Case Study 1

Final Assignment - PHIL 331

Do businesses have a moral responsibility to avoid more workplace tragedies like these? Why
or why not?

The core feature of capitalism is the profit motive, which indicates that organizations and

individuals, in general, are motivated by economic self-interest and making money and create the

most efficient and successful economic system. (Shaw, p.122) From a utilitarian standpoint, the

requirement for pharmaceutical corporations to maximize profits should be compared to those of

other enterprises; there is no greater obligation than that of other enterprises to support the

general welfare, regardless of their position. Here, the question of pharmaceutical firms' moral

responsibility exists despite the fact that they are considered successful businesses and expected

to adhere to capitalism's principles. Furthermore, the lives of some socially vulnerable people are

dependent on the pharmaceutical sector, which entails even more distinctive ethical

responsibilities. Therefore, I claim that pharmaceutical businesses have moral duties and

obligations to the society to which they belong. Here, I'll argue against the capitalist view that all

businesses should be focused on making money and serving their own self-interest. The main

moral reason why pharmaceutical companies should be held responsible, which will be

explained in the next section.

Employers have an ethical duty to ensure their employees' safety in the workplace and should
never put their well-being in jeopardy or expose them to any unnecessary risk through
carelessness or irresponsibility; businesses should be held morally accountable for that.
However, at the same time, employees have the right to know about any kind of risk; informed
consent is needed for people to voluntarily take on risks; and employees can refuse to do
dangerous work if they don't want to. However, it is also the employee's responsibility to
practice safety at work, not just the employers'. Here, the essential points to holding the
companies morally accountable to avoid hazards are that they should first be aware of their
moral responsibilities to identify potential risks, and second, they should also be aware of the
moral acts that should be implemented to safeguard their workers when hazards arise,
including how far they should go and what the acceptable level of risk is.

Workplace safety does not only apply to physical safety; as we can see in the current world,
individuals are suffering from different injuries at work that may have major repercussions,
sometimes not even the apparent ones. Some hazards are evident, like a vehicle coming at you,
but others are not, like working long hours and feeling stressed out from being away from your
family, and they will have an impact on not just the workers' mental health but also the health
of their children and society as a whole.

Following some basic standards that are required by law may help avoid some incidents, but
some dangers still arise accidentally, even if staff follow the requirements. Therefore, some
incidents can make companies casually accountable but not necessarily morally accountable. As
a result, it is not always clear whether the injuries were caused by an inappropriate, unsafe
work environment or by a random accident, and the extent to which the injury could have been
avoided.

In the Mayfield Consumer Products factory, the employer first neglected to recognize the
possible hazard, which was almost certainly clear, and then neglected to act to rescue its
employee, despite the fact that the hazard was obvious; there was a significant possibility of
severe harm or damage, and the employee's lives were in jeopardy. Promoting employee safety
was not only the company's moral responsibility but also a legitimate and obligatory one.

Some have blamed the victims, saying they should have listened to the warning and taken
shelter. Companies like Amazon, which work at a fast pace in delivering orders and have tons of
orders every minute, might argue that being overly cautious and spending so much money on
health and safety would cost so much money for the companies, given that even with the
money spent on health and safety, no environment is completely secure. For utilitarianism, their
reasoning would be to generate the best results for the largest number of individuals on
balance. (Shaw, p.90). Then they would justify the safe work environment being provided by
employers in a fair and reasonable manner. This will result in less hazard for employees and, as
a result, for the societies and the businesses that are part of these societies.

People, according to Kantalists, must always be seen as ends, and their inherent worth as spirits
must never be discounted or used only as a means to an end. (Shaw, p. 62) Mayfield's intention
here appears to be the pursuit of its own self-interest, regardless of the potential danger. This
intention is not in line with any moral rules, given that the company was aware of the potential
hazard and its consequences.

As opposed to utilitarians, who link fairness to public benefit, libertarians reject limiting
individual liberty, even if doing so would promote the happiness of the population as a whole.
(Shaw, p.93). In this case, employers are permitted to pressurize workers to use employment
opportunities against them, even if the possibility of dismissal renders this argument less
convincing. However, it's not always easy to find another job, and if being jobless means you
can't afford to support your fundamental necessities, then the employee is in a fragile and
unfair position. So, the pressure that employers put on employees is either coercion or puts at
risk the employees' right to make decisions on their own. The problem of workplace safety is
further complicated by the fact that coercion may force employees to make decisions about
how much risk they are prepared to accept.

