the five principles of humanitarian ethics—the valuing of life, the striving for goodness and avoiding of badness, the just and fair distribution of good and bad, honesty and truth telling, and individual freedom—apply to business ethics.

The main difference between business ethics and bioethics is that the specific issues, problems, and situations that arise often require a different application of the principles, although the general applications are roughly the same. There is a difference, for example, between a patient signing an informed consent and a builder signing a contract to build a house for a client. In the first situation, the doctor needs the patient’s consent so that the patient can undergo some sort of procedure necessary to maintain his or her health and well-being. In the second situation, a businessperson with specialized knowledge and abilities agrees to provide a client with something he or she wants, and the client in turn agrees to pay the builder, for example, a certain amount for doing this. The two situations are similar in that the “contracts” in both cases are an expression of trust, honesty, and mutual agreement executed for the benefit of both parties; they differ, however, in the specific ways in which ethics is applied.

15.2: Rights and Obligations in Business

1. 15.2Distinguish between business rights and obligations

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

First of all, by  rights  is meant those things to which human beings are entitled by law, morality, or tradition, such as “the right to life” or “the right to be free.” By  obligations  is meant some sort of responsibility or duty that people have toward one another—also accorded by law, morality, or tradition—to see that their rights are protected and provided. Rights have been discussed previously in dealing with other areas of morality, such as allowing someone to die, suicide, and abortion. All human beings, for example, have a right to life, rights over their own bodies and lives, and also rights to be free, but none of these rights is ever absolute; indeed, they often conflict with one another. Conflicts of rights are not ethically resolved, however, by declaring certain rights to be absolute; rather, these conflicts are resolved by trying to establish some sort of priority system, some prima facie rights, and adjusting those rights to each other with reasonable justification and with regard to the attendant circumstances.

Just as the basic rights—the rights to life, justice, honesty and truth telling, privacy, and freedom—apply to life in general, so do they apply in business and the media. However, there are also specific rights or specific applications of the general rights listed previously:

· These rights are the right to have one’s own life protected whether one is an employer, an employee, or a consumer

· The right to have the opportunity to pursue and qualify oneself for employment without hindrance

· The right to establish a business, own property, employ whom one wants, and make a profit

· The right to expect agreements and contracts to be executed fairly, whether between employers and employees, businesses and other businesses, business and government, or business and consumers

· The right to fairness, trust, honesty, and truth telling at all levels of business dealings

· The right to employment security

· The right of businesses to try to get consumers to use their products and services

· The right of consumers to choose which products and services they wish to buy.

As far as obligations are concerned, participants in business and media activities are obligated to be honest and tell the truth; to be fair and just in their dealings with others; to be honest and trustworthy in executing and carrying out agreements and contracts; to pay off debts, including interest on money loaned, in a manner agreeable to all parties; to create a safe atmosphere for employees to work in; to make the effort and perform the work for which wages are being paid; to respect one another’s privacy; and, finally, to be loyal to employers, employees, shareholders, and customers within reasonable and ethical limits.

15.2.1: Two Ways of Approaching Rights and Obligations in Business

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

There are two highly divergent ways of approaching the issues of rights and obligations in business; one of these emphasizes competition and the other emphasizes government control.

The two approaches we will cover here are:

1. The competitive approach

2. The government control approach

The Competitive Approach

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

The aggressively competitive approach is referred to by a number of names: free enterprise, laissez-faire, survival of the fittest, and, by some, the “dog-eat-dog” approach. Supporters of this approach believe that the main obligation in business and in life in general is to “make a buck,” that is, to establish and maintain a business without hindrance from the government at any level. The point—whether we are talking about management, labor, or consumers—is to get as large a share as possible of the profits to be made in business, using any method one can. According to this position, the best approach for a local or national economy to take is that of  laissez-faire  (meaning “let people do what they want”), free enterprise, and competition. The theory behind this approach is that existing economic problems will be solved if all participants in business are completely free to compete as aggressively as they can. If there is a demand for certain goods, then businesses that can convince consumers that they can supply those goods at the best quality and the lowest prices should be free to compete with other businesses. In this way, everyone who can survive will profit—successful businesses, government, and consumers.

If small businesses or new businesses can’t survive the competition, then they will be eliminated from it, just as the weaker animals in the jungle are killed by those that are stronger. On the other hand, if businesses can make themselves larger and more secure by subsuming or destroying smaller businesses, this is an acceptable part of the competition process. The goal of any state or nation, as seen from this viewpoint, is to allow individuals to compete aggressively with each other for wealth and power because only consumers can benefit from this process, receiving the best products and services at the lowest cost.

Proponents of this position see this as being the most meaningful and, in some cases, the only possible position for a free, democratic society to hold. They feel that whenever state and local government controls are imposed, power becomes centered in government, which tends to feed itself at the expense of individuals, both in business and in society in general.

The Government Control Approach

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

The government control approach argues for state or government ownership and control of all business enterprises in the name of and for the good of the people. Although laissez-faire may sound good, opponents of this position state that it often puts power and excessive affluence in the hands of a few aggressive people at the expense of the many. Furthermore, wealth is kept in the same hands as families that own big businesses continue to pass them on to their children and grandchildren.

The competitive approach also brings out the most animalistic aspects of human beings, dehumanizing them both because it glorifies the “might makes right—survival of the fittest” jungle ethic—and also because it consigns the have-nots to poverty and hopelessness. It’s all well and good to speak of seeing everyone profit from free enterprise, but in fact only a few do so. These people use their control of the supply of goods to control the demand for the goods or to satisfy demand at higher profit to themselves—often offering less quality in the bargain. Furthermore, if small, independent businesses can’t and don’t survive, then everyone who isn’t in control of power becomes a slave to those who are. In other words, what all of this adds up to, according to this view, is that good and bad are distributed unjustly in a laissez-faire society, with the haves getting all of the good, while the have-nots getting all of the bad.

The only ethical and fair way for business to be conducted, according to this view, is to put it in the hands of the government, which then will operate it for the good of all concerned. In this way no one individual or group of individuals will be able to exert control and achieve affluence to the detriment of others. Everyone in such a system will work for the good of all, and a just distribution of good and bad will be made by a central governing body representing all of the people.

Some of the good will be distributed equally; some according to merit; and some by need and ability. According to this view, everyone will share—with at least some degree of equality—both the bad and the good emanating from the society’s business dealings. For example, if the main business of a country is agriculture and agriculture has a good year, then everyone shares equally in the food distribution and the profits. On the other hand, if it has a bad year, then everyone shares equally in the lack of food and the losses. This is the only fair way. Furthermore, by not stressing aggressiveness and competition, and by providing everyone with a fair and equitable living that is free from poverty and hardship, more time can be spent on civilizing and humanizing the people.

15.2.2: The Moderate Position

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

It is always difficult to characterize accurately a “moderate position” because unlike extreme positions, moderate ones are spread all along the spectrum between the two extremes. Nevertheless, it is possible to present some generalities that are characteristic of a moderate view. Both extreme positions have strong points to make and, of course, imply or put forth criticisms of each other. It is important to remember, however, that the system that will work best for a society depends upon a great number of factors; it is not just a theoretical matter.

Both extreme positions, and variations or combinations thereof, have had failures and successes in many different societies throughout history. If, for example, a government and its leaders are benevolent and ethical, government control of business and media activities may work well. There is always a problem, of course, of corruption in government, and there is also a problem when governments change and the new one is not benevolent or ethical enough to make a government control system work.

On the other hand, if those running businesses and the media are fair, honest, and otherwise ethical in their dealings with one another and with their employees and consumers, then free enterprise can also work. The danger here, as supporters of government control are quick to point out, is that power, influence, and affluence can end up almost entirely in the hands of the few, and those few can be uncaring and corrupt in their treatment of others. If profit becomes the main or only goal for business, then it becomes easy to leave humaneness behind.

Generally, however, the moderate position seeks to encourage free enterprise and honest competition, with some controls being exerted by employee groups (e.g., unions), by consumer groups, and by government where necessary. For example, there may be laws that regulate the absorbing of small businesses by larger ones, or the merging of larger ones, in both cases the goal being to prevent the accumulation of too much power and wealth in the hands of a few to the detriment of society in general.

On the other hand, government should not impose controls upon private businesses except to protect society from dangers that businesses themselves refuse to prevent. In short, freedom should be allowed, but not unlimited freedom. This position would also encourage the development of employee groups to protect workers’ rights in employer–employee relationships and the establishment of consumer groups to protect customers from false advertising, risky or dangerous products, and unfair business practices.

What the moderate position advocates is a system of checks and balances to ensure that people have as much freedom in their business dealings as possible while remaining protected from corrupt, unethical, and destructive practices. It goes without saying that the more that businesses, employee groups, and consumer groups monitor and control their own activities from an ethical standpoint, the less government control will be needed.

The moderate position also maintains that both extremes are based upon false assumptions. It is not true, for example, that a democratic society can exist only if completely free enterprise is allowed; there are many societies that are largely democratic but that nevertheless maintain some government and private control of business activities. Neither is it true, however, that the only way to achieve equality and protection for everyone is to allow the government to control business or the media “for the good of everyone.” The moderate position tends to try to combine the advantages of both of these extremes while eliminating their disadvantages.

15.2.3: Justice in Business

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

It is important to examine exactly how the principle of justice applies to business activities. Three types of justice are of concern in business.

Exchange Justice

Exchange justice1 involves reimbursement for services rendered or products made or sold. For example, if an object costs $10 and I agree to purchase it for that price, then I owe the businessperson from whom I bought it $10. In another example, if I agree to erect a satisfactory carport for $1,800 and I keep my end of the bargain, then I’m entitled to $1,800. Similarly, if I agree to pay employees $10 an hour each for doing a particular job and they do it for eight hours, then I owe them $80 each. All of these examples demonstrate an exact and just “exchange” of goods or services for some kind of payment.

Distributive Justice

When this type of justice is applied specifically to business it has to do with the distribution of profit among owners, managers, employees, customers, and shareholders. Distributive justice raises questions concerning what portion of the gross profit made in any business endeavor should be distributed among all concerned (by means, e.g., of higher wages, bonuses, and fringe benefits for employees and managers; greater dividends to shareholders; greater profits to owners; and lower prices and better quality for customers).

Social Justice

Social justice is concerned with how businesses, the media, and their members should treat consumers and members of society in general. For example, the extent to which business should be willing to protect the public against pollution and other dangers to their property, well-being, and lives is a question of social justice.

15.2.4: Truth Telling in Business

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

Truth telling applies to business in a number of ways:

· Telling the truth in agreeing to render and pay for services and products

· Not lying when engaged in employer–employee relations

· Not lying to shareholders about the status of the business

· Telling the truth in advertising.

Truth in advertising is a large area of concern in the business world because it involves consumers and, by extension, society as a whole. It is business’s obligation to consumers not to lie to them and also not to mislead them through the omission of important facts. For example, car manufacturers may advertise that you need to change your car’s oil only every 7,000 miles, but they neglect to tell you that you will have greater need of repairs than if you had changed it every 3,000 miles. Although this is not a direct lie, it does mislead consumers through the omission of important facts.

15.2.5: Honesty in Business

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

Honesty  applies to business and the media in the following ways:

· Keeping agreements and contracts, whether oral or written

· Admitting errors that have been made in creating products or stories, especially when safety is involved, and correcting those errors wherever possible

· Giving an honest day’s work for pay received

· Giving appropriate wages for work performed

· Setting honest prices that allow for a reasonable, but not exorbitant, profit

· Giving the best quality for the price that one can afford, especially when people’s health and lives could be endangered

· Finally, constantly inspecting business and media practices at all levels to ensure that dishonesty and corruption are both discovered and eliminated.

Cases: Rights and Obligations in Business

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

The international scope of business and global media requires ethical thoughtfulness and moral scrutiny. These institutions are powerful and their influence is pervasive. They transact business and transmit information in real time. The rights and interests of individuals, corporations and other institutions must be considered closely in order to insure that business is conducted justly and media is truthful.

Cases for Study and Discussion

Case 1 An Engineer Pointing Out Unsafe Car Problems

Susan, a design engineer in a major auto company, receives two reports concerning engine fires and explosions that occurred in hot weather in the company’s popular economy car. At the time the engine of this model had been approved and released for production, she had advised the plant that she felt the carburetor and gas lines were constructed so that under excessive heat conditions there could be a gas leak. At that time, she had argued for a modification that would have added about $50 to the cost of producing each engine, but her proposal had been turned down. She had continued to argue for the modification and for special testing, but the standard tests performed on the car did not indicate any danger, and she was told to drop the issue.

Upon receiving the two reports, however, Susan again presses for special testing under excessive heat conditions and urges the company to warn the public and immediately recall all of the cars of this model. By this time, however, such a recall probably will cost the company between $500,000 and $1 million, and Susan again is told to mind her own business or she will be fired.

In the meantime, four more reports of engine fires come in from a desert area in the southwest. The engineer is now convinced that she is right. What should she do? To what extent does she owe loyalty to the company, where she has worked for 15 years and has been promoted several times, and to what extent is she obligated to let the public know the truth? Because the company is removing the responsibility from Susan’s shoulders, should she do something about what she knows, or should she just drop the problem? Considering that the company may lose up to $1 million, what are its ethical obligations? What do you think of the way it has handled the entire situation?

