Wednesday, March 13, 2019

DDT and Ethics Essay

IntroductionPaul pounder, a Swiss chemist and Nobel Prize winner was the one who discovered the dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane which was assemble to be very effective as a pesticide. In the 40s it was employ in the agriculture sector to help kill crop-eating insects. From 1942 onwards it started creation commercialized with big companies such(prenominal) as the Montrose chemical substance potentiometer at the frontline of this pioneering ware. At first, the product proved to be quite a m some other wit drastic every last(predicate)y reducing the amount of malaria resulting in saving m whatsoever lives. It too had a huge impact in agriculture with its effective hold on pests. Later on there were reports of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane worldness hurtful to the milieu, pack and animals. In fact, there was a book that was published by Rachel Carson entitled Silent Spring that abstractiond the dangers of the dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane. A year later on the book was published, President John F Kennedy ordered a delegacy to investigate the books veracity and it was found to be hi-fi and that persis decennaryt toxic pesticides should be phased out as soon as possible. What followed was dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane being illegalisened from the public by government gougeon after conclusive research of how dangerous it is to the environs. The product was however gloss over sold to other countries outside of the US for some time sooner some of the countries themselves decided to ban it.The purpose of this report is to explore estimable issues and philosophies brought forth by some of the worlds ethicists and philosophers in an thrust to advocate for the ban of DDT. Violation of honourable Standards in manufacturing and interchange DDT Any manufacturing business should flip a code of ethics that should me to a greater extent than just a set of rules set for its employees. It should go beyond the organisation and be a set of rules tha t protects all its s pay backholders and most importantly they moldiness be enforceable. The Montrose Chemical Corporation did violate some of the ethical standards in the manufacturing and marketing of DDT to the public as the case may suggest. It is plain in the case that the DDT has brought intimately(predicate) many another(prenominal) problems such as toxicity to some animals, cancer and spoilage of breast milk. Therefore, the community can be held responsible for the damage this has ca utilise because they should endure worked out the dangers and exact predicted the risks knobbed for everyones sake. According to Environmental Protection Agency, the Montrose Chemical Corp used heavy amounts of chlorobenzene as a raw material for making DDTand this substance is in its innate form is non-aqueous meaning it remained in the fuzee and mixed with the other raw materials that resulted in making the groundwater in the range contaminated. Consequently, the surface soils aroun d that area were found to be contaminated with DDT residues.This is something that the company should have considered and anticipated. Also, the company did not demonstrate in any trend health concerns by warning large number nearly the dangers of habit even after the publication of Silent Spring by Rachel Carson. homosexual life as well as animals should be valued and the manufacturing of DDT resulted in damages as serious as cancer ground on some reports. Things Montrose Chemical Corporation should have through differently As part of their social responsibility, instead of rushing into getting as a good deal DDT out for sale as quick as possible, the company should have paused and conducted enough preliminary research to really outline the potential dangers of this substance in the environment and overly find substitute(a) ways of fixing those problems without damaging the environment. Perhaps the company should have as well as provided training and education on usage s o that consumers can take the right precautions when using for their benefit and for the benefit of the environment. Even after the risks started being talked about like in the book published by Rachel Carson, Montrose Chemical Corporation showed carelessness and no effort in trying to decline the problems caused by the result of their business existence.They could have at least provided fiscal aid for the damage caused by this product and to protect life and environment from the personal effects. That would have shown some sense account might. For example they could have helped develop fish farms around the area to help with the population and maintain the ecosystem. Effective integrated Social Responsibility is a fundamental ethical code and its initiatives should project at issues that affect its stakeholders in the long last. So perhaps the company should have revisited their CSR objectives to really improve their planning on manufacturing and selling.The Stakeholder possib le action coined by Edward Freeman and others argue that instead of starting a business and flavor out into the world to see what ethical codes they need to be compel to, they can begin in the world itself they list out individuals and groups that go out be affected by their operation and recognizes their right to participate in directing it. Also, the company could have been much(prenominal) transparent in their manufacturing operations. This magnate have prompted other researchers out there to point out DDTs disadvantages such(prenominal) sooner and do something about it. It had to take the governments orderliness to ban it in order for them to stop their activities and if that was not there they would have presumably gone on with their business.Environmental Protection Agencys EthicalityEven though DDT was not banned in other countries, it was still very unethical for the Montrose Chemical Company to go on selling this product to them. The Righteous moralist philosophy hol ds that multinational topographic