24/7 writing help on your phone
Save to my list
Remove from my list
Third is the complaint issue where the coal 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 t produce outcome which is favorable (Karri & Allis, 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 consequentiality (Gorgeously.
Matchless & Happened, 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 (Audio, 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 OHIO million in the plant and yet no return on investment has been received by the company and this will caused the many to face big losses and have risk to face financial crisis. In the perspective of demonology, the decision made by the court is not fair. A ethnologist ethnic that can be used to Justified the above scenario is non- consequential which indicates that there are something that should not do even to maximize the greatest good and should focus on the right of individual (Starters, 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 created the ecological disaster to the nearby where the company destroyed 20,000 trees and extinction of 25 herbs (Amanda, 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 f 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 (Leadsmen, 1994). C. Do you agree that good ethics leads to good business? Explain and relate your answer with the case above. Yes, agree. Moon Gate company should not only take care of the economic interest but also responsible for the environment such as Leafage Cement Company does not carry out any demolition until the Environment Impact Assessment has been completed as the company is protecting the endangered spider species in the Kantian cave of Malaysia (Rouse, 2012).
👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!
Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.get help with your assignment