Help Writing 8-10 Page Critical Analysis On The Following

Help Writing 8 10 Page Critical Analysis On The Following In APA Forma

Help writing 8-10 page Critical analysis on the following in APA format using Boatright, J. and Smith, J.D. (2017). Ethics and the Conduct of Business. (8th ed.). Pearson. ISBN: as the primary reference. Book not furnished Do current generations (including current businesses) owe a duty to future generations to produce products and conduct business in an environmentally sustainable manner so that future generations are assured of inheriting a livable planet—one on which reasonable persons would want to live; even if it means that current generations must sacrifice many preferences in current lifestyles? Why or why not? First, define environmental sustainability (the U.N. has a good definition). Also, the term "future generations" includes all of those yet to be born, not just those that are younger than you but are breathing. Use the following for your analysis: 1. Kohlberg’s Moral Development Model; 2. The Kew Garden Principles or Dr. Laura’s Three Prerequisites for Assigning Moral Credit or Culpability; 3. At least two appropriate Ethical Theories; 4. Moral Imagination; 5. Moral Courage; 6. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Model; 7. A CSR Model; 8. The relevant Law or Legal Theory; 9. Any other applicable course concepts from previous or current assigned reading or research. 10. Sample paper is just that—a sample, not necessarily pertaining to this topic. 11. Additional help: Rights Theories, Moral Rights, and Legal Rights as discussed, including their ethical bases and legal enforceability, and how they relate to environmental and intergenerational responsibilities.

Paper For Above instruction

The pressing question of whether current generations have a moral obligation to act sustainably for future generations is an intricate ethical debate rooted in environmental, social, and legal considerations. Grounded in Boatright and Smith's discourse on ethics and business conduct, this paper critically examines the moral responsibilities of today’s population, especially corporations and policymakers, to ensure sustainability that guarantees a livable planet for unborn generations. Through diverse ethical frameworks, legal theories, and moral paradigms, it argues in favor of an obligation to environmental sustainability, emphasizing that such duty is supported by universal moral principles, social responsibility, and rights-based theories.

Environmental Sustainability Definition: As articulated by the United Nations (1987), environmental sustainability involves "meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." This broad definition underscores the importance of conserving natural resources, reducing pollution, and establishing equitable access to environmental benefits, acknowledging that these are essential for continued human survival and flourishing.

Implications of Future Generations: The term refers to all individuals yet to be born, emphasizing our moral duty is not just to those alive today but also to entities that do not yet exist, cementing an intergenerational commitment to stewardship rather than exploitation.

Theoretical Frameworks:

1. Kohlberg’s Moral Development Model: Kohlberg’s stages of moral development—especially post-conventional morality—support the idea that moral reasoning evolves towards principles of justice and universal rights, suggesting that morally mature individuals and organizations recognize the importance of sustainability as an ethical imperative beyond self-interest.

2. Kew Garden Principles or Dr. Laura’s Prerequisites: These emphasize moral credit and culpability, suggesting that those who knowingly endanger future generations through harmful practices are morally culpable and deserve moral disapproval.

3. Ethical Theories:

- Utilitarianism: Advocates maximizing overall happiness; environmental sustainability aligns with this as it ensures long-term well-being for all.

- Deontological Ethics: Based on duty and respect for rights, emphasizing that humans have a duty to preserve the planet as part of respecting intrinsic rights of future generations.

4. Moral Imagination: The capacity to envisage the consequences of present actions on future generations promotes ethical decision-making that accounts for long-term impacts.

5. Moral Courage: It requires the bravery to oppose harmful practices and prioritize sustainability despite economic or political pressures.

6. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs: At its peak—self-actualization—humans seek meaning and legacy; sustainability fosters this by enabling future generations to meet their needs.

7. CSR Models: The Carroll Pyramid emphasizes economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities, with environmental sustainability fitting primarily into ethical and philanthropic obligations.

8. Legal and Moral Rights: Moral rights—based on intrinsic human value—entail that individuals (including future generations) are entitled to a healthy environment. Legal rights, such as environmental protections, enforce these moral rights within societal frameworks.

9. Additional Concepts: Rights theories (e.g., rights to life, health, and environment), justice theories (notably Rawls’ difference principle advocating fairness), and Nozick’s entitlement theory support that safeguarding natural resources is essential for just social arrangements.

Analysis of Duties to Future Generations:

From a moral rights standpoint, every human, including those yet unborn, possesses a right to a sustainable environment, supporting the view that current economic and industrial activities must adhere to environmentally responsible practices. Kantian ethics uphold that humans as rational agents have a duty to respect the intrinsic worth of future persons by acting sustainably. Virtue ethics emphasizes character traits like responsibility and prudence—traits that promote long-term well-being.

Applying Kohlberg’s post-conventional stage, moral agents recognize that sustainability is a universal moral principle based on justice and equity. The Kew Garden principles would criticize current harmful practices that neglect future humans' rights, assigning culpability to those who knowingly ignore their responsibilities.

Legal and Policy Considerations:

Legal theories, especially those enshrined in environmental laws like the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Mandate that businesses and governments consider environmental impacts, aligning legal rights with moral rights. If current policies were relaxed or abolished, the legal protections ensuring environmental sustainability might weaken, infringements on moral rights could escalate, and the moral duties scholars argue we hold to future generations might be undermined.

The Ethical Justification for Sacrifice:

Sacrificing certain current lifestyle preferences for the benefit of future generations is ethically justifiable when viewed through utilitarian or Kantian lenses. Although such sacrifices may seem inconvenient, they are justified when long-term benefits—such as preserved ecosystems, climate stability, and resource availability—outweigh short-term gains. This aligns with the notion that moral courage and moral imagination can help society overcome economic and political resistance to sustainable practices.

Supporting the Moral and Legal Frameworks:

The rights-based approach, bolstered by theories of justice (Rawls’ principles and Nozick’s entitlement), affirms that future generations have a claim to a just distribution of environmental resources. Rawls’ difference principle advocates for inequalities only if they benefit the least advantaged, which supports equitable sustainability measures. Nozick’s entitlement theory emphasizes respecting lawful acquisitions and transfers, suggesting that current resource use should be just and free from wrongful appropriation.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, a compelling ethical case exists that current generations owe a duty to future generations to pursue environmental sustainability, grounded in theories of rights, justice, moral development, and corporate responsibility. The integration of these perspectives highlights that fostering sustainability is not only a moral obligation but also a legal and societal necessity to ensure that future generations inherit a just, healthy, and flourishing planet.

References

  • Boatright, J., & Smith, J. D. (2017). Ethics and the Conduct of Business (8th ed.). Pearson.
  • United Nations. (1987). Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development.
  • Kohlberg, L. (1984). Essays on Moral Development: Vol. I. The Philosophy of Moral Development. Harper & Row.
  • Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
  • Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Basic Books.
  • Carroll, A. B. (1991). The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39-48.
  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (1948). United Nations.
  • Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. Oxford University Press.
  • Attfield, R. (1998). Environmental Philosophy. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  • Coase, R. (1960). The Problem of Social Cost. Journal of Law and Economics, 3, 1-44.

Related Assignments