Narrative
Rachel Lee, who has a doctorate in environmental science, has spent the last decade examining the ways in which climate change is impacting the Arctic area. She has been conducting her inquiry in partnership with the Inuit people, who have been residing in the region for a significant length of time at this point. Dr. Lee holds the Inuit people and their way of life in very high esteem, and she is inspired by their culture. As a consequence of this, she has made it a point to guarantee that her research is always carried out in a morally responsible manner, with the agreement and participation of the Inuit people.
This region is home to a number of species that are in danger of extinction and have a delicate environment. However, the government of Canada has just granted a license to a global oil firm to drill for oil in the Arctic. Dr. Lee is aware that oil drilling would have a significant impact not just on the natural environment but on the way of life that is practiced by the Inuit people.
As a result, she has conflicting emotions about the option that has been presented to her. Dr. Lee has to decide between two options, none of which is simple. She is well aware that if she expresses her opposition to the drilling for oil in a public forum, she puts herself in danger of losing her funding and reputation. On the other hand, if she maintains her silence, she exposes herself to the possibility of being complicit in behavior that may be detrimental to the Inuit people as well as to the environment.
Dr. Lee seeks the advice of her friends and colleagues, all of whom have their own unique perspectives to offer. Some feel that she should come out and take responsibility for the consequences of her conduct. Others are of the opinion that she should keep quiet in order to safeguard both her professional reputation and any future research projects that she may undertake.
Throughout the course of her research, Dr. Lee has developed close relationships with a number of Inuit individuals, and as a result, she has a sense of a personal connection to this group of people. She believes that it is her obligation as a scientist to retain her neutrality, but she believes that it is her responsibility to rescue both the ecosystem and the Inuit people.
Dr. Lee has come to the conclusion that she should consult with the Inuit people regarding oil drilling in order to acquire their point of view. She is eager to get an understanding of their perspective and concerns, and she wants to consult with them about the best way to go forward. The conversation is difficult Dr. Lee is well aware that attitudes held by Inuit people with regard to the matter at issue are quite different from one another.
Dr. Lee has determined, after giving the matter a great deal of consideration, that she ought to adopt a position that is antagonistic against the oil drilling. She goes against the decision in a public forum, and as a consequence, she is confronted with resistance from her colleagues, who accuse her of being biased and too enthusiastic about the matter. Dr. Lee is now obligated to cope with the repercussions of her decision. Her reputation will suffer as a direct consequence of the loss of support, which she will no longer get.
On the other side, she is content with herself since she is conscious that she came to the right decision and that she battled for the things in which she believed. This has allowed her to be at ease with herself. She has very high hopes that her actions would inspire others to adopt their own efforts and that as a consequence, the Arctic will be protected for the benefit of future generations.
As the drilling project progressed ahead, the worst environmental nightmares that the Inuit people had ever imagined came true. After a pipeline rupture, the pollution of the river had a negative impact on the Inuit people since they subsisted on the river’s fish and other aquatic species for their livelihood. Even though the damage had already been done, the government and the oil company both pledged compensation and efforts to clean up the mess. As a result of this catastrophe, Inuit people became more politically involved. They demanded a voice in the making of decisions pertaining to the environment and a way of resource extraction that was less damaging.
Explanation
Dr. Lee’s Professional Risks and Ethical Dilemmas
Dr. Lee is torn between her ethical need to speak out against practices that can have detrimental repercussions and her professional requirement to present results objectively and without prejudice. This narrative discusses the ethical challenge of achieving a balance between the promotion of economic growth and the protection of the environment. Dr. Lee is well aware of the fact that the economic benefits and environmental damage that are linked with the proposed oil drilling project in the Arctic will be in direct proportion to one another. Due to this, one finds themselves contemplating whether or not one ought to prioritize monetary advantages above environmental precautions.
She knows that speaking up against powerful interests might damage her professional standing or perhaps her career. The question of whether or not it is desirable to prioritize one’s own ideals above the well-being of others arises as a result of this predicament in ethics. The Inuit community, who depend on the Arctic environment for life, is the only group Dr. Lee considers before making a decision. Given this, it is reasonable to question whether or not we should take into account the emotions of others while making ethical decisions.