Case 2 Stealing Tools to Make Up the Difference in a Shorter Raise Than Requested

The cost of living in Alderdale, California, has gone up 10 percent during the year, and Steve’s union has been negotiating with the management of the plant where he works for a 15 percent raise to cover the present cost of living plus an additional expected increase. The plant, however, has not had a good year, and management and the union decide upon an 8 percent raise, which a majority of the members, not including Steve, agrees to. Steve decides that because he has been shorted 2–7 percent of his raise money, he will try to make up for it by taking some expensive tools, some small pieces of equipment, and some supplies home from the plant in order to remodel his workshop at home. He was planning to do this remodeling with some of the raise money anyway, and he feels he was cheated out of this money unfairly because he didn’t vote for the raise that was accepted by the union.

Is Steve justified in his actions? Why, or why not? Does management have any obligation to meet the cost of living? Because Steve voted against the smaller raise, is he under any obligation to accept it? Why, or why not? Is he justified in making up the difference between the raise he got and the cost of living by taking things from the plant? Why, or why not?

Case 3 Switching of an Expensive Speaker with a Less Expensive One

Mike, who is very knowledgeable about stereo components, knows that there are two models made by the Ozato Company: the OC 4000, which sells for $2,000, and the OC 5000, which sells for $3,000. The difference between the two models is that the OC 5000 has a larger, more powerful amplifier-receiver and larger speakers. Because of this difference, Mike buys the more expensive model. A few weeks later, a loose connection causes him to examine the left speaker, and when he takes it apart, he discovers that whereas the right speaker is the one designated for the OC 5000, the left speaker is the one designated for the OC 4000. Several of his friends also have the more expensive model, and when he examines those speakers, he finds the same situation. To save money, the company evidently has put one more expensive and one less expensive speaker together in each of the expensive models, figuring that the difference in sound may not be very noticeable.

Given that the less expensive speaker was almost the same quality as the more expensive one, was the company right or wrong in making the substitution? Why? What should the company now do about customers who have already bought the OC 5000? Why? Suppose the difference between the two speakers was so minimal that no one ever discovered the switch—would the company then have been justified in having made the switch? Why or why not? Suppose the company offers to replace the less expensive speakers of Mike and his friends with OC 5000s and also offers Mike an additional thousand dollars’ worth of stereo equipment if he promises not to say anything more about the switch. What should Mike do in these circumstances? Why?

15.3: Ethical Issues in Business

1. 15.3Examine five business areas where moral issues in business ethics are applicable

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

There are many moral issues in business ethics that might be discussed; however, this section will concentrate on five areas:

1. Advertising

2. Business and the environment

3. Affirmative action and reverse discrimination

4. Sexual harassment

5. Corporate greed.

15.3.1: Advertising

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

A large and important part of any business is advertising, for this is the means by which products, services, employees, and the business itself are presented to the public as favorably as possible. Advertising is an important area for the application of truth telling and honesty because advertising plays such a large part in our lives at all levels. Surely there is hardly any aspect of our society that does not use advertising to some degree. The government, charities, and even races and religions advertise in order to try to get the public “to buy the product.” There are two major approaches to advertising: One states that “anything goes” when it comes to methods of selling products and services and the other states that advertising should always be honestly presented and properly supported by facts and evidence.

The Anything-Goes Approach

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

The anything-goes view, which is held by many businesses, states that because advertising does not force anyone to do anything, it is the responsibility of consumers and competitors to be on their guard about the claims made for specific products and services. It is assumed by those who hold to this approach that most people will not check the claims made in advertising, such as that one serving of a breakfast cereal will provide you with all the vitamins you need for the day.

One argument used in support of this approach is that in most advertising, very little harm is done by making somewhat extravagant claims for a product. False advertising endangers no one; it’s just part of the “business game,” and the stimulation of the economy provided by advertising is good for business, the economy, and, in the long run, for society in general. In a highly competitive society, the important thing is to out-advertise one’s competitors so as to create a more successful business by inducing consumers to buy one’s product whether they need to or not. Consumers have minds of their own, the argument runs, and it is their responsibility to choose wisely among the products and services they are constantly being offered.

The Truthful Approach

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

The other view of advertising held by some businesspeople, as well as by consumers, consumer groups, and the government, is that any claims made by any business concerning its products or services ought to be supported or backed up by facts and evidence. According to this approach, businesses have a right to advertise freely but not to lie to the public about their products or services. The argument of the anything-goes proponents that there’s no harm done so long as life isn’t threatened is highly questionable because constant lying or dishonesty tends to erode significant communication, the trust and faith humans have in one another, and human relationships themselves. Because lying and misrepresentation in advertising contribute to this breakdown, they harm business specifically and society in general.

Two questions are raised by this approach: What actually constitutes lying and misrepresentation, and what guidelines can be presented that will serve to insure establishing ethically proper advertising?

15.3.2: Business and the Environment

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

One of the most compelling problems to have arisen in business ethics in our century concerns the depletion of natural resources through careless overuse and the destruction of the environment. Although people in business should not have to bear total responsibility for these problems, they certainly must accept a large share of it. In fact, now that these problems have become so serious, businesses truly are blameworthy if they fight against viable solutions and don’t do what they can to alleviate problems either that are already present or that soon will be. As the case with other problem situations we have discussed, this one provokes two extreme views.

The Primacy of Business

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

According to this position, it is not business’s fault that there are environmental problems. Business always has striven simply to give consumers what they want. The ethical responsibility of business begins and ends with business dealings, and it cannot be held responsible for the problems that occur in nature and society. This view also holds that the interference of “nature-loving do-gooders” and government will destroy business, our economy, and finally society itself. If they are not interfered with, science and business will find a way to solve the environmental problems in good time.

Business always has operated on a basis of good faith, and those bad results suffered by employees, the public, and the environment were not intended or foreseen. Moreover, now that they have occurred, business shouldn’t have to bear the total responsibility for these health and environmental problems. The solutions to environmental problems that have been proposed by nature groups and the government are extremely expensive ones, and businesses should not have to pay for them out of their profits; furthermore, they should have as long a time as they need to make necessary changes, if indeed changes must be made at all.

The Primacy of the Environment

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

According to the primacy of the environment view, we have been on such a rampage of rape, gluttony, and waste where the natural resources and the environment are concerned and the only solution is to immediately stop any business practices and activities that are adversely affecting health and the environment. Business, according to the environmentalists, must take the major blame for environmental waste and destruction; therefore, it must use its profits to reverse the damage it has wrought. Furthermore, business—through advertising—has helped to foster the consume-at-all-costs mentality that has been a major factor in creating these problems in the environment. Therefore, it must now attempt to reeducate the public in any way possible, even if this means some loss of profit.

Because business has ignored its responsibilities, government should immediately step into the breach, using fines, imprisonment, the withholding of government contracts, and even business shutdowns to force business to repair the damage it has done. A massive reeducation of businesspeople and the public must be conducted by the government in order to save our environment. Even if businesses are destroyed and the economy is hurt, these actions must be forced upon business in order to alter our present situation before it becomes irreversible.

The Moderate Position on Business and the Environment

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

Business isn’t totally to blame, say the moderates, for the destruction of the environment; rather, both the government and society in general share the blame for waste and destruction. However, none of us—business included—can now afford to ignore the situation; we all must work hard to turn it around and conserve what remains of the environment. Business must change those advertising techniques that serve merely to foster a consumer society, stop all sorts of pollution, and alter its industrial methods so that it begins to work in harmony with the environment.

All of this must be accomplished within a period of time considered reasonable by both business and the environmentalists, and business must pay its fair share of the financial burden out of its own profits. Consumers also must pay a fair share of the costs both through taxes and higher prices, as businesses pass some of the share of the cost of environmental protection on to the public.

Neither side should try to profit financially from the situation or to escape from paying its fair share. Constant vigilance with regard to environmental protection should be maintained by businesses themselves, by the government, and by consumer groups. All of us—business included—must recognize that we have an ethical obligation to protect human beings and the environment, both of which are more important in the long run than is power or affluence.

Cases: Moral issues in Business Ethics

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

The international scope of business and global media requires ethical thoughtfulness and moral scrutiny. These institutions are powerful and their influence is pervasive. They transact business and transmit information in real time. The rights and interests of individuals, corporations and other institutions must be considered closely in order to insure that business is conducted justly and media is truthful.

Cases for Study and Discussion

Case 1 Doing Public Relations on an Unsafe Car

Myra, 30, is an up-and-coming executive in a large public relations and advertising firm, and she is very close to a big promotion. She is given the assignment by her boss of creating an advertising campaign for the popular economy car described in the first case. Her assignment is to try to make up for some of the bad press the company has been getting because of the six engine explosions that have occurred. Because she is a well-informed person, she knows about the explosions. She tells her boss that she doesn’t think their firm ought to take the account, and in any case, she can’t in good conscience handle the account unless the car company makes the car safe.

Her boss argues that this is the single biggest account their firm has ever had, and what the auto manufacturer does or doesn’t do is not their firm’s responsibility; their job is strictly to advertise and promote products and services. He also tells her that if she refuses the account, the promotion she is up for will go to someone else, and he further implies that she may lose her job. What should Myra do, and why? Do you believe that her boss’s description of his firm’s responsibilities is right or wrong? Why? Do you think he is right in denying Myra her promotion and/or firing her for refusing to handle the account? Why or why not? In this instance, to whom should Myra be loyal: the public? Her firm and clients? Herself? Explain your answer.

Case 2 Hiring Between an African American and a Caucasian Woman

Denise, 22, an African American woman, and Bonnie, 23, a Caucasian woman, are the two top applicants for a computer technician job in a major data-processing center. The center has about 10 percent minority employees and about 30 percent female employees. Both women seem to be equally well qualified except that Bonnie is both prettier and more outgoing than Denise. This particular job doesn’t require the person who fills it to meet the public very much, but it takes place in a large office in which almost everyone is Caucasian and in which relations among employees are particularly important because of the constant pressures of the job. If you were the personnel manager, whom would you pick for the job? Why? What should this person’s criteria for employee selection be, and in what order of importance should these criteria be placed? Why? To what extent should the personnel manager be concerned about affirmative action or reverse discrimination in this situation?

Case 3 Pollution Problem in a Factory

The town of Farling, Texas, was almost a ghost town when the Kem Chemical Company decided to establish one of its plants there ten years ago. Since it moved in, however, the town has grown tremendously, and most people in the town now work at the plant. The only problem is that the chemical waste that the plant emits is gradually polluting the air, the earth, and the water near the town. The company and the town’s mayor have both been informed by the government that this pollution must be eliminated as soon as possible. The plant manager tells the mayor that in order to satisfy the government requirements, the company will have to spend about $1.5 million. If this is to be done right away, he says, the company has decided to close this particular plant rather than sink that much money into making the changes. The plant manager also tells the mayor that they can probably stall the government for two years by paying relatively small fines, which the company is willing to do. This will allow the company to spread out the expenses for converting the plant over a longer period as well as permit it to keep the plant open. During this period, of course, the pollution would continue, endangering—according to the government report—the land, water, air, and of course animals, plants, and human beings.

If the mayor works with the company, he can help them to avoid making immediate changes. If he doesn’t, Farling will again become a ghost town and most of its people will lose their jobs. What should the mayor do, and why? Was the government right in investigating and reporting as it did? Why, or why not? Do you feel that the company is doing the right thing in relation to the government, the town, and its mayor? Why, or why not? Is the company obligated to spend some of its profits in order to save its plant and the town? Explore the alternatives and suggest some possible compromises. Assuming that no compromises will work and the mayor has to make his choice, what should he do?

15.4: Affirmative Action and Reverse Discrimination

1. 15.4Discuss arguments for and against discrimination

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

Another serious problem our society faces that relates to business practices is discrimination in the hiring, promotion, and firing of employees. Those most often discriminated against in these areas have been ethnic and religious minorities, women, the handicapped, and the aged. It is common knowledge that prejudice and discrimination against Jews, African Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans, Native Americans, other minority groups, and women have been going on for hundreds of years. For this reason, it is not necessary to describe the associated problems in detail. Instead, it will be useful to look at the methods that have been used to resolve these problems and also at some of the negative effects brought on by these methods.

Definition of Terms

Literally,  prejudice  means the prejudgment of someone or something before one has ever encountered this person or thing. Prejudice often is based upon biased opinions one has been taught, has heard, or has read.  Discrimination , as the term will be used here, means to differentiate among people in a prejudiced way when hiring, promoting, or firing them. This does not mean that there is anything wrong with “discriminating” among people when choosing one’s friends. Nor is there anything wrong with “discriminating” between two well-qualified applicants when an employer is attempting to choose the best person for a job. A problem does arise, however, when that discrimination is based upon people’s race, religion, sex, sexual preference, or age rather than on their qualifications for a job or promotion.

