The Environment And Healthcare Are Very Important Aspects Of

The Environment And Healthcare Are Very Important Aspects Of Our Lives

The environment and healthcare are very important aspects of our lives, as discussed in your textbook. However, it is still unclear whether corporations should focus on these as rights or as privileges. Research the concepts "public good" and "private good". From a business ethics perspective, should corporations and society focus on the environment and healthcare as either "public goods" or as "private goods"? Use any of the ethical perspectives (Utilitarianism, Kant's Categorical Imperative, Rawls' Fairness as Justice, etc) to justify your position. Substantiate your all your comments and responses. Avoid the use of Wisegeek, NetMba, Wikipedia, excessive use of dictionaries and encyclopedias, and sources of that nature, which are not considered reputable sources, when substantiating your comments and responses. Stanwick, P. A., & Stanwick, S. D. (2014). Understanding business ethics (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Paper For Above instruction

The debate over whether environmental protection and healthcare should be regarded as rights or privileges is deeply rooted in ethical and societal considerations. To explore this, it is essential to understand the concepts of "public goods" and "private goods." From a business ethics perspective, the categorization of these essential aspects as either public or private goods influences the responsibilities of corporations and society at large.

A "public good" is characterized by two main features: non-excludability and non-rivalry. This means that once a public good is provided, no individual can be excluded from its benefits, and one person's consumption does not diminish the amount available for others (Stiglitz, 1989). Classic examples include clean air, national defense, and public healthcare systems. Conversely, "private goods" are excludable and rivalrous; access can be restricted, and consumption by one individual prevents others from consuming the same good (Samuelson, 1954). Private healthcare and environmental services provided by private firms fall into this category, as access can be controlled through payment or other means.

From a societal viewpoint, recognizing environmental quality and healthcare as public goods aligns with the notion that these are fundamental rights essential to human dignity and societal stability. Ethical frameworks provide support for this perspective. Utilitarianism, for instance, advocates for actions that maximize overall happiness and well-being. Ensuring that all individuals have access to clean environments and healthcare services enhances societal welfare and reduces suffering (Mill, 1863). Governments and corporations, therefore, have an ethical duty to promote these as public goods to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number.

Kant's Categorical Imperative further reinforces this position by emphasizing duty and moral obligation. According to Kant, individuals should act according to principles that could be universally applied. If the widespread denial of environmental rights and healthcare is considered, it would lead to a moral contradiction and undermine societal trust and respect for human dignity. Hence, from Kantian ethics, society has a moral obligation to regard environmental sustainability and healthcare as rights owed to all individuals, not as privileges contingent on wealth or social status (Kant, 1785).

Rawls' theory of justice also argues for fairness and equitable distribution of resources. Rawls' principles suggest that social and economic inequalities are acceptable only if they benefit the least advantaged (Rawls, 1971). Access to a clean environment and healthcare plays a critical role in reducing disparities and ensuring justice. These rights should be accessible to all, especially the most vulnerable members of society, reinforcing the idea that these are societal responsibilities as public goods rather than privileges.

However, critics argue that labeling these as public goods could lead to overuse and sustainability issues, prompting some to favor private provision under regulated frameworks. Yet, the ethical stance rooted in societal well-being and justice leans toward the recognition of environmental and healthcare services as fundamental rights, emphasizing collective responsibility and ethical duties over individual privatization.

In conclusion, from a business ethics perspective, environmental protection and healthcare should be regarded as public goods due to their non-excludability and vital importance to societal well-being. Ethical theories such as utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, and Rawlsian justice support the view that society has a moral obligation to secure these as rights, ensuring equitable access for all members. This approach promotes social justice, reduces inequality, and fosters a sustainable environment and healthier society.

References

• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by Mary Gregor. Cambridge University Press, 1998.
• Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Parker, Son, and Bourn.
• Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
• Samuelson, P. A. (1954). The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure. Review of Economics and Statistics, 36(4), 387–389.
• Stiglitz, J. E. (1989). Economics of the Public Sector. W.W. Norton & Company.