Ethical practices are crucial for business operations since they promote social and economic growth. Therefore, it is primal for organizations to always consider the welfare of the communities they operate in. Manufacturing and mining companies can expose the community to hazardous materials that are detrimental to their lives. Kantian ethics propounds three categorical imperatives: never treat a person as a means to an end, persons always end themselves, and individuals should never be exploited for whatever purpose. In the provided case scenario, it is apparent that Blue Energy LLC risked Rowe’s life, exploiting them for their advantage. It is an unethical practice for companies to take no action to protect the lives of the community from their abandoned mining sites are hazardous.
The Issue and Context
The Rowe family was affected by an abandoned well that emits poisonous gases. Although the well was on their land, it belonged to J.D Carty Resources LLC which was dissolved in 2008. Consequently, Blue Energy LLC acquired a comply that was handed over to the well. However, Blue Energy LLC denied ownership and any obligation regarding the well. The company’s failure to protect the Rowe family against the detriments of the fumes from the well is controversial. Although the government made efforts to destroy hazardously and abandoned wells, the exercise was expensive. The issue in the scenario is whether Blue Energy LLC’s action to abandon the well was ethical or unethical.
My Argument
Different approaches can be adopted to determine the liability and unethical practice by Blue Energy LLC regarding the abandoned well that has affected the Rowe family. Kantian ethics is a significant theory of application in the case scenario. The ethical principle was postulated by Emmanuel Kant who argued that “It is impossible to think of anything at all in the world, or indeed even beyond it, that could be considered good without limitation except a good will” (Alican 434). The theory is based on what Kant called categorical imperatives: a central deontological principle that is unconditional and binding in all circumstances (Heffernan). Blue Energy LLC by acquiring a company that owned the well, took the liability and obligation to protect the Rowe family from its hazardous emission.
Premises
The company violated the three categorical imperatives suggested by Emmanuel Kant. The first imperative suggests that individuals should never treat others as a means to an end (Zoshak and Dew). The well was on Rowe’s land but was dug for the benefit and profitability of J.D Carty Resources LLC. The company used the Rowe family as means to an end by risking their lives for its profitability. Secondly, Emmanuel Kant propounded that persons are always end themselves (Chimakonam and Chemhuru). The categorical imperative means that human inherent value does not depend on anything else (Ng 57). Therefore, while the Rowe family might have enjoyed compensation from the digging of the well on their land, they did not give up their value of existence to the company. Lastly, the theory suggests that human beings should not be exploited for whatever purpose. Blue Energy LLC exploited the Rowe family by failing to do away with well. The company seemingly avoided the costs associated with destroying it. Therefore, it was unethical business practice for Blue Energy LLC to abandon the well which was hazardous to the people living near it.
Conclusion
Unethical business practices are detrimental to the lives and livelihoods of the communities they operate. Abandoning mining sites that are hazardous to human life is an unethical practice. Kantian ethics propounded three categorical imperatives that individuals should observe when making decisions. The categorical imperatives can be summarized as deontological principles warning against human exploitation for selfish gains. In the given case scenarios, Blue Energy LLC exhibited unethical practices by failing to protect the Rowe family from the poisonous gases emitted by the well.
Works Cited
Alican, Necip Fikri. “What’s so Good about the Good Will? An Ontological Critique of Kant’s Axiomatic Moral Construct.” Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy, vol. 18, no. 1, 2022, pp. 422–467, Web.
Chimakonam, Jonathan O., and Munamato Chemhuru. “Eight Practical Issues in Contemporary African Philosophy.” Essays on Contemporary Issues in African Philosophy, 2021, pp. 1–26, Web.
Heffernan, George. “The Development of Husserl’s Categorical Imperative: From Universal Ethical Legislation to Individual Existential Exhortation.” Contributions to Phenomenology, 2022, pp. 87–114, Web.
Ng, Yew-Kwang. “Happiness as the Only Intrinsic Value.” Happiness—Concept, Measurement and Promotion, 2021, pp. 41–57, Web.
Zoshak, John, and Kristin Dew. “Beyond Kant and Bentham: How Ethical Theories Are Being Used in Artificial Moral Agents.” Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2021, Web.