1. MOON GATE COMPANY
a.What are the ethical issues raised by this case?
In this case, few issues had raised. First is the environment issue. The cement plant will produce air pollution (Shapley, 2010) as well as sound pollution which is affecting local resident health (Mndeme & Mkoma, 2012). Second is the health issue where the local residents have the risk of loss hearing (Mndeme & Mkoma, 2012), respiratory problem and cardiovascular problem (Sana, Bhat & Balkhi, 2013) because of the pollution emitting from the cement plant. Third is the complaint issue where the local resident had filed a suit again Moon Gate Company regarding the pollution issued which affecting their daily tasks and health. Lastly is the decision made by court against the suit filed by local resident to the Moon Gate Company and the action taken.
b. Was the decision of the court in this case fair? If so, why? If not, why not? The decision of court can be seen from different of views. It can be fair or not fair. In the case scenario, the court is demonstrating teleological position on closing down the company. According to teleological perspective, an action is considered ethical when it produce outcome which is favorable (Zakaria & Lajis, 2012). If the cement factory is not closed down, the local resident will have the working opportunity which eventually reduced the unemployment rate among the residents. Hence, the outcome of this action will worth for the value which can be also known as consequentialism (Gregorowius, Matthies & Huppenbauer, 2012). If the cement plant is not closed down, the Moon Gate Company will be able to continue the operation which is a great benefit to the factory. Besides providing working opportunity, the company also pays a lump sum of money to compensate the affected residents. This is a utilitarianism viewpoint in which this is the greatest decision where both the company and local residents get the most benefits (Audi, 2007). Besides that, the decision is fair because the company already using the latest technology which suits to European standard technology. This will help to reduce 30% of noise emissions and dust emission by 26.4% (Heidelberg Cement Group, 2008). Lastly, it is not fair for the Moon Gate Company as the company already invested £100 million in the plant and yet no return on investment has been received by the company and this will caused the company to face big losses and have risk to face financial crisis.
In the perspective of deontology, the decision made by the court is not fair. A deontologist ethnic that can be used to justified the above scenario is non-consequentialist which indicates that there are something that should not do even to maximize the greatest good and should focus on the right of individual (Staveren, 2007). Hence, the court should not ignore the importance of health of the local residents rather than the economic interest. Moreover, it is not fair for the local residents as the people have the right to live at the place which is pollution-free. The decision also failed to consider the ecosystem around the cement plant. The effect can be seen from the case of Controversial Harish Cement in which the company has created the ecological disaster to the nearby where the company destroyed 20,000 trees and extinction of 25 herbs (Mandi, 2011). Besides that, the decision failed to address the concern of the company to the stakeholder which is the people who does not have the direct relationship with the business such as the local resident. Hence, it shows that the company does not have corporate social responsibility to the local residents as the company will be able to continue operate by only paying the amount of compensation stated by the court and this will cause a long-term pollution and health issue to the local resident as what happened in the case of Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Company during 1962 (Ladenson, 1994).
c. Do you agree that good ethics leads to good...
References: AMATO, I. (2013). Green cement: Concrete solutions. [Online] Available at:http://www.nature.com/news/green-cement-concrete-solutions-1.12460 [Accessed 5 December 2013].
AMERICAN RED CROSS. (2007). Government Liaison Handbook. [Online] Available at: http://www.tallyredcross.org/library/dsp/dspg-PS-GovernmentLiaisonHandbook.pdf [Accessed 8 December 2013].
AMERICAN RED CROSS. (2013). Our Federal Charter. [Online] Available at: http://www.redcross.org/about-us/history/federal-charter [Accessed 8 December 2013].
AUDI, R. (2007). Can Utilitarianism Be Distributive? Maximization and Distribution As Criteria In Managerial Decision. Business Ethics Quarterly. 17(4). pp.593-611.
BARNETT II, W.B., SALIBA, M. & WALKER, D. (2001). A Free Market in Kidneys: Efficient and Equitable. The Independent Review. 5(3). pp.373-385.