Dr. Lee’s work in the Arctic is discussed, as is the effect of climate change on the region’s ecosystem and the Inuit people who rely on it for survival. Ethical issues such as environmental fairness, equality across generations, and the duty of both people and businesses to reduce their environmental influence are brought up in this narrative.
Dr. Lee’s findings bring up issues of environmental justice and the responsibilities of people and companies to reduce their environmental footprint by shedding light on the disproportionate impact of climate change on vulnerable populations. Since future generations will have to deal with the consequences of climate change, the issue of intergenerational equality is brought up. Concerns about the morality of putting short-term financial gain ahead of long-term sustainability are prompted by this.
The Oil Company’s Perspective
The narrative introduces the oil corporation that intends to drill in the Arctic, as well as the business’s view on the potential financial rewards of doing so. Ethical issues, including corporate social responsibility, the tension between economic and environmental preservation, and the damage done by putting profits first above the environment, have been brought up in the narrative (Tien et al., 2020). The oil firm puts profit above environmental protection, claiming that the advantages of oil production exceed the risks. This leads one to wonder whether businesses have a moral obligation to put environmental safeguards first and whether it is even possible to strike a fair balance between business needs and environmental preservation. The potential harm that may emerge from prioritizing short-term economic rewards above long-term sustainability is highlighted, raising the question of whether or not the current benefits are worth jeopardizing the future.
Impact on Indigenous Communities
The tale delves into the experiences of Inuit people who stand to lose the most from the oil drilling plans. Ethical issues such as protecting cultural heritage, respecting the rights of indigenous peoples, and incorporating other viewpoints into decision-making are all brought up in this narrative. It is important to consider the rights of indigenous peoples and the value of cultural preservation since the Inuit people depend on the Arctic environment for their livelihoods and cultural activities.
Decisions made by outside organizations frequently fail to account for the Inuit people’s viewpoints and understanding of the Arctic environment, which serves to further emphasize the significance of considering multiple perspectives in decision-making processes. The story investigates how colonialism affected Indigenous peoples and their connection to nature, prompting reflection on the need to recognize past wrongs and include Indigenous knowledge and viewpoints in environmental decision-making.
Moral Dilemmas of Climate Change
The story dives further into the moral dilemmas that accompany oil production and climate change, focusing on the accountability of both people and businesses to reduce their negative effects on the planet. The term “tragedy of the commons” is used to describe the phenomenon wherein shared resources are overused and eventually exhausted owing to people acting in their own self-interest (Kim et al., 2021). Ethical questions are raised by the story, including the tragedy of the commons, the idea of negative externalities, and the obligation of people and businesses to act to combat climate change.
Regulatory Considerations
This phenomenon sparks discussion over the need to enact regulations to manage resource usage. The concept of negative externalities raises the issue of how companies need to be held accountable for covering the costs associated with the environmental impact they cause. This refers to the expenses of actions that are not paid for by individuals or organizations who immediately gain from such actions. In addition, the story emphasizes the need to take personal responsibility in the fight against climate change. It raises the question of whether or not it is ethically permissible to invest all of one’s faith in the acts of companies or whether individuals are responsible for part of the responsibility.
The possible risks to the ecosystem and the Inuit people who rely on it are discussed in this assessment of the oil drilling project. Ethical questions are raised by the story, including the need to think about how current actions may affect future generations and the value of intergenerational fairness. The possible damage that might result from putting short-term economic advantages ahead of long-term sustainability is another risk portrayed in the narrative.
Potential harm from the oil drilling project highlights the need to consider the impact of current decisions on future generations and prompts questions about the obligations of individuals and institutions to work toward intergenerational justice. There are ethical concerns about putting short-term economic benefits ahead of long-term sustainability, which are brought up in the story along with the possible repercussions of that choice.
Dr. Lee’s Opposition and Whistleblowing
The plot centers on the fallout from Dr. Lee’s oppositional stance on the oil drilling project and the possible repercussions she may face. Ethical questions brought up by the story include the value of whistleblowing and public opposition to wrongdoing, the risks involved, and the obligation of institutions to protect those who blow the whistle. Questions regarding the morality of whistleblowing and the value of holding powerful institutions responsible are raised by Dr. Lee’s choice to speak out against the oil drilling project. In view of the possible repercussions she may face, we must ask whether or not institutions have a duty to prioritize protecting people who speak up against harmful behaviors.
