Case 1.1 BUS 186 - Grade: A PDF

Preview

Summary

Case 1.1 BUS 186 Analysis...

Description

Jawan Ayoub September 5, 2018 BUS 186 Made in the U.S.A - Case Analysis In the case Made in the U.S.A., - Dumped in Brazil, Africa, Iraq, the moral issue that is most prevalent is if dumping, the act of exporting products that have been banned in the U.S.A., to other third world countries, should allowed/legal. The banned products that were developed and sold in the United States were manufactured with the intent of benefiting the general public; such as inventing flame retardant pajamas for children and developing IUD’s. A manufacturer developed flame retardant pajamas for children, which sold 200 million pajamas until they were banned for using a chemical causing the risk of kidney cancer in children. The pajamas were recalled and were then sold to dumpers who bought the recalled pajamas at 10-30% of their wholesale price and dumped them overseas. Pajamas were not the only things being dumped. Pacifiers, crops treated with banned pesticides, and banned painkillers are just some of the products that are dumped overseas. Everything that is dumped overseas is dumped for one main reason only, and that is profit. When businesses expand their costs of production and start producing wholesale, only to eventually have their products banned and recalled, it is detrimental to their business profits. Due to this, companies find any way to close their margin of profit loss, even if that means dumping at the expense of citizens in third world countries. However, one argument is the manufacturer of an IUD which had severe side effects to consumers, but the company stated that in some third world countries, those side effects outweighed the risk of death in childbirth, and stated dumping as being a humanitarian effort. In conclusion, if dumping was illegal, businesses would have a lot at stake money wise, but if it was not, they would be risking the lives of innocent humans due to their greed. There is a “notification” system in play that notifies officials in foreign countries of products banned in the U.S. that are being exported into their country, but that is heavily criticized. A U.S. policy states that, “No country should establish itself as the arbiter of others’ health and safety standards. Individual governments are generally in the best position to establish standards of public health and safety,” meaning that it is up to the specific country to decide the welfare of its own citizens, but that almost useless. Countries in which products are dumped in are sometimes too poor to establish their own health standards, do not have testing facilities, and do not have a staffed customs department, which leads to non regulation of exported banned products into the country. Officials in the U.S. and foreign countries both have the power to make decisions over exported banned goods, but that can always be worked around by changing the name of products or even by shipping them and building them overseas. Regardless of the loss of profits that manufacturers make, dumping should be illegal. One example of why it should be illegal is because dumping can end up hurting the country it came out of. For example, the EPA in United States bans DDT, dieldrin, heptachlor, endrin, and multiple other pesticides, but no law bans these chemicals from being sold and brought overseas.

Among other side effects, these pesticides kill fish and cause tumors in animals. These pesticides are used routinely in agriculture overseas, in which the FDA has estimated that roughly 10% of the imported food into the U.S. has residues of the banned pesticides that were dumped overseas. It has now only gotten worse with banned pesticide laced food, and that is all due to the practice of dumping. Another example as to why it should be illegal is because no human life is worth more than the other’s all for the sake of profit. Dumpers who dump into third world countries are essentially saying that even though it might be banned in the United States, it is okay for those in other countries to reap the consequences, which is all done in the name of profit. Flame retardant pajamas that are banned due to dangerous chemicals are dumped overseas where poor children are at risk because they are seen as “lesser than.” One ethical theory which supports that dumping is immoral and should be illegal is the Utilitarianism Consequential theory that the “moral rightness or wrongness of an action is based on the action’s consequences.” When products are dumped overseas, the consequences is that those third world countries do not have governments that can protect their citizens from harmful materials, so those citizens unknowingly face harmful effects from these banned products. Dumping decreases the margin of profit loss for manufacturers which is good, but the consequence to their yields in profit is at the expense of foreign citizens which does more harm than good. Another ethical theory that can also be applied is Kant’s moral theory that “Always treat humanity, whether in yourself or in other people, as an end in itself and never as a mere means.” This means that we should recognize that each person has the same basic worth as we do, and in the case of dumping, that is not what is followed. Citizens in third world countries are treated as a means and not an end due to profit. One opposing view is that dumping can sometimes be beneficial to countries, such as the IUD that was developed and banned in the U.S. but sent overseas to where death in childbirth rates are high. That is an immoral rationale that the IUDs; which can cause pelvic inflammation, blood poisoning, and tubal pregnancies, are worth the risk rather than having a pregnancy. If those people really cared about decreasing death from childbirth, they would improve their devices and ship IUDs that are safe to use just for the welfare and being of those in poorer countries. Shipping a product that is known to be dangerous to poorer countries is outright immoral and selfish which is done all in the sake of profit. Evidently, dumping should be illegal because it is immoral and contradicts Utilitarianism and Kant’s moral theory. It is a selfish act which is done for the sake of decreasing profit losses and considers those in third world countries as “lesser than.”...