Question

• Some propose that these concerns could be alleviated if our use of cars was limited by increased gasoline taxes--if gas is more expensive, we will use less of it and, as a beneficial by-product, improve the environment. What do you think of this proposal and what theory would support your position? Are there injustices built into such measures?
• What about the possibility that the US auto industry, encouraged by its partial owner, the US government, will no longer produce large gas guzzlers (think Hummer) or will subsidize hybrid or green cars? Is it ethical for the government to essentially prevent a US company from producing a legal good or encourage a company to produce one good over another? What ethical theory supports your position?
• What are the possible ethical considerations of banning or restricting the import of cars that do not meet certain emission standards? Volkswagen was recently embroiled in a major business disaster when it was discovered that software engineers had inserted a "fix" in their cars that was designed to fool emission tests. While illegal, was that unethical?
• Finally, the world today is full of news about fracking, the process by which a high volume of liquid is pumped into the ground to fracture rock and extract natural gas. What are the ethical considerations of either permitting or prohibiting property owners from using their property in this manner?

REMEMBER, YOU MUST USE YOUR SELECTED THEORY TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION AND SHOULD SPECIFICALLY USE FACTS AND INFORMATION FROM THE READINGS AND RESOURCES TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION.

Answer 1

1. This is not a logical proposal. When the price of gasoline will be increased there will still be few people who will be able to afford it and hence use it. Usage curb should be introduced consistently with all classes and this method will only reduce gas usage for the people who cannot afford it. This will predominantly affect the middle class and lower class. If these policies were put into place, the middle class will be effected the most, because they are the ones driving to work everyday; trying to make ends meet. These regulations will also affect the lower class, making things more difficult for them then they already are, because public transportation rates will increase as a result. This policy would be completely unfair to all classes but will affect the middle and lower class most. Any policy drafted by the Government should be intended to impact all of the people involved in equal way. Nations typically draw on numerous philosophical foundations to guide and justify approaches of governance. In the United States these include utilitarianism, contractarian liberalism, and human rights theory. Utilitarianism calls on government to maximize the well being of society (Williams, 2013, p. 313). This is accomplished through the dedication of improving the quality of life of every individual members of society, not buy increasing taxes on gas. People still have responsibilities that need to get done. Being able to transport our selves plays an important role in peoples everyday tasks. Increasing tax on gas isn’t the solution because people still need to complete those tasks. What this policy would ultimately be doing is decreasing the value of American lives; making it harder economically, mentally, and physically.

2.

It is not ethical for the US government to subside the auto industry, because cars and other highly powerful motorbikes are luxury goods and must be taxed heavily. It is not ethical to prevent a US company to produce a legal good. These companies pay necessary taxes that are collected by the government for the goods they produce. If these companies produce luxury goods they are taxed heavily; as long as these companies pay taxes, the US government cannot prevent the production of legal goods for consumption of the public. The theory of system sensitive ethics proposed by Hardin serves this aspect the best; the ecosystem has to be preserved and the moral system that allows use of such goods by people should support such a system. The concept of public goods vs. common goods allows for firms to look at the advantages of producing one good over the other (Hardin, 1968). There should be no degradation of the environment for the commons as Hardin effectively signifies. Firms can choose what to produce as long as they are legal and safe for consumption and also satisfy the government’s tax liabilities.

3.

A developing world needs to be jump started by the availability of cheap technology from other countries that have already learned and benefited from such resources. These countries can be considered developed due to their research on these same resources in question. Morally, they should aid the developing countries to do the same. Instead, the already developed countries are increasingly worried about benefiting any other country that’s not their own. As per the least harm principle of ethics and maximum good for maximum number of people (Williams, 2013, p. 321), available knowledge that can benefit mankind, as a whole, should be shared.

            An environmental ethical consideration could explain the restriction of providing cheaper technologies such as coal and burning plants to other developing world countries. Ever since the early 21st century, effects of environmental damage have been top concern across nations. The environment is one of top ethical concerns each Government faces today. In this case one can apply Kant principle and see why environmental damage is an important issue (Taylor, 2011, p. 198).

4.

I would say about ten years ago, hydraulic fracturing was a blip in the US. Today, it is worldwide and one the most often used processes for land drilling, not only of natural gas wells, but also for crude oil extraction. Combining the ability to drill horizontally with the ability to crack open otherwise impermeable rock, hydraulic fracturing permits energy companies to gain access to previously inaccessible reservoirs of oil and natural gases (Scientific America, 2011). Despite its huge potential, fracking has not gone over well with environmentalists. If fracking proponents can address critics’ concerns, the technology could win huge worldwide support. New versions of fracking technology seem to be doing just that. The concept again goes with the utilitarian principle where maximum good should be occurring. Man is continuously in search of ways to obtain gas and in this process has come about discovering different kinds of techniques too obtain this source. Fracking is one such highly dynamic source of getting natural gas. It cannot be denied that people need this resource in wake of technology changes. The process of fracking is no doubt very invigorating but fracking, wherever it be either in local homes or in wide lands, should not be allowed as it has been researched and proven that there are poisonous gas leaks like methane which is very harmful not only to life but also for the environment (Mann, 2011). Private property cannot be used for any such manner. It is unethical to allow people to conduct fracking in their own areas. They may argue that the land belongs to them and is private but it does harm the neighborhood too. So government should put a ban and make it legally punishable if people are found fracking in their private lands. The harm that fracking has caused to the environment is slowly becoming bothersome. There have been alarming local incidents of blowouts, earthquakes and contamination. There have been reports of poisonous air and drinking water contamination also happening.   It can be allowed only if the local authorities support it and it is tests result to be safe for everyone.

References:

Hardin, G. The Tragedy of the Commons. Gale Global Issues In Context.Morningstar Analyst Rating for Funds. (2014, January 1). Morningstar Analyst Rating for Funds

Mann, B. Fracking Activists Try To Sway N.Y. Gov. Cuomo. (2011). NPR.

Scientifc America. (2011, January 1). The facts behind the frack. Science News.  

Taylor, P. (2011). Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics : Princeton University Press.

William, S., & Vincent, B. (2013). Moral Issues in Business. New York: Cengage Learning.

****Please please please LIKE THIS ANSWER, so that I can get a small benefit, Please****