Affirmative action  is a term that describes the process whereby a society seeks to avoid future discrimination in employment practices and actively tries to correct the problems arising from hundreds of years of past discrimination.  Reverse discrimination  is a term that describes the plight of some, primarily white males, who have in turn been discriminated against when affirmative action programs have been instituted. Reverse discrimination would occur, for example, if a company hired an African American man or woman who was less qualified than a white person, either because of the person’s race or sex. Here again, as in the other problem areas we have looked at, there are two extreme points of view.

15.5: Sexual Harassment

1. 15.5Examine the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

One of the most significant and controversial topics today is sexual harassment, a problem that has existed for a long time, but which only recently has come to light as being unethical. 

A recent survey conducted by Louis Harris and Associates for the American Association of University Women (AAUW) revealed that sexual harassment at school is an experience common to the vast majority of public school students in the eighth through eleventh grades. The survey discovered that four in five students (81 percent) have been sexually harassed at some time in their school life and that the majority of both boys (76 percent) and girls (85 percent) have been harassed at school.2 

The main emphasis in this module is to discuss sexual harassment in the workplace, but if it goes on as early as junior high school for most boys and girls and has for the most part been ignored by school officials, one can only imagine what happens when these same children, both harassers and harassed, grow up and enter the workplace.

Definition of Terms

According to federal law—Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)—and, for example, California’s Departments of Fair Employment and Housing, sexual harassment is defined as “unwanted sexual advances, or visual, verbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature.” This includes many forms of offensive behavior and includes gender-based harassment of a person of the same sex as the harasser. The following is a partial list of actions deemed as sexual harassment:

· Unwanted sexual advances

· Offering employment benefits in exchange for sexual favors

· Making or threatening reprisals after a negative response to sexual advances

· Visual conduct such as leering, making sexual gestures, displaying of sexually suggestive objects or pictures, cartoons or posters

· Verbal conduct such as making or using derogatory comments, epithets, slurs, and jokes

· Verbal sexual advances or propositions

· Verbal abuse of a sexual nature

· Graphic verbal commentaries about an individual’s body

· Sexually degrading words used to describe an individual

· Suggestive or obscene letters, notes, or invitations

· Physical conduct such as touching, assaulting, impeding, or blocking movements.3

15.5.1: What Constitutes Sexual Harassment Under Federal Law

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

Under federal law, unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment in any of the following circumstances:

1. When submission to such conduct is either explicitly or implicitly made a term or condition of an individual’s employment.

2. When submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting that individual.

3. When such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.4

15.5.2: Arguments That Sexual Harassment Is Not Immoral

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

Sexual harassment has been going on for so long that many people think it’s just the way things are—the “boys will be boys” attitude. This attitude also implies a double standard for men and women, even though sexual harassment also applies both to women who harass men, vice versa, and to same-sex harassment in the workplace. Many employers and employees, mainly men, see nothing wrong with the kinds of actions and language that sexual harassment includes and would present several arguments in favor of allowing them.

Enlivening the Workplace

Many sexual harassers feel that jokes, comments, sexual “compliments,” and other actions or language are ways of enlivening an otherwise boring work situation and atmosphere. Such comments or actions are nothing more than clever repartee or ways of “having fun at the office.” No one should get upset at such activities but should instead take them with a grain of salt because they are all in fun. After all, men (mostly) and women have done or said these things for years now. Why should anyone get so worked up over them now?

Women and Men are Naturally Sexually Attracted to One Another

It’s simply natural that men and women should be sexually attracted to one another (the same may be true for attractions to the same sex), and so it is also natural that this sexual attraction doesn’t cease merely because people are together at work. Therefore, it should be acceptable for people to express this sexual or romantic attraction at work as well as in other places. The recipients of such expressions should take them as a compliment, not as harassment, and should not feel threatened by them.

Positions of Power Imply Certain Rights

People who have power in the workplace ought to be free to use that power in any way they see fit, especially when dealing with employees, as long as the latter make good salaries and have good jobs. Such employees ought to be willing to acquiesce gratefully when their bosses or others in power request dates, make sexual advances, or even initiate romantic or sexual affairs. Certainly a positive response is not a condition of employment; rather, these advances are like expense accounts: Everyone pads expense accounts and everyone who wants to stay employed and get ahead participates in romantic interludes. If people don’t want to accept the conditions imposed by the people who have power over them, then they should look for employment elsewhere or at least not expect to be promoted or retained where they are.

Often Those Being Harassed Ask for or Cause Harassment

People in the workplace, especially women, often “ask for” flirtatious jokes and sexual advances by means of their own attitudes (flirtatious and sexy), the clothes they wear, and their desire to please employers and supervisors and get ahead in the business.

The conclusion of all of these arguments is that employees, especially women employees, make way too much out of common, everyday acts of humor and fun and that laws governing sexual harassment are ridiculous and put employers and supervisors who were merely bandying about trivial and harmless actions and words into unnecessarily delicate and litigious situations.

15.5.3: Arguments That Sexual Harassment Is Immoral

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

The bases for all of these arguments that sexual harassment is immoral are that all people deserve to be treated with respect, dignity, and humaneness everywhere, which definitely includes the workplace. Sexual harassment denies individuals all of these rights and often makes their lives in and out of the workplace difficult, humiliating, and even terrifying.

Basically it is unfair to hire, promote, retain, or fire people on the basis of their willingness to give or receive sexual favors. People should be judged upon the basis of their intelligence, abilities, conscientiousness, and cooperation, not upon whether they are sexually attractive or well endowed or willing to get involved romantically or sexually with their supervisors. Because these latter attributes or attitudes are not and should not be requirements for doing a good job, people should not be judged on that basis or discriminated against because they do or do not display them.

Rather than enlivening the workplace, sexual harassment can create hostile, unpleasant, and offensive environment, one in which it can be extremely difficult for people to get their work done. If people constantly are worried about being bumped, squeezed, or pinched or receiving other unwanted physical or verbal advances, then valuable time and effort that could have been spent doing their jobs is wasted in fending off such advances. Also, such words and actions are both physically and emotionally upsetting and destructive to those who are forced to endure them. This destructive effect does not occur only while people are at work but also when they are not working; it may adversely affect their personal life as well as their public life.

Positions of Authority Do Not Imply Power Over Personal Lives

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

It is certainly true that people in positions of authority in a business have supervisory and management control over what goes on in the business and therefore over what the people working for them do and how they do it. However, in no way does this control extend to employees’ personal lives when they are not at work, and especially not to requiring them to accept dates or sexual advances. This latter type of control is an abuse of power and authority and therefore constitutes unacceptable behavior according to all principles of business ethics. Managers or supervisors engaging in these activities are misusing their authority, and they should be removed from their positions.

Attraction Does Not Imply Involvement

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

It is true that people often are romantically and sexually attracted to each other, but such attraction does not imply coercion of or involvement with others, especially when those others do not wish to be involved. If people who work together are attracted to each other, then they must do everything they can to keep such activities that result from the attraction out of the workplace entirely; also, people should be very careful about getting involved with anyone with whom they work. Sometimes such involvements work out nicely, but other times after a breakup occurs, life on the job becomes miserable. The best advice probably is to avoid getting involved with anyone at work. At any rate, even if people are attracted to others with whom they work, they should not use this attraction as a means of sexually harassing those others.

Harassees Often “Ask for It”

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

This argument often is used by rapists when they are denying they have done anything wrong to their victims. Clearly, even if people wear sexually attractive clothing or flirt or laugh at dirty jokes, they are not asking to be sexually harassed. For example, just because a woman wears low-cut dresses or short skirts or is physically well endowed or attractive does not mean that anyone has the right to sexually harass her, especially when she makes it clear that she resents the harassment. One may not assume anything from her appearance and certainly must not manifest any sexual harassment in the workplace. If people feel that they would like to ask others for a date, then they should contact them when off duty but keep all of this outside the workplace. And of course, if the person contacted does not wish to date, that should be the end of it and not a matter for pressure or coercion at work.

Cases: Sexual Harassment

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

The international scope of business and global media requires ethical thoughtfulness and moral scrutiny. These institutions are powerful and their influence is pervasive. They transact business and transmit information in real time. The rights and interests of individuals, corporations and other institutions must be considered closely in order to insure that business is conducted justly and media is truthful.

Cases for Study and Discussion

Case 1 Sexual Harassment of a Female Police Officer

In an actual case involving the Long Beach, California, Police Department, two female police officers were treated so badly that they sued the City of Long Beach and were awarded over $1 million each for sexual harassment. In the first case, one of the women was having an affair with a higher-ranking male police officer (a sergeant) after he told her he was divorcing his wife. When she found out he was lying about his divorce and many other things, she broke off the affair and embarrassed him every time he later made advances. Not only did he use his rank to see that she was treated badly by the whole department, but when she called for backup on a call involving a violent suspect, none of the officers available (and there were several) responded to her call because they sided with him rather than her, thus placing her life at risk. Several times he made it quite clear that he wanted to continue the affair, and when she refused, he told her that her job and life would be made miserable because she wouldn’t cooperate.

Case 2 Sexual Harassment of a Second Female Police Officer

In another actual case also involving the Long Beach Police Department, a female police officer whose husband also was a police officer was trained and joined the K9 section of the police department, the first and only woman to crack this formerly all-male section of the department. The other police officers constantly verbally humiliated and harassed her and even sent their dogs to attack her when she was acting as decoy. The dogs were supposed to find her and stand guard, but instead the officers involved in the training ordered their dogs to attack. Despite protective padding, she was badly bitten and suffered bruises and contusions.

Both women have required psychotherapy and psychological leaves because of the harassment they received. The K9 officer’s life was threatened by phone calls, and her marriage broke up (she also had a small child), and both women left the police department because they could no longer function due to the severe sexual harassment they had received. Even though they were both awarded the large sums of money two years after they initiated their suits, they have not yet received any money because the City of Long Beach is appealing the jury’s decision. Both women lost their careers and have found it exceedingly difficult, because of the psychological and emotional trauma brought about by the harassment, to enter any other careers with the exception of low-paying jobs such as part-time waitressing. None of the other police officers involved have been reprimanded or punished in any way; they still hold their jobs. Both officers complained to the chief of police several times, but he did nothing substantive about their complaints—both he and the department psychologist (a female sergeant) told the women that they should expect hazing and that if the job was too tough for them, they should get out and get into another line of work.

Describe your feelings and thoughts about what exactly happened to these two women, who, by the way, evidently were exemplary police officers before harassment drove them out of the department. Do you think the first officer “asked for” what she got by having an affair with a married police officer? Do you think that one case has more merit than the other? Which, and why? What do you think should be done in order to resolve these cases? What should happen to the other police officers and anyone else found guilty of such harassment? Should the women be offered their jobs back? Should they receive retroactive compensation as well as the award of the court? How serious do you think this harassment was? Does this somehow support the belief of many that women should not be allowed to hold such high-stress and formerly all-male jobs? Why, or why not?

15.6: The New Global Economy and the International Business Scene

1. 15.6Compare moral relativism with moral absolutism as applicable to multinationals in international business

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

The twenty-first century has brought unprecedented global change that now structures the dynamic environments in which business is conducted. Radical, rapid, and revolutionary change has given rise to a host of new challenges and among these are ethical problems. In the new global economy, the world’s major corporations are multinationals. Multinational corporations are powerful institutions that maintain operations in various “host” countries. Currently there is considerable debate about the kind and character of morality that will govern international business.

Business ethicist Thomas Donaldson observed,

“When we leave home and cross our nation’s boundaries, moral clarity often blurs. Without a backdrop of shared attitudes, and without familiar laws and judicial procedures that define standards of ethical conduct, certainty is elusive.”5

Whose ethical standards should prevail in global businesses—those of the home country or those of the host country? Should multinational corporations make business investments in countries where civil and political rights are violated? Is it ethical for corporations in developed nations to move plants to developing nations that lack environmental, safety, and other operational standards? How do corporations develop and maintain global integrity? How do multinationals produce codes of corporate conduct that will read consistently in dozens of languages?

One view of the international situation claims that no culture’s ethics are better than any others. This view is generally known as cultural relativism but is also referred to as  ethical  or moral relativism or cultural particularism. Relativism is the view that there are many standards of morality—not just one. Hence, morality is culturally conditioned and varies from culture to culture in response to unique circumstances.

An opposite point of view is  ethical  or moral absolutism—also referred to as cultural universalism. Cultural universalists, following the Western enlightenment tradition, take the position that basic truths about the nature of right and wrong actions can be defined objectively. Absolutists believe that moral principles apply to all people independently of place or circumstances, and many of these ethical concepts are already universally articulated in internationally accepted documents such as the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Furthermore, it is argued that ethics, properly understood, is a domain unto itself and is therefore independent of particular religious or cultural beliefs.

Among the most clear-cut ethical principles are the following: that it is ethically wrong to cheat, deceive, exploit, abuse, harm, or steal from others, that we have an ethical responsibility to respect the rights of others, including their freedom and well-being, to help those most in need of help, to seek common good and not merely our own self-interest and egocentric pleasures, and to strive to make the world more just and humane.6

Without a system of transcultural values nations with different religious/cultural beliefs remain separated because of fundamental differences and the idea of an integrated global economy is compromised.