BENNER, K. (2008). Did Madoff act alone? [Online] Available at: http://money. cnn.com/2008/12/18/news/newsmakers/madoff_didnt_act_alone.fortune/ [Accessed 7 December 2013].
BERNSTEIN, J. (2010). The Madoff Circle: Who Knew What? [Online] Available at: http://business-ethics.com/2010/06/03/1614-the-madoff-circle-who-knew-what/ [Accessed 7 December 2013].
BRICKNELL, S. (2011). Misuse of the non-profit sector for money laundering and terrorism financing. Australia’s national research and knowledge centre on crime and justice. 424(9). pp.1-6.
BUCHANAN, C. & PRIOR, E.W. (1984). Bureaucrats and Babies: Government Regulation of the Supply of Genetic Material. Jornal of Economic Record. 1(9). pp.222-230.
CAMPBELL, A. (2011). SEC 's Schapiro under fire in Madoff conflict case. [Online] Available at: http://www.risk.net/operational-risk-and-regulation/news/2111466/secs-schapiro-madoff-conflict [Accessed 7 December 2013].
COCHRAN, C. (2012). The Fraud of the Century: The Case of Bernie Madoff. [Online] Available at: http://prezi.com/kihyvi_-suwq/the-fraud-of-the-century-the-case-of-bernie-madoff/ [Accessed 7 December 2013].
COHEN, S. (2007). “Good Ethics is Good Business” – Revisited. Journal of Business Ethics. 1(1). pp.1-10.
DRUM, K. (2009). Selling Your Kidney. [Online] Available at: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/07/selling-your-kidney [Accessed 6 December 2013].
EPSTEIN, K.C. (2007). CASE STUDY: American Red Cross. [Online] Available at: http://www.contributemedia.com/trends_details.php?id=107 [Accessed 8 December 2013].
FIELD, A.C. (2011). SECs Conflict of Interest Scandal Part 1: The Madoff Conflict. [Online] Available at: http://abigailcfield.com/?p=361 [Accessed 7 December 2013].
FRIED, E. & FRIED, A. (2006). Payment for donor kidneys: Pros and cons. Journal of International Society of Nephrology. 69(2). pp.960-962.
GILL, M.B. & SADE, R.M. (2002). Payment for Kidneys: The Case for Repealing Prohibition. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal. 12(1). pp.17-46.
HAYDEN, V. (2009). Lessons To Be Learned From The Latest Ponzi Scheme. Fairfield County Business Journal. 1(2). p.10.
HEIDELBERG CEMENT GROUP. (2008). Air pollution control and noise emissions. [Online] Available at:http://www.heidelbergcement.com/global/en/company/sustainability/environ ment/local_environmental_impacts/emissions.htm [Accessed 5 Decemeber 2013].
HENRIQUES, D.B. (2009). Lapses Kept Scheme Alive, Madoff Told Investigators. [Online] Available at: http://blog.mysanantonio.com/leecusenbary/2009/10/lapses-kept-scheme-alive-madoff-told-investigators/ [Accessed 7 December 2013].
HOLGUIN, J. (2002). Red Faces At The Red Cross. [Online] Available at: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/red-faces-at-the-red-cross/ [Accessed 8 December 2013].
HOLZER, J. (2011). Ex-SEC Lawyer 's Madoff Ties Face Scrutiny. [Online] Available at: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424053111904491704576575170758369248 [Accessed 7 December 2013].
JONES, A. (2013). The Five Things You Need to Know About the Madoff Trial. [Online] Available at: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/10/08/the-five-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-madoff-trial/ [Accessed 7 December 2013].
KAVANAUGH, J.F. (1999). The Gift of Life At Death. Journal of America. 1(4). p.16.
LADENSON, R. (1994). Intercollegiate Ethics Bowl Case. [Online] Available at: http://ethics.iit.edu/EEL/Atlantic%20Cement.pdf [Accessed 5 December 2013].
LAWLOR, R. (2011). Organ Sales Needn 't Be Exploitative (But It Matter If They Are). Jornal of Bioethics. 25(5). pp.250-259.
