Multinational companies like Caltex have a moral obligation to improve the living conditions of the citizens who live and work in those countries. Their role cannot be limited to increasing shareholder value, while perpetuating and fortifying political regimes that persecute and discriminate a group, or groups of their citizenry. I liken this to reforestation, and the responsibility that governments and corporations have to our planet. A corporation cannot simply make a profit and deplete natural and human resources; it needs to give back to that country and its communities.
Under South Africa's apartheid government, the Black majority was not given the same opportunities to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the White minority was. In fact, the Prime Minister of South Africa, John Vorster, made the statement that “We are building a nation for whites only." During the period that apartheid was in place, it was illegal for Blacks to vote, organize trade unions, eat in the same restaurants as whites, and their living conditions were hideous in comparison to Whites. I intend to refute the validity of utilitarianism as it relates to Caltex and South Africa in the 1970s, 1980s, and until “De Klerk dismantles apartheid in South Africa” on February 2, 1990 (BBC, 1990).
Let us start by defining utilitarianism: “Utilitarianism is a general term for any view that holds that actions and policies should be evaluated on the basis of the benefits and costs they will impose on society” (Velazquez, 2006, p. 61). The key to the argument, if one is a follower of utilitarianism, is the belief that the correct course of action is one which provides society with the greatest benefits at the lowest cost. Meanwhile, Blacks in South Afric...
... middle of paper ...
...le business, but always with the goal of being a good corporate citizen.
Works Cited
BBC. (1990, February 2). On This day. Retrieved January 26, 2011, from BBC Home: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/2/newsid_2524000/2524997.stm
Bucholtz, R. (1991). Corporate responsibility and the good society. Bloomington: Indiana University.
Gibbs, L. M. (2003,). History: Love Canal: the Start of a Movement. Retrieved January 27, 2011, from Boston University School of Public Health: http://www.bu.edu/lovecanal/canal/
Stoss, F. W. (1998, gust 2). Love Canal: Reminder of Why We Celebrate Earth Day. Retrieved January 27, 2011, from UC Santa Barbara Library: http://www.library.ucsb.edu/istl/00-spring/article2.html
Velazquez, M. G. (2006). Business Ethics. Concepts and Cases 6th Edition. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Cohen, S., Grace, D. (2010). Business ethics: Canadian edition. Don Mills, Ontario: Oxford University Press.
Trevino, L. K., & Nelson, K. A. (2011). Managing business ethics: Straight talk about how to do it right. New York: John Wiley.
Trevino, L., & Nelson, K. (2011). Managing business ethics - straight talk about how to
Throughout human history, the way in which we define what is right and wrong has gone through many different transformations. The way we treat our fellow human beings has been altered by war, propaganda, racism and cultural differences. The division of land and power in the middle ages, the crusades, women’s suffrage and slavery are all derived from the ethics of particular cultures and perspectives. By looking at the ethics of previous eras and cultures, I hope to develop a particular ethical standpoint that is fair to all people of all cultures. For me, this is the standpoint that the end justifies the means, otherwise known as utilitarianism.
Massey, Douglas A. and Nancy A. Denton. American Apartheid. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993.
Seawell, Buie 2010, ‘The Content and Practice of Business Ethics’, Good Business, pp. 2-18, viewed 22 October 2013, .
Ferrell, O. C., Fraedrich, J., & Ferrell, L. (2013). Business ethics: Ethical decision making and cases: 2011 custom edition (9th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Desmond Tutu says “I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights.” Desmond Mpilo Tutu is an honorable man who became increasingly frustrated with the racism corrupting all aspects of South Africa. Through this quote, he incorporates the message of freedom and how humanity doesn’t serve others because of their race, skin color, or complexion. Desmond Tutu believes that everyone should be equal and should be considered as one big family, a family that isn’t separated by segregation. As in any family, we think that as brothers and sisters, we will not let our family be discriminated or alienated. Desmond Tutu is saying that he doesn’t want a person to have to serve and feel appreciated by someone who thinks they are above them because they are of another race. The people should be allowed to have rights and see the “full menu of rights”, as they are worthy of having true freedom and equality. That the philosophy which holds one race superior and the other inferior is finally and perpetually forgotten, until the color of a man’s skin is of more significance than the color of his eyes. Desmond Tutu has had and continues to have an astronomical impact on the civil and social rights of South Africans during the opposition of apartheid, through peaceful marches, and for speaking out for equality on a number of different levels.