How are multinational corporations to navigate between the extreme views of cultural particularism and cultural universalism on the international business scene?

At the same time, it is important that international businesses recognize and respect cultural values and local traditions. In this light, ethical principles must be applied in a cultural context. An exercise in good ethical reasoning shows us that while cultural values and local traditions differ, these differences are not necessarily judgments about right and wrong. In fact, honoring cultural differences, within the bounds of ethical frameworks, can enhance both the ways in which people work and how human beings relate to others.

15.7: Media Ethics

1. 15.7Evaluate the importance of ethical concerns with respect to the exponential growth of media

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

Because of the tremendous explosion of media in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, more ethical issues have arisen than ever before in history. First of all, one must define exactly what is meant by “media.” There are basically two types of media:

1. Written or printed media which includes written journalism, such as newspapers and magazines, and photojournalism, or photographs, that accompany written journalism 

2. Electronic media which includes radio, television, computers, and the Internet.

The media has become so powerful and pervasive that we now describe many events as media driven, which means the media keeps events alive and at times blows them out of proportion so that they are kept in the public eye. The public’s perception of events is often colored by the particular slants the media puts on the reporting of them. Recent examples of media-driven events include the TWA Flight 800 crash; the death of Princess Diana of England; the O.J. Simpson trial; the President Clinton/Monica Lewinsky affair; the airplane crash that killed John F. Kennedy, Jr., his wife, and sister-in-law; the Terri Schiavo case; the Elian Gonzalez controversy over staying in the United States or being returned to Cuba; and the war with Iraq.

15.7.1: Journalism’s Ideal

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

According to Phillip Patterson and Lee Wilkins in their book Media Ethics: Issues and Cases, “Each of the traditional professions has laid claim to one of the central tenants of philosophy. Law, ideally is equated with justice; medicine with the duty to render aid; journalism, too, has a lofty ideal: the communication of truth.”7 Truth and falsity when stated carefully in propositions are absolute; however, the problem is not with the absoluteness of true or false propositions, but rather with seeking and finding the truth or with discovering which propositions are true or false in the journalistic reporting of events.

15.7.2: Truth and How Journalists Obtain Information and Stories

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

Most journalists get stories by gathering information, and one of the questions that arises is how this information is acquired. Another question which is pertinent is whether it is ethical to lie to get a story either by misrepresenting oneself or otherwise lying to a person from whom the story is to be acquired, or by telling lies in order to make the story more interesting or exciting. Accurate or not, journalists, like lawyers and used-car salespersons, are not often held in very high esteem, especially by the newsworthy people they report on (e.g., politicians, sports figures, entertainers), and by the public, who believe journalists are more interested in selling stories and photographs than in telling the truth.

15.7.3: Public Right to Know Versus Individual Right to Privacy

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

Probably the most significant ethical issue in media ethics arises out of the public’s right, need, or desire to know and the media’s right to report events versus individuals’ rights to privacy. Many famous people—politicians, entertainers, sports figures—have had to confront media members, that is, reporters and photographers (newspaper, radio, and television) often with dire results. Frank Sinatra (1915–1998), the singer and actor, had many confrontations with reporters and openly expressed his hatred of them. Sean Penn (1960– ), the actor and director, has had physical fights with many reporters. Princess Diana (1961–1997) of England and Dodi Fayed (1955–1997) were being hounded by paparazzi (freelance photographers who take pictures of celebrities) as they left a hotel in Paris one evening and were killed in a car accident—presumably trying to outrun the paparazzi. Newspersons were criticized for taking pictures at the scene of the accident rather than helping the fatally injured passengers or sending for help.

Exactly what right to privacy do public figures have? Certainly by virtue of their fame, importance, newsworthiness, and public recognizability, they should expect to be approached by news media to be photographed, interviewed, and questioned. In addition, often their desire and demand for publicity are dependent on a continuing relationship with the media. Where do we draw the line between people’s desire and need for privacy and the right to lead their own lives and the desire or need of the media and the public to know what is happening in their personal and private lives? Many times the media, especially photographers with telephoto lenses on their cameras, catches celebrities in personal and intimate moments. For example, the British duchess, Sarah Ferguson (1959– ), was caught on film having an affair with a rich American businessman on a beach in the Mediterranean. There is no doubt that many of the celebrities are definitely hounded by the paparazzi until some of them have no private lives at all.

The Clinton/Lewinsky Affair

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

One of the most significant and annoying media hypes of the twentieth century was the affair of President Bill Clinton (1946– ) with a White House intern named Monica Lewinsky (1973– ). The media coverage that went on and on for the better part of two years left no stone unturned in its reporting of the events, to the point where it became almost pornographic on various newscasts. There is no doubt it was big news—to the point where the president was up for impeachment. The issue for most Americans did not seem to be what the president did in his personal life, although no one condoned what he did, but, once caught, the president lied about the affair both on TV and under oath. That he continued to function satisfactorily as president, however, was evident by the polls that gave him high ratings in his job performance, if not in his personal morality. There is no doubt that the whole affair was media driven to the point where the average American was bored with it, but still every morning and evening we all were subjected to the media overkill.

The Elian Gonzales Event

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

Another event in which the public was subjected to media overkill was one that should have been resolved immediately, but instead was dragged on for almost a year—to a great extent by the media. Elian Gonzales (1993– ), a six-year-old boy, left Cuba on a raft with his mother and stepfather but was the only survivor of a storm at sea. He was found floating on an inner tube off the coast of Florida by an American fisherman of Cuban descent. Since his natural father was alive in Cuba, the Immigration Service attempted to send him back to Cuba to be with his father, stepmother, and baby half brother. However, his mother’s relatives and other Cuban refugees in Miami wanted to keep him in the United States, so they sought legal means and injunctions to keep him here. Crowds protested outside the house where he was staying. The media assisted in prolonging his deportation by continually photographing Elian and the family so that they were constantly in all the newspapers and on radio and TV broadcasts. Because his Miami relatives wouldn’t turn him over to the authorities, U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno (1938– ) finally ordered that the house be “invaded” by immigration officials. A photograph taken at an odd angle was carried by most newspapers to “play up” the story—it appeared to show one of the immigration officials with a rifle, hand on the trigger, seemingly aimed at Elian and the fisherman who had rescued him at sea. In reality, the gun was not aimed at them, and the official’s finger was on the trigger housing, not on the trigger, but the media’s intent to place the U.S. government in the role of autocratic villain was clear. Elian’s father and his family eventually came to the United States to take him home, but only after much legal hassling and more media invasion of the family’s personal life, and now the public hears no more of him.

15.7.4: Where to Draw the Line

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

A recent newspaper editorial might suggest where the line could be drawn. A story broke about a politician’s alleged personal relationship or affair with a lobbyist who represented several companies and institutions on a national issue over which the politician had a great deal of control. The so-called personal relationship was never denied by either the politician or the lobbyist, but they both denied that their personal relationship had any effect on their professional relationship or dealings. In deciding to print the story, the editor of the paper accompanied it with an editorial in which he stated that the rumors about “the intensely personal relationship” were not the important issue. What anyone, including politicians or lobbyists, do with their private lives was not important in the editor’s eyes. What was important was that such a personal relationship with someone who might influence the politician’s decisions and dealings with his committee and fellow politicians, the presenting and passage of bills, and the distribution of millions of taxpayer dollars could be considered a conflict of interest. The editor went on to say that those who have chosen to do public service are entitled to their private moments, however, when a politician develops a close personal relationship with someone who is paid to influence the writing of legislation and the shaping of public policy, it is no longer merely a private matter, but one of public concern. Both parties denied all suggestion that there was a conflict of interest. Regardless of the truth or falsity of the article, the editor makes a significant distinction between personal matters in public figures’ lives and personal matters that can no longer remain personal but must be considered public.

15.7.5: Ethical News Values

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

Like other professions, most journalists are honest and ethical, but exactly what would constitute ethical news values? Again, Patterson and Wilkins have come up with elements they believe would be emphasized if news values were constructed from ethical reasoning:

The following Table 15.1 lists the elements of ethical news values:

Table 15.1: Elements of Ethical News Values

Cases: Media ethics

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

The international scope of business and global media requires ethical thoughtfulness and moral scrutiny. These institutions are powerful and their influence is pervasive. They transact business and transmit information in real time. The rights and interests of individuals, corporations and other institutions must be considered closely in order to insure that business is conducted justly and media is truthful.

Cases for Study and Discussion

Case 1 Photographs Taken of a Boy Who Drowned

You are a photographer on a local newspaper and have responded to a call on your scanner concerning a possible drowning in a nearby lake. When you arrive on the scene, divers have just brought the lifeless body of a five-year-old boy to the shore where his distraught family is gathered. The family members are grieving openly and you take several pictures. Should you have taken those pictures invading the family’s right to privacy to grieve over the little boy? Why, or why not? Should you have submitted them to the paper? Why, or why not? Next, you are the managing editor of the paper and have been called in to decide whether or not to run the photo in the next day’s paper. One argument in favor of printing the photos is that it would serve as a warning to readers how dangerous it is to swim in that lake without supervision where there have been several drownings in the last year. Also, such a photo might win a prize for you and the paper. The basic argument against printing it is, of course, that it invades the right of the family to grieve in private. What other arguments are there, pro and con? As editor, what would you decide to do in this situation and why?

15.8: Corporate Greed—Enron

1. 15.8Examine the Enron case to showcase the effects of blatant corporate greed

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

One of the worst scandals and violations of business ethics occurred in 1999–2001 with the Enron Energy Company, in which billions of dollars were hidden from company employees and shareholders, except for the Enron Board and its CEO, managers, and Arthur Andersen, which was Enron’s auditing company. In just 15 years, Enron grew from nothing to be America’s seventh largest company, employing 21,000 staff in more than 40 countries, but the firm’s success turned out to have involved an elaborate scam. The company lied about its profits and is accused of a range of unethical dealings, including concealing debts so they didn’t show up in its accounts. Another questionable action involved its relationship with the Arthur Andersen Company which did the auditing for Enron. A significant ethical problem arose when Enron also hired Andersen as a consulting firm. Essentially, the Andersen employees also became employees of Enron, a definite conflict of interest because the independence and integrity of financial auditing organizations are fundamental to the stability and growth of American business and free markets throughout the world. If the conflict of interest wasn’t unethical enough, when the scam began to come to light, Arthur Andersen began shredding documents which revealed the relationship and unethical activities between the two companies. As the deception came to light, investors and creditors retreated, forcing the firm into Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

15.8.1: Enron's Code of Ethical Conduct

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

The irony of all of this is that Enron had a completely printed out code of ethics (or conduct) of over 65 pages! Basically, Enron’s ethics code was based on several Boy Scout values:

1. Respect.  We treat others as we would like to be treated ourselves. Ruthlessness, callousness, and arrogance don’t belong here. What actually occurred, however, was a cavalier attitude toward government, investors, employees, and the public who were all seen as dupes for Enron’s activities.

2. Integrity.  We work with customers and prospects openly, honestly, and sincerely. In actuality, the company was totally deceptive and not forthright with those who most needed to know what was going on.

3. Communications.  We believe that information is meant to move and that information moves people. The company’s massive deception made a mockery of this aspect of the code.

4. Excellence.  We are satisfied with nothing less than the best. We will continue to raise the bar for everyone.9 This point of the code was belied when Enron’s board took the extraordinary step of waiving the firm’s code of ethics to permit the kind of deals, off the balance sheet, that hid massive debts from public view, not once but twice, allowing two outside partnerships to be led by an Enron top executive who stood to gain from them.

Some other statements of Enron’s so-called ethics are:

1. We have all worked hard over the years to establish our reputation for integrity and ethical conduct. We cannot afford to have it damaged.

2. We believe in offering our employees fair compensation through wages and other benefits. This point was violated by Enron’s policy on retirement accounts. When employees received Enron stock in those accounts, they were prohibited from selling it, except for top executives who could dump their shares, and did, as the crisis mounted. Employees saw their retirement savings vanish in the bankruptcy. This certainly was not ethical nor respectful of the employees and their families.

3. Employees of Enron are charged with conducting their business affairs in accordance with the highest ethical standards. An employee shall not conduct himself or herself in a manner which would bring to the employee financial gain separately derived as a direct consequence of his or her employment with the company. What actually happened is that Enron’s CEO and top executives made tremendous profits by dumping their stocks prior to bankruptcy, which other employees could not do.

4. Agreements, whether contractual or verbal, will be honored. No bribes, bonuses, kickbacks, lavish entertainment, or gifts will be given or received in exchange for special price, or privilege. Again this was consistently violated by the company’s top executives.

5. Employees will maintain the confidentiality of the Company’s sensitive or proprietary information and will not use such information for their personal benefit. The top executives, of course, did just that, profiting from their inside knowledge.

