The week in which the Canvas discussion forum posting is due, select a WSJ article that reports on an ethical dilemma related to the week’s textbook chapter reading. Read the article and post your personal reaction to the article. You are being asked to form a moral or ethical judgment of the ramifications and implications of the ethical dilemma that you have identified in the WSJ article.
- Review the Netiquette policies (Links to an external site.) before posting.
- The approximate length of a discussion forum response should be about 200 words, 20 lines;
- Succinctly summarize the article that you have selected;
- Present the ethical dilemma that you have identified in the article as a question;
- Select and apply any one of the many ethical theories which are covered in the course (e.g., consequentialism, deontology, virtue ethics, etc.) to carry out your ethical analysis;
- Form an objective moral or ethical judgment of the ramifications and implications of the ethical dilemma that you have identified in the WSJ article;
- Each student must comment on two additional student posts the week that each WSJ analysis assignment is due
- I will evaluate the originality and quality of a student’s response especially as the response relates to a student’s thought process and the content of their response.
POST 1
In the article “Environmental Investing Frenzy Stretches Meaning of ‘Green’,” the Wall Street Journal talks about how this seabed mining company, The Metals Company, and CEO, Gerard Barron, are gaining funding for the $2.9 billion valuated company in part because of its claim of being an ecological crusader. However, oceanographers have found that corporations like The Metals Company who dig for minerals and metals in the seabed floor cause tremendous damage to habitats. Over 300 scientists have released a statement calling for the banning of all seabed mining activity until 2030 to give the UN a chance to determine laws for international waters on seabed mining and to give ocean habitats a chance to recover. So how are companies attaining investor money through claims of being green when they are causing so much damage to the environment? There’s been a surge in demand from investors for ecofriendly companies. How a company can claim to be ecofriendly is simply by producing their products in a more green-friendly manner than their counterparts, especially in an industry known for contaminating the planet. So, when The Metal Company explains to their potential investors that they don’t contaminate the air with big oil-consuming machines or avoid using child labor unlike their counterparts in the industry, it may sound to the investors that their money is being put into a company that is doing good for the planet. But what is being kept close to the company’s chest is the ecological damage it is causing our oceans.
com/articles/environmental-investing-frenzy-stretches-meaning-of-green-11624554045” title=’https://www.wsj.com/articles/environmental-investing-frenzy-stretches-meaning-of-green-11624554045<span class=”screenreader-only” style=”box-sizing: border-box;”><span> </span>(Links to an external site.)</span>’>https://www.wsj.com/articles/environmental-investing-frenzy-stretches-meaning-of-green-11624554045 (Links to an external site.)
POST 2
For this week’s reports on an ethical dilemma, I read the article “How New Technology is Illuminating a Classic Ethical Dilemma. The briefly summarize the article, it talks about a VR being used to simulate how a person may react in a social and ethical decision. The decision was whether to kill one person which saves the lives of four or to do nothing and let those four people die. It is stated in the article herein, “There’s a loud bang; one of the platforms goes into free fall. If it hits the floor, the voice warns, four workers will die. But there’s still a chance to save them. A worker sent to fix the electrical problem stands in front of me, bent over his work, oblivious to my presence. All I have to do is shove him to the floor below, killing him and shorting the electricity, which will spare the four people plunging to their death.” So the question is whether you would save the lives of four which results in the death of one? For this given situation, consequentialism would be used to best represents this though process. Consequentialism is the doctrine that the morality of an action is to be judged solely by its consequences. So, justifying that the one person should die to save the lives of four would be a perfect example. Along with 55% that chose to kill that one person, it could objectively be justified.
Marcus, A. D. (2016, June 8). How New Technology is Illuminating a Classic Ethical Dilemma. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-new-technology-is-illuminating-a-classic-ethical-dilemma-1465395082.
0 comments