point standards are the right ones for companies to abide by in foreign countries. Ethical issues arise when environmental regulations in host nations are far much inferior to the ones in the home nation. At that point, all the dangerous effects of this product were proven and known yet they still carried on selling to people across the world. The reason it was banned in the States was because of the uncertain effects it had overtime affecting people, animal life and the environment as a whole. With this information conclusive and very well documented, the company should have ceased manufacture and selling of this product not just in America alone to all the other countries that were getting this product. Instead they knowingly move manufacturing and selling, disregarding completely the dangers that other people are going to face.It is also important to mention that even if the company did not know about the studies that revealed all the effects of DDT, they had a duty to be aware of it to lift the carelessness that they ended up showing resulting in the psychic traumaing of people, animals and the environment. They cannot simply terminate the dangers the people, animals and the environment are being regorge in even if it is beyond their borders. The Environmental Protection Agency had no choice but to ban the whole operation because the DDT had been proven to having caused damage to the environment and harm people and animals as well. Even though this probably meant many people losing their jobs, the ultimate damage that the companys operation would have brought about would have been far more overwhelming. If they hadnt done that, naturally the company, being a business might have gone on with the selling of DDT and thats a possibility that is not worthy the risk. after(prenominal) all, at that point, they had not shown any signs of stopping anyway because in the ten years between the Silent Spring publication by Rac helCarson and when the EPA officially banned the use of DDT, business continued as usual in other countries continents such as Africa, Asia and Europe. Also, according to the EPA official website, the quick achiever of DDT as a pesticide and broad use in the coupled States and other countries resulted in many of the insect pest species mutating and developing a resistance to DDT and so finding new ways of traffic with the problems would be whats next. In a nutshell, the EPA would have to be soluble to the damage caused in the environment and so this was the right step. pestles gift discussionMullers award for his work on DDT should not be taken away from him because first and foremost, Muller had demonstrated a high level of understanding in alchemy and he did it in an honest way. For that alone he deserved the award because it is something remarkable in the field of Chemistry. In fact, his product helped solve many problems in Agriculture and even health care and so this is hardly more of a reason to celebrate his great work. He cannot be held responsible in any way for the misfortune DDT has brought about. His object was good in that he was trying to find a way to protect human life from insect borne diseases. Many other advantages followed such as pest control in the agriculture sector. It was only when this product started being heavily commercialized did the problems of land pollution, toxicity and cancer came about.How the find was used cannot be blamed on Muller. Prior to DDTs commercialization, Mueller did express his concerns about the inherent nature of DDT of how stable it is, meaning it would not be able to decompose harmlessly in the environment so from that, people should have been more careful at how they manufacture and sell DDT. Also, Muller did not take part in its commercialization that led to the environments deterioration. Therefore taking Mullers award away from him would only be unfair and outrageous.Saving lives versus enviro nment riskThe ability to save lives is not worth the risk the environment has to be put in. From the case, it may seem that DDT is worth it as it helped control pests and save a lot of lives but this is only a short termed and a smaller issue compared to the entire ecosystem in the long run. The utilitarian and the Kantian philosophy brought forth by David Hume and Jeremy Bentham argues that the moral worth of actions or practices is obdurate by theconsequences.If the effects are desirable then the actions are worth it. The continual disposal of DDT cumulatively resulted in cases such as cancer, contamination of soil and water toxicity in milk and clod shells in birds not properly formed for birth. This in the long run disturbs the ecosystem which is essential for all life forms. The cancer only means more deaths and toxicity in milk could as well have the same result, poor health at the very least. Preserving the environment provides a more sustainable future for life and its m aintenance.ConclusionIn spite of all the credits that DDT probably deserves, the damage that the environment as a whole cumulatively ends up having makes further operations ethically unaccepted and not worth it. As a company with such activities, they have the responsibility to look after its stakeholders and the environment at large. Montrose Chemical Corporation was very careless about how they handled their manufacturing and selling of DDT and it ended up costing damage not only in the US but even in countries outside of the US. More research should have been done to anticipate this and more acts of accountability should have been shown to help mitigate the situation. By placing emphasis on ethical issues at every point in their manufacturing process, the company will ultimately do more good in the long run. A theory that was once proposed by Thomas Hobbes called the theory of social atomism states that individuals always act for their own selfish interests, and in the pristine state of man, there are no rights. This kind of military position must be suppressed if there has to be any proceed in protecting interests of stakeholders.

No comments:

Post a Comment