6. Relations with the Company’s many customers, stockholders, governments, employees, suppliers, press, and bankers will be conducted in honesty, candor, and fairness.10

15.8.2: Why the Code of Conduct Failed

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

One might ask why, with such an extensive and specific 65-page code of conduct, Enron could have failed so miserably in its dealings with employees, shareholders, and other businesses. A general answer could be that the code was merely eyewash or window dressing for its CEO, managers, and its board of directors. A code of conduct is only as good as it is lived and adhered to by its creators. The fact that Enron’s board of directors waived several aspects of the code twice in 1999 is evidence enough that the code was basically a “Don’t do as I do, but do as I say” for its employees, except for its top echelon and board members.

Enron provides a textbook example of how not to instill ethics in the workplace. It required employees to sign the code of conduct before joining the company; however, after what emerged in the Enron story, one can see that it was just words without related and appropriate action. The code was completely hypocritical because of the unethical activities of the company in all of its dealings. What Enron did and the consequences therefrom provide the greatest example of how important ethics is in the business world. It is not just another class a business major must take in college, but a living, active, and extremely important activity to any business functioning in today’s world. Enron’s former CEO and other managers are currently being charged with criminal activity in connection with Enron’s unethical activities. Good corporate ethics must start at the top and the corporate culture must embody stated core values, if the code is to be effective.

16.1: Environmental Ethics Key Terms

1. 16.1Define key terms as applicable to environmental ethics

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

1. Speciesism:  A prejudice for one’s own species and against other species.

2. Sentientism:  The theory that only those beings with mental states should be the subject of moral concern.

3. Wholism:  A conception of nature wherein humans and nature together form a moral community.

4. Vegetarianism:  The refusal to eat meat, fish, fowl, or any food derived from them and the favoring of a diet of vegetables.

5. Endangered species:  A species of animals in danger of becoming extinct because of the encroachment of civilization upon the natural environment and careless exploitation by human beings.

16.2: Nature and Morality

1. 16.2Recognize that humans have a moral obligation to preserve and protect nature

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

In recent years, people have come to realize that natural resources and animals, plants, and trees are not boundless but are subject to diminishment, destruction, and loss through careless exploitation, pollution, and the general encroachment of civilization. In the past, despite inklings of this realization in cases such as the near extinction of the American buffalo in the old West through wholesale slaughter, people assumed that natural resources would last forever and were there merely to be used and exploited. Water, air, forests, animals, plants, and minerals were considered to exist in abundance and without end. In recent years, however, with the rise of industrialized, technological, producing and consuming societies, people have discovered that this is just not so. There indeed are limits to the natural resources of the world, and it is possible to eliminate whole species of animals by means of lack of concern for their survival and willful exploitation.

For most modern, “civilized” people, “nature and morality” was a new category, but in reality it was an ancient idea among primitive human beings who tended to see themselves as being much more closely allied with nature than moderns do. Even our modern-day concerns are often centered around nature’s destruction as that affects our own lives rather than nature having value in and for itself. In this sense, human relations with nature could be subsumed under the social aspect having to do with people in relationship to other people.

However, many people do consider nature as being valuable in and of itself and insist that people have specific moral obligations toward it and all that it contains, especially those animals that are close to us in nature’s order. In this module, both aspects are considered but concentration will focus upon nature and morality.

16.2.1: Waste and Destruction of Natural Resources

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

For years it was assumed that our natural resources will last forever, that our water, air, oil, minerals, earth, plants, and trees will always be there for human use and will never be depleted. However, in recent times humanity has discovered that there is a limit to everything, including natural resources. Some believe that we are very close to the end of nature. As we willy-nilly cut down trees for use in wood and paper products, for example, we began to realize that our forests were disappearing. When we had oil shortages in 1973, 1998, 1999, and 2000, and Americans were held hostage by the Arab nations, we began to realize that there was only so much oil in the ground and the sea, and that our pumps would not bring up oil forever. Recently discovered plentiful oil deposits in North America have significantly extended the horizons of available supply. However, there exist questions about the environmental impact of various extraction techniques and technologies. In addition, alternative fuels and energy sources are being explored and developed. As rainfall diminished along with the water supply, it was evident that there was a limit to the water supply as well, and homeowners simply could not overwater their lawns or let water flow down the drains of sinks, bathtubs, and toilets.

As each of these realizations became clear, people were shocked that the earth’s bounty would not last unless humanity stopped destroying without rebuilding or replanting and unless humans began to conserve precious natural resources. It was no longer possible to continue cutting down trees without planting new ones to take their place. Communities also had to recycle paper so that not as many trees would be used up to make it. Individuals had to be careful not merely to let water flow but to restrict the use of it. Corporations couldn’t just use and misuse land by destroying it in digging for oil, coal, and other minerals, and farmers had to be careful not to exhaust its fertility by continuing to plant in the same soil without protecting it and letting it lie fallow.

16.2.2: Exploiting, Misusing, and Polluting the Environment

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

It became evident, probably with what first happened to the air in Los Angeles, California, that heavy industrialization and a tremendous proliferation of automobiles polluted the environment so badly that people found it difficult to breathe, grow things, or even to see on particularly smoggy days. It was further discovered that such heavy pollution also destroyed the ozone layer that protects the earth against excessive rays of the sun.

Additionally it was found that humans could not continue to dump our waste in the ground and in the rivers, lakes, and oceans without dire effects on those bodies of water and their inhabitants. If corporations drilled for oil in the ocean and sprung a leak or had a spill, it could adversely affect the natural and recreational environments surrounding them, including the plants, animals, or fish within them. As industrialization and technology increased, so did the toxicity of the waste, and humanity found itself burying in the land or dumping in bodies of water very dangerous and poisonous materials, such as strong chemicals, atomic waste, and other dangerous materials that seriously affected the whole environment as well as its inhabitants.

16.2.3: Exploiting, Abusing, and Destroying Animals

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

One of the most controversial ethical issues concerning the environment is the question of animal rights and whether humans have moral obligations toward animals. These issues encompass destroying animals for food or for parts of their bodies (e.g., furs, skins, or tusks); hunting them for sport; and using them for scientific and other experimentation.

Using Animals for Scientific Experimentation

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

One of the oldest controversies concerning moral obligations toward animals is whether they should be experimented upon for scientific or medical advancement. Since the antivivisection movement of the nineteenth century protested cutting into live animals for purposes of scientific research, these protests have expanded to include any experimentation on animals “for the good of humanity.” There are strong laws concerning experimenting on human beings, and thus animals must be used, according to science, to test drugs and scientific or medical procedures. Without the use of animals, many of the greatest scientific advancements and cures for diseases (e.g., heart disease, kidney disease, and diabetes) would never have been made. Opponents of animal experimentation argue that often it is totally unnecessary as well as harmful and fatal to the animals being experimented on. They argue that research should be conducted without the use of either humans or animals.

Endangerment, Decimation, and Extinction of Animal Species

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

Because of the encroachment of civilization, as when forests are cut down and towns are built, the natural habitats of animals have shrunk significantly or been destroyed. In addition, because of the continuing demand for animal skins, parts, and trophies, whole species have been slaughtered to the point of extreme endangerment or extinction. Animal rights supporters deplore such activities and have called for an end of the hunting of all animals, especially endangered species, and also for the restriction of any activities that will destroy the environments in which animals live and thrive. They argue that every effort must be made to stop all activities that threaten any animal species, and that attempts should be made to restore such environments to their natural states.

Many issues have arisen in our century that deal with the proper stance people should be taking toward the natural environment and all of its inhabitants. The first important question to be addressed concerning these issues is what lies behind the attitudes that brought the issues to a head. What caused humans to see nature as something to be controlled and manipulated for use, regardless of the effects on it and all it contains? Why has humanity arrived at such a state that there is now grave concern about our relationship with the environment and animals?

16.3: Our Attitude Toward Nature and What Lies Behind It

1. 16.3Examine the causes behind the monistic and the wholistic view of nature and humanness

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

Attitudes toward nature have not developed overnight. However, one cannot say that they always have been nor that they always are present in every culture. In the Native American culture, for example, there exists a kind of monistic (oneness) or wholistic view of nature and humanness as being one, not as separate from each other. Native Americans historically and currently see themselves as a part of nature, as closely related to everything natural rather than as something or someone separate from it. They believe that spirits inhabit everything, not just them, and they relate to nature and animals as if they were family. They take only what they need and have a deep respect for all aspects of nature and animals.

Eastern religions, such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Daoism, also see nature and humans as being one unified whole instead of seeing nature as subordinate to humans or as something to be manipulated and controlled by them. Here again, unlike Western religions, if spirituality is accepted by the religion, it tends to permeate everyone and everything, not just human beings. The whole universe is spiritual, not just humans and God. The Western view, however, has tended to see humans and nature in a dualistic relationship that is sometimes almost adversarial. There are two major sources in Western culture from which this dualism emerged.

16.3.1: Platonic Dualism and the Beginnings of Western Philosophy

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

Socrates and then Plato both tended to see the external world as the shadow copy of a real world that exists somewhere else in what Plato called the “world of ideas.” With these two men, philosophy moved away from the external world, which had been the focus of the pre-Socratic philosophers (the first scientists), to a focus on human beings and their reason, which enabled them to attain the real world of ideas, a world that Plato felt exists outside of or beyond this world. Both Socrates and Plato, then, tended to deemphasize the importance of this world as opposed to the world of ideas where they felt that ultimate truths could be found, but only through human reason. Plato felt that if human beings concentrated on the external world and everything that was in it, they would only be seeing shadow copies of the real world that exists beyond this world. For example, when Socrates asked a question of his students, such as, “What is justice?” and they answered, “Justice is how Zeus treated Achilles in a certain situation,” he then said, “No. I mean what is justice, ‘itself by itself’?” In other words, he felt that somewhere there exists the ultimate true idea of justice from which all just acts are mere manifestations. This dualism enabled the Greeks to think abstractly for the first time in their history, but it also tended to split them away from nature in that they, as reasoning beings, saw themselves as different from and more important than nature and the external world, because they and no other beings in nature could attain the “real” world of ideas that Plato thought actually existed.

16.3.2: Judeo-Christian Teachings in the Bible

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

The second dualistic view emerges from the early Judeo-Christian tradition, which taught that God is a supernatural, spiritual being who shares His spirituality with human beings. No other being in nature, according to the teachings in both traditions, has any spirituality. Again, this world is viewed as being God’s creation and significant but is not the real world, which lies beyond in the supernatural world (according to Christianity). In Genesis, Adam is told by God that he has “dominion over the animals of the earth, the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea” and that nature essentially is there for his purposes. Adam is told to “go forth and multiply” and have dominion over everything. This again makes nature and everything in it subservient to human beings and their wishes, implying that nature exists strictly for their use and has little or no value in itself. This may not be the way many worshipers in Judaism and Christianity feel today, but there is no doubt that these teachings have had a definite influence on the attitudes people in the Western world have toward nature.

16.3.3: The Rise of Science and Scientific Progress

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

It is ironic that the influences just mentioned, although giving rise to an exploitative attitude toward nature, also have made science and scientific progress possible. It is no accident that science has progressed by leaps and bounds in the Western world, while being almost nonexistent in the Eastern world. And why not? If nature, and all it contains, is subservient to humanity, or if human beings can make it so by harnessing its powers and using it for our own best interest, then why not do so?

As science and technology advanced, nature became more and more subservient to human needs and desires, and the environment and animals were used and exploited without regard to any inherent value they might have. After all, so the attitude went, human beings are the only beings with intrinsic value; nature has only instrumental value, that is, it is only valuable as it helps people attain whatever goals they believe are important.

16.3.4: Industrialization

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

With the tremendous advancement of science and technology, most nations in the West and many in the East have become highly industrialized, requiring a greater use of natural resources and also causing a greater deleterious effect on the environment because of the need for more land, and air, and a greater disposal of waste. For example, given our civilization’s need for certain chemicals or chemical products, a chemical plant may be situated in a natural setting on a river, which requires trees to be cut and hills to be leveled, while the plant pours its poisonous waste into that body of water and pollutes the air by belching chemical-laden smoke into it.

16.3.5: Encroachment of Nature by Civilization

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

Civilization’s encroachment upon nature has also taken many forms. As people have moved out of crowded cities into the countryside nearby and created suburbs, they have eliminated more and more of the natural environment and replaced it with human environments. As humankind have leveled trees and hills to put in housing developments, shopping centers, and other “civilized” creations, they have shrunk the natural environment and pushed species of plants and animals back into narrower areas where they often have not been able to survive because of the elimination of their space, air, water, and food supplies.

All of the preceding have contributed to our attitudes toward the natural environment and all it contains. It remains to be seen whether these attitudes should prevail or whether they should undergo radical or moderate changes. An examination and analysis of the arguments for and against the use and exploitation of nature will help us to look at both sides of environmental ethical issues.

16.4: Arguments for Use and Exploitation of the Natural Environment

1. 16.4Review the arguments favoring that human beings should have complete dominion over nature

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

A strong set of arguments states that human beings are the highest form of natural creation and, therefore, should have complete dominion over nature and everything that it contains. Nature exists strictly for the use of human beings and has no other purpose for its existence. These arguments come from two sources: religion and science.

Religious Basis for Dominion

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

Western religions seem to support the stance that people, although related to nature, are yet other and higher than nature by virtue of the spirituality that has been conferred upon them by God. No other beings in nature have such high status as humans; therefore, they do not deserve the same ethical considerations as humans do. It is strictly up to human beings to decide what the value of nature is, since it has no value in and of itself.

