Business Ethics

In the first article, Crimes Against the Environment, the author starts of with discussing latency and accumulation in the eco system. These terms are defined, latency being the delay of effects, and accumulation being that as something accumulates over time only then are its effects noticeable. The terms are strongly linked to the main points of the author in this article. The ecosystem approach is defined and although the author seems to agree, some of the points made are limitations found in this Ð''approach'. It is pointed out that it is limited and unqualified, that it is too extreme, stating that the ecosystem approach says it must be preserved in its exact state and it is not to be modified. The author goes on to point out the three major limitations in that view. The first limitation being that the approach would make human choices irrelevant. An example given was that of human settlement being wrong because it damaged the eco system. I agree that this is certainly a limitation of the approach, and far too extreme. Although we as humans should have moral obligation and regard for the environment as a whole, non-human entities, we also have a moral obligation to the well being of people and what is in the best interest of everything as a whole. The second limitation pointed out is that ecosystems are not fixed and can be adaptive. Policy makers need to pay attention to calculations of what harm may or may not be done. Some contaminants may be irreversible, but same may be reversible. I again agree with the author on this point. The approach is too harsh in saying the ecosystem is fixed and not to be altered. Policy makers should be conscious of what harm may or not be done and value both human regard and non human regard in making each calculations and weighing the impacts. If a decision can benefit both human and non human entities, then that should be the focus. The third limitation states that sometimes risk is involved to save lives. The risk of latency and accumulation of a contaminant is of course a possibility, but sometimes that risk is worth it to save the immediate issue. Once again I agree with this point. For example, sometimes a surgery is a risk, but that risk is taken because otherwise the life would be lost, and even though that risk is still there with the surgery, you would take it just for the chance that it may save the persons life. We need to think about the benefits as a whole, or in the long run. If the risk is worth it, to have a means to an end, then the risk should be taken. There is a moral obligation to save a human life, despite the risk. The same, in my opinion, should apply to the ecosystem.

The second article, Risk Versus Rights, discusses a more immediate issue, environmental pollution. The main points made by this author are its weaknesses found in the CBA, cost benefit analysis, as applied to environmental policy. The author states that the CBA contains built in biases that favor business priorities with biases of economics. One example is the fines implemented for pollution, as example. Because it is such a long and lengthy process before a fine is actually implemented, the fine given to a corporation may be trivial to the profits that have been made in the mean time. I agree with this point. If the capitalist knows it will take a year before a fine is actually served , they may use that to there benefit and take advantage to maximize there profits. It may very well be that the fine, by the time it comes around, is trivial to the profit they have made in the mean time. The author then suggests, by giving an example that seems to have worked, stating an allowable limit of contaminants, for example, to an industry. Implementing that every certain amount they go over the limit, there will be an increasing fine. In my opinion, if this was to work, although regulations would be very difficult, the fine must be large enough and be damaging enough to the industry's capital gain, for it to work. If the fine was not large enough, an industry would continually go over its limit and just pay the fines, if profits allowed them to do so. The fine would have to be large enough to cause a loss of capital gain, for it to impact a capitalist.

The Business Ethics Case for Sustainability, written by Poff, focuses on how industrialized nations cannot sustain the environment