According to Rawls' social contract theory, individuals have a mutually beneficial relationship
with one another and with society as a whole, are capable of defending themselves against
harm, and should be treated as such rather than as wordless devices or as the property of their
companies. (Shaw, p.103). Companies like Amazon and Wal-Mart are against stricter laws and
standards because they feel they will be more of a burden and expensive to implement than a
benefit to workers. However, it must be taken into account that a single person is far less likely
to be effective than a union of hundreds. As Smith argues in the article, and as already
mentioned above, employers have more power than the employees, even collectively.
Sometimes people's lives depend on their income, and they cannot survive to even meet their
basic needs, especially in the modern world. Therefore, defending employee rights can be met
by unionizing and empowering them to negotiate for their rights.

So, according to the idea of a social contract, unions might provide a means of cooperation
between employers and workers. The fact is, unions are here to alleviate the two sides,
employee and employer, not come down on one side or another. It can be argued that the
consequences of negligence in providing safe work environments can affect not only the
employees but also their offspring and society as a whole. As Rawls argues, people compromise
in a society where they are expected to contribute to making the society more stable and
healthier. So, since companies are a part of the societies they work in and get benefits from,
they have a moral obligation to do their jobs and keep their employees safe.

The concept of social contract theory can be based on the concept of justice: it is only justice to have
people's interests represented rather than being treated as voiceless people owned by their employers
or as machines.

Libertarians argue that because employees can look for work elsewhere, employers are free to
pressure them to use employment opportunities against them, even if the prospect of firing them
makes this objection less plausible.

For utilitarianism, their argument would be to produce, on balance, the best outcomes for the
greatest number of people, so in this case striking workers could assert their rights and make
their needs known to the owners. so utilitarian could in fact Justified the right to strike

This argument represents our perception of the inherent worth of the human spirit and has a
strong moral appeal.

The intention and consequences of the Mayfield factory are not The justifications to make
businesses morally responsible

Companies like Amazon and Wal-Mart are against stricter laws and standards because they feel
they will be more of a burden and expensive to implement than a benefit to workers. However,
it must be taken into account that a single person is far less likely to be effective than a union of
hundreds.

Informed consent is needed for people to voluntarily take on risks. As we've seen, for that to
happen, the worker would have to know about the risk and choose to take it on their own. This
is rarely the case for workers who are just doing what their boss tells them to do. Informed
consent means that employees have a moral right to refuse work that puts them in immediate
danger, and that it is wrong for employers to punish them for doing so.

Informed consent is needed for people to voluntarily take on risks. Employees can refuse to do
dangerous work if they don't want to.

Employers have a responsibility to protect their employees from unnecessary danger, and
workers have a right to be informed of any potentially dangerous tasks and to decline them if
they so choose. Despite the common perception that carelessness on the part of workers is to
blame for most workplace mishaps, instead of being the result of random chance, analysts
attribute them to internal corporate variables.

Then part of the challenge in determining the moral obligations of employers and
employees is to first distinguish between cause and moral responsibility.

We need to keep in mind that some accidents happen as a result of not following the
safety rules, poor training, or just happening, especially when they have expenses for the
business.

And the moral point is

This argument can be supported by

utilitarianism as it has negative effects on total human welfare when individuals in

marginalized groups are discriminated against. This is because by not paying the most
qualifies people the salary that they deserve then they will not be as motivated to work.
This will affect their job performance and the athletes that they are coaching will not
achieve as much as they could have. So by basing salaries on purely market
considerations they are not maximizing net utility.

Kantians also argue to evaluate people in terms of their skill as by not doing so it is
failing to respect peoples as ends. Discrimination in this way violates peoples moral
rights and equality.

Rawls theory also emphasizes this viewpoint as individuals in the original position
would chose for themselves a principle that promotes equal opportunities. They would
want to be evaluated by their merit and not by discriminatory market considerations. No
people that discriminate against women coaches would be willing to undergo this type
of discrimination themselves. Therefore not offering coaches of men and woman teams
equal salaries based on their skill level is unjust.