Natural Order and Evolution Argument

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

The other argument that supports humans’ dominion over nature is that which focuses on the evolutionary scale and the natural order of things that places human beings at the top of everything. Humans, by virtue of their fantastic brains that are considered (by them) to be the highest achievement of nature and evolution, should obviously have dominion over everything else in the natural world. Humans have shown through their ability to reason and invent that, even though nature towers over them in size, they are capable of harnessing it and all of its aspects by flying; traveling on and staying under water; controlling rivers, streams, and seas; leveling the tallest mountains; cutting down nature’s biggest trees; and overcoming nature’s most ferocious species of animals. And even though nature does in some respects have more control over humans (as demonstrated by earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, and tidal waves), it is just a matter of time until humans will be able to control these aspects of nature too by being able to predict them and then by either averting them or diminishing their destructive powers.

16.4.2: Civilization More Important than Nature

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

Because the human brain and its reasoning capacity is the highest form in the natural order, then civilization, including its institutions, technology, science, industry, and systems of all kinds, should take precedence over nature. Neither nature nor any of its inhabitants except for human beings are capable of reasoning, analyzing, organizing, using a language, or creating. Therefore, if nature must be destroyed to allow human civilization to expand and progress, then it simply must be, as it is less important in all of its aspects.

16.4.3: Moral Rights and Obligations

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

Because humans are at the top of the religious and natural orders, they and only they are deserving of moral rights and obligations. Therefore, humans have moral obligations only to self and other human beings and not to nature in any of its aspects. Morality does not exist as far as the rest of nature is concerned but either comes from God or is established by humans for humans. Therefore, humans have no moral obligations toward any part of nature, nor does any part of nature have any moral rights. Nature, then, can be used and exploited in any way that humans see fit, for it is merely there for their purposes.

Cases: Exploiting the Environment

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

Environmental ethics ask human beings to rethink relationships to nature and to reassess attitudes toward other species, plants and trees. Issues in environmental ethics require people to reexamine core values and lifestyles with a view towards a more wholistic ethic and a better quality of life. The following cases provide opportunities to think about these important issues.

Cases for Study and Discussion

Case 1 Oil Spills

A major oil corporation constantly advertises in newspapers, magazines, and on radio and television about what it is doing to protect the environment and endangered species. At the same time, it is responsible for oil spills caused by carelessness both on land and at sea, which, of course, destroy all kinds of sea life and animals that live there. When such spills occur, unless they happen to hit the newspapers because they cannot be hidden from public view, employees are told to clean up the spills but not to tell anyone outside of the company or even inside the company who does not already know about it. This, of course, would seem to be hypocrisy of the worst kind. Do you think the oil company should spend more time and money on preventing oil spills than on building shelters for some endangered species? Why or why not? What would make the company less hypocritical? Answer in detail. Should the company keep such spills secret when they are unknown to the public, or does it owe the public the right to have that information as well as the advertisements about what they’re doing to protect the environment? Why or why not? Is it all right to keep such spills secret because it’s good for business? Why or why not?

16.5: Arguments Against the Use and Exploitation of Nature

1. 16.5Review the arguments against the use and exploitation of nature

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

Critics of the dualistic arguments that human beings and nature are separate and that the former have been given dominion over the latter state that, first, religious arguments either have been misinterpreted or are irrelevant. Since nature is part of God’s creation, say some religionists, it also should be treated with respect. Just because there are no souls in nonhumans doesn’t mean they have no value whatsoever. Second, having dominion, as given by God, means that humans should treat nature as God treats humans, with respect, mercy, and love. If humans are rulers over the world, then they should be benevolent and care for those beings under their rule who do not have the great human capacity for reason.

Also, some passages in the King James version of the Bible could be interpreted as supporting acting morally rather than destructively or dominatingly toward nature.

The New Testament

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

Second, in the New Testament in Revelation, Chapters 7 and 9 , God again seems to express some concern for the nature He created:

Chapter 7, Verses 2 and 3:  And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God, and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt earth and sea, saying, “Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed a hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.”

Chapter 9, Verses 3 and 4:  And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth; and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power. And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.

Nonreligionists argue that, first, just because people have evolved as higher beings because of their brains doesn’t mean that someday they won’t be replaced by a yet higher species. Second, this argument does not mean that nature is inferior to them, but rather that it is equal to them in every respect. The proper relationship between humans and nature is not dualistic but wholistic; that is, human beings are an integral part of nature and nature is an integral part of them. Therefore, instead of being a relationship of “survival of the fittest” or domination of one species over all the rest, this relationship should be a reciprocal and wholistic one. The relationship should be one in which all aspects are a part of the whole of nature, to be preserved and protected and to coexist in harmony.

16.5.1: Ecofeminism

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

Ecofeminism  is a term that encompasses various philosophies that connect feminism and the ecology within a broader framework of a historical logic of dominion and domination. Certain long held values and attitudes, like those previously discussed in this module, create patriarchal hierarchies and relationships of domination and subordination that are unjustified and oppressive. The claim is that women and nature share a common history of oppressive domination. In contrast, morally just relationships that are both caring and cooperative will improve the quality of life for all.

16.5.2: Reasoning Should Not Separate Humans from Nature

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

Because humans can reason, they should realize that nature is intrinsically valuable and must be nurtured and related to in a meaningful manner. Reason should not cause humans to reject nature, but to prize it; as a matter of fact, having reason endows humans with much more responsibility toward nature and all it contains than other beings in nature who do not possess it. Where animals are concerned, the importance of reasoning should be expanded to include sentientism (having mental states) so that animals can be respected even though they cannot reason. There are also certain criteria put forth by some ethicists that clearly can be used to give rights to animals and require human obligations toward them (see the following section on “Criteria for Animal Rights”).

Civilization Versus Nature

Nature, which contains most human needs and which relates to humans in a vital way, should never be made subordinate to civilization, which is human constructed. Civilization has its value and importance, but nature should never be seriously endangered or destroyed at the expense of expanding civilization. For example, when builders are contemplating putting up a housing development or other buildings, they should never destroy any part of the natural environment in which they are working. Plant and animal life must be preserved and not destroyed as designing and building take place. Frank Lloyd Wright (1869–1959), the great American architect and advocate of organic architecture, believed that buildings should be designed in such a way that they fit into the natural environment or even seem to emerge from it in an organic way. His famous cantilevered house at Willow Run is a perfect example of this attitude.

16.6: Moderate Position

1. 16.6Review the wholistic position that sees nature and humans as being intimately related

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

Both of the preceding sets of arguments take extreme positions either for or against the use and exploitation of nature. The arguments for such use and exploitation advocate the total subordination of nature to humans and the free use and exploitation of nature for whatever reasons humans deem acceptable. On the other hand, the arguments against these suggest that nature must be considered as standing on an equal footing with humans and should never be used solely as a means to human ends. A more moderate position exists between these two extremes, however, one in which nature generally is regarded as being important and significant, but not necessarily on the same footing with humans, and in which it may be used for human means with some care so as not to seriously endanger or destroy it.

This position generally agrees with the wholistic position, seeing nature and humans as being intimately related and requiring that humans treat nature with respect; however, it is not against using nature for the good of humans but insists that this be done carefully, allowing for the preservation and protection of the environment and animals in the process and being careful not to overuse either of these. Perhaps these three positions dealing with humans and their relationship to nature can be best exemplified through a discussion of animal rights and human moral obligations toward animals.

16.7: Criteria for Animal Rights

1. 16.7Evaluate the criteria for animal rights

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

Some might argue that as long as something has life or is alive, it deserves moral consideration, and people have a moral obligation to protect and preserve life wherever it is found. Critics of this position say that it is much too vague and unrealistic and that it would seem to violate the way nature itself works. A food chain exists in nature in which plants feed on other plants, animals feed on plants, and animals feed on other animals. Nature is able to achieve a balance in this process in which species survive but do not necessarily become extinct because they are not destroyed through overhunting, overeating, or overkilling.

Human beings also make distinctions concerning whether just life and being alive constitute sufficient criteria to preserve life. They have and do follow nature in that they eat plants and animals for their own survival just as the latter do for theirs. Further, humans even allow the killing of their own species in certain instances. Even though these are controversial areas, humans do allow the termination of life in their own species in such cases as abortion, defense of the innocent, capital punishment, just wars, mercy death, and mercy killing. If humans allow this in their own species, why not in others as well, especially if it is clearly for the good of the human species? Therefore, the fact that something or someone merely is alive or has life does not in itself seem to constitute a strong argument against terminating that life for this or that good reason.

16.7.1: Having Interests and Attributes of Soul and Mind

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

Joel Feinberg (1926–2004) states that

“to have a right is to have a claim to something and against someone,” and goes on to say that only beings who can be said to have interests are capable of claiming such rights.1

He considers that animals do have interests, even though they can’t express them verbally, especially the interest not to suffer pain, and therefore he would argue that animals do indeed have rights.

Some would argue that rights for moral treatment are based upon whether a being has a soul, a mind, or feelings. The difficulty of proving the existence or nonexistence of a soul creates problems with such a criterion. Furthermore, even if we could prove a soul’s existence, why should that be the only claim to moral rights?

As far as mind and feelings are concerned, animals, as sentient beings like humans, have to be described as having both of these merely through our observation of them. It seems obvious that they have sense experiences, although often different from those of humans, and they seem to be able to express sadness, happiness, and anger as well as other emotions and states of consciousness (e.g., conscious awareness and response to stimuli).

16.7.2: Reason

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

Although it is limited, animals do seem to also have an ability to reason, even if only on a rudimentary level. Current language experiments with chimpanzees and gorillas would seem to indicate this. Furthermore, human beings with severe mental impairment can reason at no higher a level than some animals do, and generally we give them rights and feel we have moral obligations toward them; therefore, why do we not also have such obligations toward animals? It would seem that the mere fact of being sentient (having mental states) in itself would elicit from us humans at least the obligation not to inflict pain and suffering on one who is so.

16.7.3: Ways of Dealing with Animal Rights

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

One way of ensuring animal rights is to avoid using animals for food at all and to eat only vegetables. In this way, hunting or slaughtering animals for food no longer becomes necessary. There are many kinds of people who call themselves  vegetarians —some who will not eat any meat at all, some who will eat only poultry and fish, and some who will not even eat animal products such as dairy and eggs. These latters are called  vegans . Some extremists, such as the Jainists, will not even eat vegetables from plants that have to be killed to yield the fruit or vegetable, such as potatoes. They will themselves not kill plants to eat their food but will wait until food drops from plants or trees or accept food donations from others who will pick them.

It is often difficult to attain some consistency as we try to preserve the lives of plants and animals. For example, what is the difference, beyond the health reasons, between eating red meat and eating poultry or fish? Is it any more moral to kill and eat a chicken or a fish than it is to kill and eat a cow or sheep?

Some argue that even though animals have interests and rights, those interests and rights are of less importance than those of humans, and therefore we have a right to use them for food, just as animals in nature use other animals and vegetables for food. The moderate view states that with these rights go certain responsibilities not to make animals suffer or feel pain, or not to slaughter whole species and make them extinct, but that humans still are entitled to kill animals for food within these moral limitations.

Sentientism

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

A second way of dealing with animal rights is to respect the fact that they have mental states that are to some extent akin to those of humans and are therefore deserving of rights. The critics of this argument ask, “What about plants and trees?” Sentientism is too restrictive and ignores the livingness of nonanimals. Don’t our forests and fields deserve the same kind of consideration as any other living being? These people generally argue for wholism.

Wholism

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

Every living thing is deserving of respect according to this view because humans, animals, and plants are part of a natural whole and must learn to live in harmony with one another. This attitude relies heavily upon human beings and their reasoning, especially moral reasoning. The critics of this view argue against the blurring of important distinctions between humans, animals, and plants and state that there is indeed a hierarchy of beings that allows us to deem the rights of certain beings to be more important than others’. For example, animal rights activists are more concerned about animals than they are about plants and feel that animals should be given more consideration than wholism would allow.

16.8: Use of Animals for Food

1. 16.8 Recall the issue of raising and slaughtering of animals for food

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

One of the most important issues, because of its prevalence, is the raising and slaughtering of animals for food. Is it moral to kill sentient beings, possessing all of the attributes described previously, and use them for human consumption? There are people who stand on both sides of this issue and some who are in the middle. What is involved in both the raising and the slaughtering of animals for this purpose?

16.8.1: Ways of Raising Animals for Food

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

In the past, wild animals were hunted and their flesh was used for food, while their skins or other body parts were used for clothes and other items. When humans became more civilized, they began to domesticate animals, such as cows, pigs, sheep, and chickens, and to raise them for food. Animals were raised in the open air on farms or ranches alongside one or both of their parents, allowed to graze in pastures, or fed corn or other grains or foods while sometimes being penned in the open air. This is called the “free-range” system of raising animals for food. When the time came for slaughter, the animals generally were put to death as quickly and as painlessly as possible.