The story investigates the significance of collective action in the solution of environmental problems, as well as the function of communities in the advancement of sustainable practices. The narrative brings up ethical questions such as the significance of unity and group effort in the process of fostering environmental sustainability. The part that communities play in formulating environmental policies and the influence that individual actions have on the collective results of those actions have been displayed (Eriksen et al., 2021). The story raises concerns about the responsibilities of people to take action and support collective efforts to solve environmental challenges, and it emphasizes the significance of communities in fostering sustainability.
An additional moral concept that lies under the story’s surface is the significance of openness and responsibility in all decision-making processes. The approval of the oil drilling project came without enough engagement with the Inuit people, which raises issues about the responsibility of decision-makers to those whose lives are impacted by their choices. The absence of openness and consultation draws attention to the significance of procedural fairness in environmental decision-making (Bell, 2021). The need to prioritize the voices and points of view of people most directly impacted by environmental concerns should be considered.
Economic Growth vs. Environmental Preservation
The tale brings up still another moral predicament to consider: the connection between expanding the economy and preserving the natural world. The oil drilling project was pitched as a way to jumpstart economic expansion in the area, which raises problems regarding the morality of giving short-term economic advantages more priority than long-term sustainability. The story emphasizes the significance of making sustainable economic growth a top priority, with due regard paid to its potential effects on the health of the surrounding community and the natural environment.
The story makes one think about the role that technology should play in finding solutions to environmental problems. The use of cutting-edge technology in oil extraction may result in increased productivity and security. Still, it raises concerns over the influence on the environment and the possibility of unforeseen consequences (Verma et al., 2022). This narrative emphasizes how crucial it is for decision-makers concerned with the environment to consider both emerging technology’s possible drawbacks and advantages.
The story raises ethical questions about the role that the government should play in finding solutions to environmental problems. The fact that the government was the one to decide whether or not to go ahead with the oil drilling project highlights how important it is to hold elected officials accountable for their decisions. A need to make sure that the leaders put the interests of the general public ahead of the interests of private businesses is evident. The story raises concerns about the obligation of voters to hold their elected leaders responsible for their environmental choices and about the role that the government should play in fostering a more sustainable society.
Discussion Questions
- In environmental decision-making, what is the appropriate balance between procedural and distributive justice? Should the voices and perspectives of those most affected by environmental issues take priority over the economic interests of corporations and government?
- What role should technology play in addressing environmental issues, and how can we ensure that technological advances do not come at the expense of environmental sustainability? How can we ensure that new technologies’ potential risks and unintended consequences are considered in environmental decision-making?
- How do we balance the economic benefits of resource extraction with the long-term environmental impact on local communities and ecosystems? What ethical frameworks can guide decision-makers in this balancing act?
Conclusion
In conclusion, the narrative questions individuals’ and corporations’ roles in promoting sustainability. The importance of acknowledging historical injustices, incorporating diverse perspectives into decision-making processes, and striking a balance between economic growth and environmental protection have been well elaborated. The story draws attention to the complexity of environmental ethics and the need for constant contemplation and action to overcome the difficulties we have in protecting the natural world for the benefit of future generations.
References
Bell, M. Z. (2021). Spatialising procedural justice: fairness and local knowledge mobilisation in nuclear waste siting. Local Environment, 26(1), 165-180.
Eriksen, S., Schipper, E. L. F., Scoville-Simonds, M., Vincent, K., Adam, H. N., Brooks, N.,… & West, J. J. (2021). Adaptation interventions and their effect on vulnerability in developing countries: Help, hindrance or irrelevance?. World Development, 141, 105383.
Kim, B. M., Horita, J., Suzuki, J. I., & Tachiki, Y. (2021). Resource allocation in tragedy of the commons game in plants for belowground competition. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 529, 110858.
Tien, N. H., Anh, D. B. H., & Ngoc, N. M. (2020). Corporate financial performance due to sustainable development in Vietnam. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(2), 694-705.
Verma, K. K., Song, X. P., Joshi, A., Tian, D. D., Rajput, V. D., Singh, M.,… & Li, Y. R. (2022). Recent trends in nano-fertilizers for sustainable agriculture under climate change for global food security. Nanomaterials, 12(1), 173.