Moral Issues In Different Perspectives

Categories: MoralWater
About this essay

The script is about Gilbane Gold a name given to a popular and profitable, dried sludge produced from a wastewater treatment plant. Gilbane is a sludge sold to farmers as fertilizer for their crops and has been sold for over 75 years. It has been found that Z CORP, the city’s largest employers discharges heavy toxic metals, arsenic and lead to the city sewers. By city regulations the discharge is found to be in compliance with acceptable levels. Tom Richards an independent water treatment engineer and consultant to the company finds that the company is discharging beyond limits using a new and expensive test that measured the discharge level.

ECSA regulations state that engineers must give engineering decisions, recommendations or opinions that are honest, objective and based on facts. (Government Gazette, 2013) Richards opinions display this act however, his opinions are disregarded which leads to concern of the public interest, health and environmental impact in accordance with ECSA regulations.

The script raises moral issues in different perspectives.

Get quality help now
Prof. Finch
Prof. Finch
checked Verified writer

Proficient in: Moral

star star star star 4.7 (346)

“ This writer never make an mistake for me always deliver long before due date. Am telling you man this writer is absolutely the best. ”

avatar avatar avatar
+84 relevant experts are online
Hire writer

At the beginning of the scripture there is a doubt as to whether Z CORP has violated stated city regulations or not. (Van de Poel et al, 2011) Tom Richards however is certain and constantly argues that the company has violated the regulated limits of acceptable discharge, Richards points out how the dangers of the materials being discharged may build up in the soil and human bodies, (Martin et al, 1988). This is an example of critical loyalty in which Richards expresses his opinions to what he believes could be detrimental harm to others.

Get to Know The Price Estimate For Your Paper
Number of pages
Email Invalid email

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy. We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

"You must agree to out terms of services and privacy policy"
Write my paper

You won’t be charged yet!

The script shows that Richards gives due regard for the environment and shows interest for health and safety of the public. Professor Winslow Massin, however, believes that the occurrences are not decisive. ECSA regulations state that employees should discharge their duties to employers with fidelity and honesty (Government Gazette, 2013), this is a key aspect that seems to be demonstrated by Richards through the results he brought forth to the attention of Phil Port Z CORP’s chief environmental officer. Richards later loses his job, and the company claimed the reason behind this was that they could not pay for his expertise anymore, suspensions about the plant’s operations are raised as this occurs shortly after he insisted that they improve their water treatment system. This shows that his employers have more interest in the company’s profit that the impact of its operations on the environment.

A new engineer David Jacksons shortly learns about the operations of the company. The primary issue raised in the script is whistleblowing, (Van de Poel et al, 2011). David’s moral believes are placed on the line in serving his employers and the public as a whole. In finding a middle way solution that satisfies the public and the company, David Jackson struggles to get the same point of view with his officials. Diana Collins is the vice president in charge of the facility she believes that since the company has not heard from the Gilbane water treatment people complaining about the discharges, the company need not change their water system equipment. According to ethics “it is in the company’s interest to behave morally (if nothing else, to avoid bad publicity and legal battles.) it is desirable to have all corporate actions approved by all the employee’s “moral filters” (Harris et al, 2005), in this case David Jackson concerns are disregarded and not approved by his officials, these actions may result in loss of the company if the case leads to court which will charge legal fees in resolving the case, this will be a loss for both the public and the company. The company would end up losing more

Cite this page

Moral Issues In Different Perspectives. (2019, Nov 21). Retrieved from

Moral Issues In Different Perspectives
Live chat  with support 24/7

👋 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