However, as the demand for more and better meat and other animal products increased, something called “factory farming” came into use. Animals are raised in very close pens, often in the dark, and few of them ever see their mothers or the light of day. Even though killing animals for food is considered to be immoral by some, under the old system, they at least were treated more or less humanely up to the time of slaughter.

16.8.3: The Carnivore Position

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

The carnivore or meat-eating position accepts this approach as a modernized and much more efficient way of giving humans the best-quality food possible. Because animals are here basically for our use and have no intrinsic value, we have no moral obligations toward them, and their suffering has no meaning, since they are less than human. Therefore, any method that brings humans the best quality of meat possible is morally acceptable regardless of how it affects the animals involved.

16.8.2: The Vegetarian Position

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

Because vegetarians oppose using animals for food in any way, shape, or form, such people would be totally against the factory farming way of raising animals, calling it even more decadent and corrupt than raising animals on the open farms as before. To raise and kill animals strictly for our needs is to use living, sentient beings merely as a means to our own ends without even the kindness of letting them have a relatively happy and good life before we kill them.

16.8.4: The Moderate Position

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

The moderate position might condone using animals for food but decry the factory farming method as cruel. It would state that animals may be used by humans for food but insist on the free-range method of raising them and their painless slaughter as basic requirements for dealing morally with them. It would not, of course, deny the rights of vegetarians, but it would not brand as immoral the eating of meat aside from the cruelty to animals in the process of raising or slaughtering them.

16.9: Use of Animals for Experimentation

1. 16.9 Examine the issue related to using animals for experimentation

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

The use of animals for experimentation has gone on for many years and has resulted in the development of many of the greatest scientific and medical discoveries that have helped people to rid themselves of all kinds of chronic and fatal diseases.

Scientists would argue that without the ability to use animals for experimentation, humans would have to be used, to their harm and sometimes fatality. Cures simply would not be found for diseases, nor would training in certain procedures, such as surgeries, be possible. Because by law humans cannot be used for experimentation without their informed consent and without tremendous safeguards being imposed, progress in science and medicine simply would have to come to a standstill if animals could not be used.

They would argue further that animals have much less value than human beings, so it is morally correct to use them for experimentation because what will be discovered will benefit many people and sometimes the whole of humankind. Many of the animals scientists use are merely put to death because no one wants them and they cannot be kept in pounds or animal shelters indefinitely; therefore, why not get some use out of them rather than just kill them? The mere fact that nobody wants them or will take care of them should make it all right to use them to benefit humans.

16.9.1: Arguments Against Using Animals for Experimentation

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

In the view of animal rights activists, animals are thinking, feeling beings that suffer pain to the same extent and degree as humans. Just because they cannot tell us how much what is being done to them hurts doesn’t mean they don’t feel the pain. Therefore, it is immoral to put animals through suffering, torture, and painful death just so that humans can make progress in science and medicine. Even though Kant’s  Practical Imperative  was meant to apply to rational human beings, animal rights activists would apply it to animals, giving them the same rights and status as human beings. Many experiments are absolutely unnecessary to the health and well-being of human beings, and yet experiments continue to put animals through terrible tortures and death, merely in order to satisfy scientific curiosity or to protect corporations from litigation through, for example, animal testing for cosmetics.

Animal rights activists see absolutely no redeeming moral value in such experiments and in fact deem them to be terribly immoral. Even when the outcome of experiments is such as to help scientists fight human diseases, other methods besides using animals merely as a means to our own ends must be found, or scientific progress simply should not be made. It is immoral, in these activists’ eyes, to use animals for such purposes regardless of how much it may help humankind.

16.9.2: Moderate Position

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

The moderate position would not be against using animals for experimentation, but it would insist that:

1. First of all, experiments must be absolutely necessary to the health and well-being of human beings. Animals should never be experimented upon merely to satisfy human curiosity, nor should they ever be used for unnecessary experiments such as that described with the beagles.

2. Second, every care must be taken to avoid inflicting upon animals more pain and suffering during the experiment than is actually needed. Every effort must be made to keep animals out of pain while experiments are going on, and they should be given almost the same amount of respect that would be tendered toward our fellow humans.

With these safeguards in mind, necessary animal experimentation may be done.

Cases: Animal Testing and Cosmetics

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

Environmental ethics ask human beings to rethink relationships to nature and to reassess attitudes toward other species, plants and trees. Issues in environmental ethics require us to reexamine core values and the ways we live with a view towards a more wholistic ethic and a better quality of life. The following cases provide opportunities to think about these important issues.

Cases for Study and Discussion

Case 1 Animal Testing and Cosmetics

A certain company that manufactures cosmetics uses rabbits to test the irritancy level of its products to their eyes for purposes of making nonirritating cosmetics for the eyes of women who will use such cosmetics. Large doses of any substance to be used are injected into one eye of the rabbits, while the other eye is left alone for comparison of any damage done. The test is painful, and anesthetics are not used on rabbits. Since large doses have to be used to provide a greater margin of safety for possible eventual use on humans; permanent eye damage often occurs. No tests that avoid using animals have ever been developed. Is this type of testing moral? Why or why not? Would the use of rabbits for this purpose be more morally acceptable if they were given painkillers? Why or why not? Since the products are to be used on humans, should the company ask for human volunteers with the same safeguards being required as for other types of human experimentation? Why or why not? Do you think animal experimentation is more morally justifiable if it’s done for medical reasons—for example, to find a pain relief medication or cure for certain diseases? Why or why not?

16.10: Killing Animals for Sport

1. 16.10 Evaluate the arguments for and against killing animals for sport

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

Several arguments exist for killing animals for sport. Hunting animals was an ancient activity of men in many of the tribes and cultures of the past and it remains so in cultures of the present. Some would argue that it is a part of manhood to engage in the hunting and killing of animals for food, skins, trophies, or just for the thrill of the hunt.

Protagonists of this position would argue that killing animals at will is the only way of keeping the animal population under control. As humans have built ranches and farms farther into the natural environment, wild animals often have attacked their crops or their domestic animals that are raised for food or for commercial reasons. Such animals must be trapped and killed to preserve civilization. If the hunting of wild animals is not allowed, even the least ferocious of them will destroy crops and domestic animals. Further, they will overrun our farms, ranches, and even our towns and cities, especially where there are suburbs. Therefore, to keep the animal population under control, hunting should not merely be allowed but encouraged.

Desire for Animal Meat and Other Body Parts

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

The reasons for hunting animals for their meat and other body parts is as follows:

1. First, despite the fact that humans have all the domestic meat that may be wished for, many people like to eat wild game, such as duck, venison (deer meat), quail, and pheasant, and they should be allowed to indulge their tastes.

2. Second, many people like to use the skins of wild animals of all kinds to make clothes, shoes, boots, handbags, floor coverings, and wall hangings. Even though all of these items can be made from synthetic materials or from domestic animals’ skins, the more exotic wild skins are often prettier, rarer, and valued more highly. It is one thing, for example, to own a pair of cowboy boots made of cowhide, but another to own a pair made from lizard, crocodile, porcupine, or rattlesnake hides. The higher prices for boots made from these skins attest to their higher value.

3. Third, it is exciting to be able to have the heads of wild animals one has hunted and killed in the jungles and forests hanging on one’s walls to indicate prowess and bravery as a hunter. And it is fun and different to have a wastebasket made of an elephant’s foot, carved ivory figures made from its tusks, and coats and capes made from the beautiful skins and furs of real wild animals. Some people play tennis, swim, or ski for sport, so why shouldn’t the hunter or fisherman be allowed to pursue his or her own preferred sport?

16.10.1: It Should Not Be Allowed

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

The very fact that hunting is an ancient activity should indicate that it is not necessarily needed in modern times. There is no longer a need for the meat, skins, or body parts of wild animals. Furthermore, modern civilized males should not need to prove their masculinity at the expense of innocent and often beautiful animals who do nothing to harm them and who should be allowed to roam free as they once did.

The Animal Population will Control Itself

The major cause of the increase in the animal population is that humans have hunted and killed carnivores such as mountain lions, wolves, and bobcats. These predators used to hunt and eat animals such as deer and rabbits, thereby naturally keeping the animal population under control. If hunting these animals were no longer allowed, then the animals they hunt would become a menace as indeed they have. If this natural control system cannot be, then there must be more humane ways of controlling animal populations other than shooting them for sport.

No Further Need for Wild Game or Body Parts

It is a decadent civilization, antagonists to hunting as a sport would say, that needs to hunt animals for their meat when perfectly good domestic meat exists for human consumption. In addition, to use animals’ body parts, such as their skins, when there are perfectly good synthetic materials we can use for these purposes is indefensible. We can make synthetic fur coats that look as if they are made of real furs and that do not require us to kill animals for them. The days of using wild animal skins and hides are over, or should be, and there is absolutely no need to kill 50 lizards, for example, to make a pair of cowboy boots or club to death hundreds of baby harp seals to make fur coats for women. It is the height of decadence that members of a civilized world have to continue to hunt and kill beautiful wild animals for these purposes.

16.10.2: The Moderate Position

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

One must recognize that other sports, such as skiing and swimming, do not involve the killing of innocent animals. This position recognizes the enjoyment some people get from the hunt and will allow hunting for sport on a limited basis as long as animals, especially endangered species, generally are protected and that there are limits on the type, age, and sex of the animal to be hunted. The hunt must be a fair one, allowing animals to try to save themselves. “Shooting fish in a barrel,” as the saying goes, should not be allowed, and poachers should be fined or otherwise heavily penalized.

There should be specific seasons set aside by forest rangers and other officials, and rules protecting animals from extinction should be strictly enforced. Also, until the predator population can be expanded, hunting should coincide with the need for control of populations of "huntable" animals. Here again, strict limits must be enforced to ensure that there is no extinction of any species.

No Reason to Kill Wild Animals for Meat

Except where hunting is allowed, as described, no hunting outside of established limits should take place for meat or body parts unless it is done by primitive tribes to get meat for their villages when no other meat can be acquired.

No Killing Animals for Body Parts and Skins

Again, except where allowed within the limits described, no hunting should take place to acquire animal body parts, such as heads for trophies, skins or furs for clothes and footwear, feet for wastebaskets, or tusks for ivory. To help ensure that this type of hunting stops, civilized people should not demand such items and should make a strong effort not to order or purchase them; they should openly declare their opposition to such wasteful and useless hunting. In other words, every effort should be made to restrict hunting to a minimum.

16.10.2: The Moderate Position

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

One must recognize that other sports, such as skiing and swimming, do not involve the killing of innocent animals. This position recognizes the enjoyment some people get from the hunt and will allow hunting for sport on a limited basis as long as animals, especially endangered species, generally are protected and that there are limits on the type, age, and sex of the animal to be hunted. The hunt must be a fair one, allowing animals to try to save themselves. “Shooting fish in a barrel,” as the saying goes, should not be allowed, and poachers should be fined or otherwise heavily penalized.

There should be specific seasons set aside by forest rangers and other officials, and rules protecting animals from extinction should be strictly enforced. Also, until the predator population can be expanded, hunting should coincide with the need for control of populations of "huntable" animals. Here again, strict limits must be enforced to ensure that there is no extinction of any species.

No Reason to Kill Wild Animals for Meat

Except where hunting is allowed, as described, no hunting outside of established limits should take place for meat or body parts unless it is done by primitive tribes to get meat for their villages when no other meat can be acquired.

No Killing Animals for Body Parts and Skins

Again, except where allowed within the limits described, no hunting should take place to acquire animal body parts, such as heads for trophies, skins or furs for clothes and footwear, feet for wastebaskets, or tusks for ivory. To help ensure that this type of hunting stops, civilized people should not demand such items and should make a strong effort not to order or purchase them; they should openly declare their opposition to such wasteful and useless hunting. In other words, every effort should be made to restrict hunting to a minimum.

Cases: Killing Animals for Sport

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

Environmental ethics ask human beings to rethink relationships to nature and to reassess attitudes toward other species, plants and trees. Issues in environmental ethics require human beings to reexamine core values and lifestyles with a view towards a more wholistic ethic and a better quality of life. The following cases provide opportunities to think about these important issues.

Cases for Study and Discussion

Case 1 Seal Hunting

Every year to satisfy the demands for seal fur coats, hundreds, even thousands, of baby harp seals are bashed to death on the ice by groups of villagers for whom the sale of such animal skins is the major industry of their village. What occurs is a bloody massacre of a large part of the seal community. Animal rights activists decry this wholesale slaughter of an animal species that is quite innocent and that does not endanger anyone’s life. Such slaughter takes place for the sole purpose of satisfying female vanity throughout the “civilized” world when perfectly good synthetic furs could serve the same purpose. The villagers, on the other hand, make their living basically by killing the baby seals and probably would live in poverty if they didn’t have this particular business activity. This issue could be extended to include many other animals as well. If you know of other species involved in such “harvesting,” present the problem and answer the following questions for that issue also. Do you think that what the villagers are doing is morally right? Why or why not? Can the needs of the villagers be balanced against the lives of the seals? How? What solution to this problem would you suggest?