MANDI. (2011). The Tribune. [Online] Available at: http://www.tribuneindia.com/2011/ 20110517/himachal.htm#top [Accessed 5 December 2013].
MCBRIDE, E. (2011). Red Cross Misuse of Funds For Haiti Sparks Protest In 12 U.S. Cities. [Online] Available at: http://www.jacksonadvocateonline.com/?p=1500 [Accessed 8 December 2013].
MCCARTHY, A.H. (2009). Ethics and the American Red Cross. [Online] Available at: http://www.anniemccarthy.net/uploads/1/5/0/4/1504159/2009-dec-ethics_and_the_ american_red_cross.pdf [Accessed 8 December 2013].
MITCHELL, M. (2009). American Red Cross: Stealing Your Donation Money. [Online] Available at: http://voices.yahoo.com/american-red-cross-stealing-donation-money-2804847.html?cat=48 [Accessed 7 December 2013].
MNDEME, F.G. & MKOMA, S.L. (2013). Assesment of Work Zone Noise Levels at a cement factory in Tanga, Tanzania. Ethopian Journal of Environmental Studies and Management. 5(3). pp.225-231.
MURPHY, F. & BYRNE, G. (2007). Ethical issues regarding live kidney transplantation. Journal of Nursing. 16(19). pp.1224-1229.
NGUYEN, T. (2012). Bernard Madoff Case Analysis. [Online] Available at: http://myphilosophy481.blogspot.com/2012/10/bernard-madoff-case-analysis.html [Accessed 7 December 2013].
OHREEN, D.E. & PETRY, R.A. (2012). Imperfect Duties and Corporate Philanthropy: A Kantian Approach. Journal of Business Ethics. 106(3). pp.367-381.
PAGUIRIGAN, M.S. (2012). Sacrificing Something Important: The Lived Experience of Compensated Kidney Donors in the Philippines. Nephrology Nursing Journal. 39(2). pp.107-117.
PBS NEWS HOUR. (2005). American Red Cross Troubles. [Online] Available at: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/july-dec05/redcross_12-14.html [Accessed 8 December 2013].
RENOUARD, C. (2011). Corporate Social Responsibility,Utilitarianism, and the Capabilities Approach. Journal of Business Ethics. 98(1). pp.85-97.
RHODE, D.L. & PACKEL, A.K. (2009). Ethics and Nonprofits. [Online] Available at: http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/ethics_and_nonprofits [Accessed 8 December 2013].
ROSEN, L. & VINING, A.R. (2011). Addressing the Shortage of Kidneys for Transplantation: Purchase and Allocation Through Chain Auctions. Journal of Health Politics, Policy & Law. 36(4). pp.717-755.
ROURKE, A.O. (2012). Don’t Destroy Vital Cave System. [Online] Available at: http://forcechange.com/70409/dont-destroy-vital-cave-system/ [Accessed 5 December 2013].
SANA, S., BHAT, G.A. & BALKHI, H.M. (2013). Health Risks Associated With Workers in Cement Facories. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications. 3(5). pp.1-5.
Shapley, D. (2010). The 23 Most Highly Polluting U.S. Cement Plants. [Online] Available at: http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/mercury-cement-47012002 [Accessed 5 December 2013].
STAVEREN, I.V. (2007). Beyond Utilitarianism and Deontology: Ethics in Economics. Review of Political Economy. 19(1). pp.21-35.
VOLKER, P. (2011). Transparency and Disclosure: The Bernie Madoff Case. [Online] Available at:http://sevenpillarsinstitute.org/case-studies/disclosure-the-bernie-madoff-case [Accessed 7 December 2013].
WOOD, A. (2012). Utilitarian vs. Libertarian Philosophy As They Relate to the Sale of Kidneys. [Online] Available at:http://prezi.com/fabp8tepkay2/utilitarian-vs-libertarian-philosophy-as-they-relate-to-the-sale-of-kidneys/ [Accessed 6 December 2013].
ZAKARIA, M. & LAJIS, M.N. (2012). Moral Philosophies Underlying Ethical Judgments. Intemational Joumal of Marketing Studies. 4(2). pp.103-110.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document