Part I: DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. Complete the following statements by filling in the blanks with either “moral” or “nonmoral” (e.g., factual, scientific, legal):
a. Whether or not dumping should be permitted is a moral question.
b. “Are dangerous products of any use in the third world?” is a nonmoral question.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
c. “Is it proper for the U.S. government to sponsor the export of dangerous products overseas?” is a moral question.
d. Whether or not the notification system works as its supporters claim it works is a nonmoral question.
e. “Is it legal to dump this product overseas?” is a moral question.
2. Explain what dumping is, giving some examples. Does dumping raise any moral issues? What are they? What would an ethical relativist say about dumping?
From the perspective of the case study, dumping means selling to other countries products that have been prohibited from being sold in the USA. For example, rigorous laws exist in the USA about the sale of drugs hence if a company sells abroad drugs that cannot be sold in the USA, that is dumping. Similarly, if a product is rejected for quality reasons in the USA and is then exported, that also amounts to dumping. Dumping raises moral issues based on whether the marketer is considering the lives of foreigners as less important as those of Americans. It also raises ethical issues as it amounts to putting profits ahead of human life. An ethical relativist would say the morality of dumping depends on the culture that the involved people hold.
3. Speculate on why dumpers dump. Do you think they believe that what they are doing is morally permissible? How would you look at the situation if you were one of the manufacturers of Tris-impregnated pajamas?
Dumpers simply dump for the sake of profits or regarding manufacturers, to mitigate losses. For example, those buying Tris-impregnated pajamas to sell in Africa and other developing countries simply do so for profits which is morally impermissible. However, if I was a manufacturer of Tris-impregnated pajamas and I have spent fortunes developing the product, I might look at the issue differently as it might be a matter of life and death for the company.
4. If no law is broken, is there anything wrong with dumping? If so, when is it wrong and why? Do any moral considerations support dumping products overseas when this violates U.S. law?
Morality is all about right or wrong and not necessarily about legality or illegality hence an activity can be immoral even when it is legal or not expressly illegal. If the dumping of goods can cause harm to the recipients, a fact that is known to the person doing the dumping, then it is definitively immoral even if it happens to be legal. On the other hand, even if a product violates human laws but is not expressly harmful and can be helpful to third world countries, dumping it can be moral even when it is illegal.
5. What moral difference, if any, does it make who is dumping, why they are doing it, where they are doing it, or what the product is?
With morality being about the concept of right and wrong, the intent of the person doing the dumping makes all the moral difference. For example, if the Red Cross supplies products that kill ten people but save a million people from outright death by starvation, there is a moral difference than if the same product was sold by a marketer for profit.
6. Critically assess the present notification system. Is it the right approach, or is it fundamentally flawed?
The present notification system as employed by the EPA, FDA and other regulators is wrong and needs o to be reviewed. All drugs qualify as potential poisons hence need better regulation. If a drug is found to be deadly, it makes no sense to prevent its sale in the USA but allow it to be sold in a poor African country without notice. A system that either takes too wrong or completely fail to inform poor nations that they are buying and consuming poisonous substances must be wrong.
7. Putting aside the question of legality, what moral arguments can be given for and against dumping? What is your position on dumping, and what principles and values do you base it on? Should we have laws prohibiting more types of dumping?
Dumping or not dumping is more of a moral and ethical issue than a legal issue. A person who is dying from thirst in a warzone inside a third world country may not be bothered about the PH level of the water being supplied. However, if the same water is being sold to a middle-class third world population at premium prices, then the entire process is immoral and illegal. It is my belief that each issue of dumping must be evaluated based on merits and judged as right or wrong without generalizations and presuppositions.
Part II: Essay Questions
Question one: Ideals, Effects, and Consequences are at Stake
The ideals at stake in the instant case study are the moral fabric of the American people based on how they would want to consider themselves and be considered morally. The effects of the case study above are the advent of moral regulation over and above regal regulation. The consequences of the case study are the safety and wellbeing of the victim of the dumping of US products.
Question Two: Moral Rights Violated
Moral rights have definitively been violated when human beings have been treated purely as a source of profits. Dumping products in the developing world because a company or individual can, as opposed to what the company or individual should or should not do is a clear violation of the moral rights of the recipients of the dumped goods. The moral rights would only be protected if proper information was provided to the individuals who are then allowed to give informed consent about the goods.
Question Three: Utilitarian Recommend
Utilitarianism judges right and wrong based on how well the decision leads to capitalization on utility. In the instant case, the right decision would the one that minimizes on wastage and maximizes of both profits and the use of necessary products. The utilitarian recommendation in the instant case, therefore, would be to carefully follow the concept of ‘caveat emptor’ which by definition means let the buyer be aware. If the US market has refused some good based on their regulatory standards, it should let other nations regulate their own markets based on their own standards. If third world countries have no problem with goods exported from the USA, then US regulators should not interfere. This is the approach that would best augment utility.
Question Four: Kantian Recommend
Immanuel Kant argued that all sentient being must be considered as an end in themselves and not as a means to an end, meaning all human being must be treated equally. Based on this approach, if a product is adjudged as unfit for the US market, the same must also be considered as unfit for any other market in the world. Under the Kantian approach, therefore, the recommendation would be that any banned goods be promptly destroyed, any exports prohibited and any goods already exported recalled.