Case 2 Killing Animals for Furs

In an Ann Landers column, an upset woman wrote in because someone had criticized her for wearing a rabbit fur coat. She had been asked, “I wonder how many beautiful rabbits died so you could have that coat?” The woman noticed that her questioner was wearing a down coat and retorted, “Do you think the geese they got the down from which to make your coat are still alive?” Ann Landers stated that most of the fur produced in North America is from animals raised on family farms and added that in her opinion it is no more cruel to kill animals for their fur than it is to kill them for food or their hides. She wondered further whether critics of killing animals for fur would be willing to give up their shoes, belts, handbags, saddles, and luggage and any meat they might eat at meals.7 What do you think of these statements and questions? Is the killing of animals any more justified for food, hides, or feathers than it is for furs? Why or why not? Support your answers in detail. Does it make any difference whether animals are raised on family farms or trapped in the wild? Why or why not? Is there any way to be consistent or to justify inconsistencies when it comes to the use of animals for food, hides, feathers, or furs? For example, someone wrote a letter to the editor of a newspaper stating that the setting on fire by the Animal Liberation Front of a store that sold animal furs is no more justified than setting a restaurant on fire for killing and cooking chickens. How would you sort out and differentiate these issues? Explain in detail.

16.11: Protection of Endangered Species

1. 16.11 Recall arguments that animal protectionists bring up regarding endangered species

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

People who are not particularly concerned about the extinction of species of animals, especially exotic species, cannot see what all the fuss is about. Why worry about such things? Nature always has allowed various species to become extinct; perhaps it is now occurring by means of the advancement of human beings and their civilization. Why, for example, should people try to preserve the California condor? It is one of the ugliest birds in existence and basically is a carrion or vulturelike bird feeding off the carcasses of dead animals. Why does it matter whether we save such species or even those that are prettier to look at? There are several arguments that animal protectionists bring up regarding endangered species:

1. An irreverence for even a small segment of life affects one’s reverence for all life. If one has no consideration for even one species, then he or she is likely not to have consideration for any other, including his own. Protectionists argue that human beings should protect and preserve all viable life in all of its forms, not just human life, as best they can.

2. Most species of animals are beautiful or at least interesting to see and know about, especially in their natural habitats, so they should be available not only for us but also for our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. If humans are not careful about encroaching upon animals’ habitats and destroying them, then there will be fewer and fewer species around for humans and future generations to experience.

3. All animals seem to contribute in some way to the balance of nature and to the natural food chain. Individuals may not clearly know how everything fits into the overall plan of nature, but should be careful not to upset the balance. It is one thing for nature to take its course and to make certain species extinct, but whenever it is obvious that humans, not nature, are the cause of destruction or extinction, humans should cease from certain activities, or restrict such activities, so as not to affect nature and its inhabitants adversely.

These are the reasons animal protectionists give for doing our utmost to protect and preserve all species of animals, and especially those that are becoming endangered. Obviously such people would be totally against hunting any of these species and also would tend to want to curtail the progress and encroachment of civilization upon nature wherever it tends to threaten the existence of such species.

Cases: Endangered Species

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

Environmental ethics ask human beings to rethink relationships to nature and to reassess attitudes toward other species, plants and trees. Issues in environmental ethics require people to reexamine core values and lifestyles with a view towards a more wholistic ethic and a better quality of life. The following cases provide opportunities to think about these important issues.

Cases for Study and Discussion

Case 1 Extinction of Small Fish

A dam was proposed to be built on a certain river in a natural setting that would produce hydroelectric power and create recreational activities, such as boating, swimming, and waterskiing. The only problem, as environmentalists see it, is that there is a certain species of small fish found only in this river that will become extinct if the dam is built. The fish is not used for food or sport; in fact, no one knows what purpose it serves by being in the river. Should the dam be built? Why or why not? Would it make a difference to your answer if the small fish were a good food fish or could be used in some other commercial way, or does its possible extinction constitute a sufficient reason to not build the dam? Explain your answer in detail.

16.12: Non-Western Perspectives on Environmental Issues

1. 16.12 Outline four Asian ethical traditions that seem especially well suited to addressing environmental issues

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

Because environmental problems are global in scope and implications raised by these important issues of concern affect people the world over, it will be worthwhile to briefly note the value of non-Western ethical viewpoints. Asian values offer productive alternatives to rights-based moralities that dominate Western societies. There has been much recent debate concerning Asian values, and one is led to assume that there is one distinct set of values common to all Asians. This assumption is surely false and misleading, because Asia covers a huge geographical area and Asian traditions include Daoist, Confucian, Buddhist, Neo-Confucian, Hindu, and Jain values. Furthermore, Roman Catholicism is the dominant religion in the Philippines, and Islam is widespread in Pakistan and Indonesia. So when we talk of the values of Asia, it becomes obvious that there is a plurality of ethical thought systems that could be included for discussion. However, four Asian ethical traditions, two originating in India and two in China, seem especially well suited to addressing environmental issues.

16.12.1: Ethical Traditions of South Asia

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

The fundamental aim of philosophical thinking in India and the ethical traditions of South Asia is to bring about liberation from all suffering. The immanent worldviews of Hinduism and Buddhism, which stress the oneness and interconnectedness of the natural order, present clear alternatives to Western transcendent moral perspectives where human beings stand over/against nature. Also, there is no clear distinction between the sacred and the profane, because philosophy in India is not separated from religious activity. Wisdom in South Asian cultures is wholistic in nature and is manifest as knowledge and compassion.

“True wisdom is the harmony of mind and heart.”3 For the Hindu “all is one.” As one scholar states, “Oneness is not the one word to describe the essence of Hinduism, but it is as close as we can get to a one-word characterization.”4

This fundamental principle is expressed as the truth that atman (the individual soul) is Brahman (the world soul). Ignorance of this insight leads to the illusion of a separate existence standing over/against its ground. This failure to apprehend the most basic truth about the nature of self and the nature of the universe constitutes the major reason for bondage, misery, and destruction in the world. The goal of Hinduism thus is to gain a discriminatory self-transforming knowledge of reality. Acting in the light of this knowledge has a liberating effect upon all existence.

Hinduism

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

Right conduct for the Hindu is understood in terms of the concept of dharma. This notion is derived from the root  dhr  , meaning “to nourish.” The term’s etymology may be further traced to the word  rita  —the order of the universe.  Dharma  is action that is selfless and without attachment; thus it promotes the oneness and wholeness of all things. Hindus believe that moral order permeates all existence. This idea is played out in the notion of karma—the law of sowing and reaping or the principle of moral cause and effect. How is rita, “the moral order of the universe,” related to human actions and their consequences? Hindu scholar Saral Jhingran tells us that

the moral quality of our deeds, thoughts and desires not only conditions our future character, but also manipulates the natural world order, so that we are thrown into external circumstances that are most suited to materialize or effect the kind of rewards and punishments which our moral character deserves.5

“Right conduct,” dharma, requires that one take responsibility for one’s deeds and thoughts in ways that lead to “personal self-realization,” moksha, and at the same time nourishes society and existence itself.

Buddhism

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

Buddhism shares the basic Hindu cosmology and places emphasis on the interconnectedness of all things. According to Buddhist teaching, all things are intimately connected in the sense that they affect everything else. Like the ecological system itself, existence is an intricate, interdependent web within which all cause-and-effect relationships occur. In light of this insight one may conclude that, likewise, all human actions impact all other things. Such a metaphysical scheme frames ethical thinking in terms of global accountability.

Buddhist doctrine also emphasizes the Noble Truth of Suffering. That “life is suffering (duhkha)” is the central truth of Buddhism and the Buddha’s estimate of the world condition. The goal of Buddhist teaching and practice is to achieve nirvana, liberation from suffering (duhkha), and release from the cycle of rebirth. Suffering (duhkha) is brought about by ignorance. On the one hand, many wrongly identify existence with being and thus experience duhkha as a result of attachments to this world and the things of the world. On the other hand, others misidentify existence with nonbeing and, as a consequence, experience duhkha in the rejection of life. Although Buddhism teaches the doctrine of “No Self,” which is the denial of the self or ego as a separate and permanent entity; it does not deny self as a concrete, living, dynamic entity. Life on Buddhist terms is a process and is constantly changing, yet every moment holds within itself both being and nonbeing. Right living consists in following the Middle Way—the path between a life of attachment (and the extremes of self-indulgence and greed) and the rejection of life and self-denial or deprivation.

The Middle Way is articulated as the Eightfold Path:

1. Right view (knowledge)

2. Right intention (resolve)

3. Right speech

4. Right conduct

5. Right livelihood

6. Right effort

7. Right mindfulness

8. Right concentration

Relative to the preceding eight points, one must negotiate the balance between the extremes of materialism and its attachments and ritualism, which denies the value of material existence. Since the goal of Buddhism is to liberate all sentient beings from suffering, right living stresses the primary of the virtue of compassion.

16.12.2: Ethical Traditions of East Asia

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

The grand goal of Chinese thought is to achieve balance and harmony. Both Daoism and Confucianism presuppose a dynamic, aesthetically ordered, yin-yang constitutive cosmos. Yin-yang originally referred to the shaded and the sunny, and the two notions represent complementary, interpenetrating opposites, reciprocals, or counterpoints that move around the still point of the universe and account for change. Examples of yin would include dark, female, wet, and soft, while illustrations of yang are light, male, dry, and hard. In a Chinese world, harmony and balance are sought between the following other yin/yang counterpoints:

· Heaven and earth

· Intuition and reason

· Others and self

· Nature and society

Because Daoism is chiefly identified with nature and Confucianism with society, the two are sometimes said to represent the yin and yang of Chinese thought.

Daoism

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

Daoist thought is embodied in the person of Laozi, to whom is attributed the philosophical classic the Daodejing—roughly translated, The Book of the Way and Virtue. Although it is doubtful that such an individual actually existed, tradition suggests he was an older contemporary of Kongzi (Confucius) and lived in the sixth century B.C. This book is the Daoist “Bible” and is the chief source for later Daoist writers, such as Zhaungzi (fourth century B.C.). It is the primary source for the entire Daoist canon. It is also the philosophical basis for the Daoist religion and figures significantly in traditional Chinese medicine, the martial arts, and feng shui.

In Daoist thought the key concept is the dao—“the way.” It refers to the way of ultimate reality. It is also the way of nature and, ethically, it is the way an individual ought to live. In other words, one ought to gear his or her life to the power and rhythms of the dao. One ought to live in harmony with nature. Because the dao is all pervasive it eliminates the source of all conflict and strife by flowing through and embracing all things.

The Daodejing teaches that no living being can transgress its natural limits without upsetting the balance of the dao. Thus, the Daoist attempts to live in harmony with the underlying patterns that are the source of nature and charge.

Chapter 25 of the Daodejing illustrates the harmonious relationships we have been discussing:

There is something undefined and complete, coming into existence before

Heaven and Earth.

How still it was and formless, standing alone, and undergoing no change,

reaching everywhere and in no danger (of being exhausted).

It may be regarded as the Mother of all things.

I do not know its name,

and I give it the designation of the Tao (the Way or Course).

Making an effort (further) to give it a name I call it The Great.

Great, it passes on (in constant flow).

Passing on, it becomes remote.

Having become remote, it returns.

Therefore the Tao is great;

Heaven is great;

Earth is great;

and the (sage) king is also great.

In the universe are four that are great, and the (sage) king is one of them.

Man takes his law from the Earth;

the Earth takes its law from Heaven;

Heaven takes its law from the Tao.

The law of the Tao is its being what it is.6

Unfortunately, ethically unchecked desire leads to the pursuit of excessive wealth, power, and artificial goods. As a result the natural balance is upset and so is the well-being of the individual, society, other creatures, and larger biological systems. Natural resources are exploited for personal gain or ravaged in a mad rush to secure corporate profits. Daoist wisdom teaches that such unnatural and excessive desires never lead to a satisfying, fulfilled life and are destructive of the very processes that sustain life.

Confucianism

LISTEN TO THE CHAPTER AUDIO:

Confucian ethics, unlike Daoist thought, was concerned to establish social structures and conventions that would ensure right conduct—conduct that would promote harmony with the dao. Kongzi (Confucius), in dealing with the human world, attempted to ground his philosophy in the natural order of things. He reasoned that human beings, by nature, are social beings. Human beings, he concluded, are nourished, cared for, and flourish best within the structure of the family as governed by the Five Cardinal Relationships. This notion of the family is extended to the entire nation and all relationships are governed by the following virtues:

· ren—“humanness,” “goodness,” “human heartedness,” or “humaneness”;

· li—“ritual propriety” or “appropriateness” as defined by rites and ritual; and

· shu—“reciprocity” or “mutual consideration.”

By way of the virtue li, Kongzi ritualized proper conduct and life, which, in effect, became a performance designed to further the natural harmony. According to Master Kong, “Achieving harmony is the most valuable function of observing ritual propriety.”7

The difference in both the focus and emphasis of distinct cultural views with respect to environmental ethics offers opportunities for mutual benefit, learning, and enrichment by opening up the scope of the dialogue. In a world of pluralistic cultural values an expanded field of possibilities makes room for alternative responses to serious environmental challenges that are not easily resolved within the limitations of a single cultural viewpoint.