In Week Three Discussion: You Selected A Current Business

In The Week Three Discussion You Selected A Current Business Problem

In the Week Three Discussion, you selected a current business problem from the category: Fuel and the Environment. You will present your case analysis using components of an argumentative essay, including an introduction, thesis statement, ethical theory, at least two premises supporting your thesis, and a comparative analysis of your ethical approach with another. The introduction should identify the issue, describe the economic system, and examine relevant laws, in about 200 words. The thesis should clearly state your moral position in one sentence. The ethical theory (utilitarianism, duty ethics, or virtue ethics) should be briefly explained and applied to support your moral stance. Two premises must be presented as claims, supported by analysis relating to the economic system and relevant laws. The final paragraph should analyze how your ethical approach provides a morally superior solution compared to another ethical theory, summarized in no more than three sentences, with an explanation of the strengths of your chosen theory’s solution. The entire paper should be approximately 1000 words, include citations and references in APA format, and draw from scholarly sources, excluding Wikipedia or similar sites. Your assignment requires thoughtful revision based on professor feedback, to lay groundwork for the Final Project.

Paper For Above instruction

The global challenge of balancing economic development with environmental sustainability has placed notable pressure on industries reliant on fossil fuels. The debate often centers around the economic benefits derived from fossil fuel exploitation versus the environmental and health costs incurred. Specifically, the fuel industry faces heightened scrutiny over its environmental impact, legislative regulations, and societal responsibilities. The current economic system supporting the fuel industry is characterized by capital-driven markets where profit maximization often eclipses environmental considerations. Laws regulating the industry range from environmental protections, such as emission standards, to subsidies that favor fossil fuel corporations. These legal frameworks intend to regulate or incentivize sustainable practices but often fall short of curbing environmental harm. The controversy revolves around whether continued fossil fuel usage can be justified ethically while considering ecological impacts, economic benefits, and legal constraints, making it a complex moral issue requiring ethical scrutiny.

My moral position is that fossil fuel industries are not morally justifiable given their detrimental environmental impacts and the pursuit of profit at the expense of ecological sustainability. This stance is supported by an ethical framework grounded in duty ethics, which emphasizes moral obligations to prevent harm and uphold justice. Duty ethics, rooted in Kantian principles, asserts that actions are morally right if they adhere to universal moral duties, such as the duty to protect the environment for future generations. The ethical theory advocates for moral responsibilities that transcend individual or corporate interests, emphasizing fairness, respect for nature, and the intrinsic value of ecological systems (Johnson, 2014). By applying duty ethics, the moral obligation to preserve the environment and prevent harm to ecosystems and human health offers a compelling basis to oppose incentives for continued fossil fuel reliance.

One key premise supporting this position is that corporations and governments have a moral duty to prioritize the protection of the environment over short-term economic gains, especially when environmental harm undermines the rights and well-being of future generations. This obligation aligns with legal regulations designed to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, which reflect society's collective recognition of environmental duties. A second premise is that the law increasingly enforces accountability and sustainability standards, affirming society’s duty to uphold environmental integrity. These laws serve as institutional embodiments of moral responsibilities, encouraging industries to adopt greener practices and prioritize long-term ecological health over immediate profits. Applying duty ethics underscores the moral imperative for fossil fuel industries to transition toward sustainable energy sources, framing such shifts as fulfilling their duty to uphold justice and prevent environmental harm.

Comparatively, if utilitarianism were applied to this case, the moral solution would focus on maximizing overall happiness by balancing economic benefits against environmental costs. A utilitarian approach might justify continued fossil fuel use if the economic gains significantly outweigh environmental degradation or harm to health, potentially endorsing sustainable practices only when they produce greater net benefits. This could result in a pragmatic acceptability of environmental harm in the short term to optimize societal well-being. However, this approach may neglect the intrinsic moral value of ecosystems and the rights of future generations, risking long-term harm for immediate gains. In contrast, duty ethics emphasizes the moral obligation to avoid causing harm regardless of immediate benefits, leading to a stricter, principle-based stance that prioritizes environmental preservation as a moral duty.

The strength of duty ethics lies in its unwavering commitment to moral principles grounded in respect for intrinsic values and justice. It provides a robust moral foundation that compels industries and policymakers to act morally regardless of consequences, fostering sustainable practices crucial for long-term ecological health. Unlike utilitarianism, which may tolerate short-term harms if they lead to greater happiness, duty ethics insists on adhering to moral duties and principles, making it superior in ensuring environmental justice. This approach promotes a moral culture of responsibility and respect for nature, ultimately leading to more sustainable and ethically sound energy policies that benefit society and future generations alike.

References

• Johnson, D. (2014). Environmental ethics: Duties to protect nature. New York: Routledge.
• Hardy, J., Foster, C., & Zàºà±iga y Postigo, G. (2015). With Good Reason: A Guide to Critical Thinking. Cengage Learning.
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2017). Environmental Ethics. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-environmental/
• Singer, P. (2011). Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. (Trans. Mary Gregor, 2002). Cambridge University Press.
• Cairns, K. (2016). Duty ethics and environmental responsibility. Ethics & Environment, 21(2), 1-24.
• Lele, S. (2014). The moral dilemma of fossil fuels: An ethical assessment. Journal of Moral Philosophy, 11(3), 317-339.
• Gonzalez, E. (2019). Legal frameworks for environmental sustainability in energy industries. Energy Policy, 125, 33-45.
• Matthews, R. (2018). The role of law in environmental protection: A duty-based perspective. Law & Society Review, 52(4), 830-857.
• Williams, B. (2017). Moral responsibilities of the energy sector. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 20(4), 439-457.