2.In your view, is Unocal morally responsible for the injuries inflicted on some of the Karen people ? Explain. In my opinion Unocal can be said to be morally responsible for the injuries created on some of the Karen people, but we should also look at the principles of ethical or moral that is not followed .In the book of ethics by Velasquez it is stated that (utilitarianism, rights, justice and care), provide a systematic basis of moral standards that can be used to determine and evaluate the moral value of a decision or assessment. In the case of Unocal, before the investment was made, Unocal had performed a socio-political analysis of the State of Burma. Moreover, Unocal contracted a consulting firm to review the 1991 Amnesty International report, which documented abuses against the Burmeseby the army. Even though it had received an explanation of human rights violations in Burma, as well as the risks that might occur, Unocal continued investing into the project. Subsequently, in 1995, Unocal hired consultants to investigate conditions in the Yadana region and again obtained a report on the existence of various human rights abuses during the pipeline installation. The violation of ethics or morals that obviously occurred related to the case of Unocal in Burma, including: -Violation of rights principle, given the reports that show the existence of human rights had been widespread -Violation of justice principle, because the benefits and the costs were not evenly and equally distributed -Violation of caring principle, because the loss of basic compassion for the people of Karen by the Burmese army. Since Unocal proceeded with the project based on the Utilitarian principle of Ethics in which the consequence of continuing the project outweighed the social costs involved, it was justifiable to continue. As such, Unocal should be held morally responsible and accountable for the injuries inflicted on the Karen people.