In the 1930’s before the Love Canal area was turned into neighborhoods, the Hooker Chemical Company purchased the area and used it as a burial site for 20,000 metric tons of chemicals. In 1953 the Hooker Chemical Company sold the land to the Niagara Falls Board of Education for $1.00. There was a stipulation in the deed, which stated that if anyone incurred physical harm or death because of their buried wastes, they would not be responsible. Shortly after, the land changed hands yet again and this time home building began directly adjacent to the canal. Families who bought homes here were unaware of the waste buried in their backyards.
In its political philosophy utilitarianism provides an alternative to theories of natural law and the social contract by basing the authority of government and the sanctity of individual rights upon their utility, or measure of happiness gained. As an egalitarian doctrine, where everyone’s happiness counts equally, the rational, relatively straightforward nature of utilitarianism offers an attractive model for democratic government. It offers practical methods for deciding the morally right course of action - “...an action is right as it tends to promote happiness, wrong as it tends to diminish it, for the party whose interests are in question” (Bentham, 1780). To discover what we should do in a given situation, we identify the various courses of action that we could take, then determine any foreseeable benefits and harms to all affected by the ramifications of our decision. In fact, some of the early pioneers of utilitarianism, such as Bentham and Mill, campaigned for equality in terms of women's suffrage, decriminalization of homosexuality, and abolition of slavery (Boralevi, 1984). Utilitarianism seems to support democracy as one could interpret governments working to promote the public interest and welfare of citizens as striving for liberty for the greatest amount of people. While utilitarianism at its heart is a theory that calls for progressive social change through peaceful political processes, there are some difficulties in relying on it as the sole method for moral decision-making. In this essay I will assess the effectiveness of utilitarianism as a philosophy of government by examining the arguments against it.
In Philosophical Ethics, Utilitarianism is the doctrine that our actions are right if the outcome of our actions generate the greatest happiness amongst the majority. However, in “What is Wrong with Slavery?” some objectors of utilitarianism have tried to dismiss this moral reasoning as to having any importance by blaming the awful actions of slave traders and slave owners on utilitarianism. They attack this doctrine by saying that utilitarianism is a belief system that can either praise or condemn slavery, and utilitarianism easily commend slavery if a majority of the people visualize a slave-owning society as the most beneficial and generate greatest happiness. In this matter, the slave owners and slave traders can say that slavery is the right action because it generates the greatest happiness amongst themselves, because they may be in the illusion that they represent the majority. In response to these anti-utilitarian’s, R.M. Hare defends Unitarianism through the rebuttal of the anti-utilitarian’s claims. Hare agrees that the nature of utilitarianism can either commend or condemn slavery, but a key factor that anti-utilitarians forget is that utilitarianism shows what is wrong with slavery through reasoning, instead of just bluntly saying slavery is wrong without any proof.
Treviño, L. K., & Nelson, K. A. (2007). Managing business ethics: Straight talk about how to do it right Fourth ed., Retrieved on July 30, 2010 from www.ecampus.phoenix.edu
It can be easily stated that the apartheid movement bestowed cruel and unusual punishments upon the people of South Africa, in order to execute its purpose. However, apartheid could have not been carried out if they were not individuals who believed in its principles. In order to understand the National parties ideologies regarding the issue of apartheid, it is essential to acknowledge the history of Boer soc...
Shaw, W. H., & Barry, V. (2011). Moral Issues in Business (Eleventh ed., pp. 230-244).
Injustice is present in Cry, the Beloved Country, the Moment Before the Gun Went off, “Invictus,” and also in The Life of Nelson Mandela. Throughout these pieces of literature we can see a picture of life in Africa. There has not always been a racial balance in Africa, and the continent has had many unfair civil injustices, including apartheid. Apartheid is a former policy of racial segregation in the republic of South Africa (Webster’s 53). The Immorality Act (1950-1985) was one of the first Apartheid laws in South Africa. This law was an attempt to forbid all sexual relations between whites and non-whites. Apartheid and racial disparity are both forms of social injustice. While disparity is the condition or fact of being unequal in age, rank or degree, injustice is the violation of another’s rights or of what is right (Webster’s 334; 585).