Health Canada's Argument Analysis

In this paper, I will evaluate Health Canada’s argument to the Ministry of Health that coalmining in Dunsmuir Coalmine, Belleville NS needs to be shut down as a moral good to the miners, in consideration of their health. I will argue, using virtue theory and utilitarian philosophy, that coalmining in the town should not be shut down, as shutting it down would not be ultimately beneficial to the miners and their families, and therefore would not be a moral good. Firstly, I will summarise Health Canada’s argument for the shutting down of the mines. I will then explicate the main points of virtue theory. Following that, I will argue that the tenets of virtue theory instead works in favor of letting the miners keep their job. As well, I will explain the utilitarian theory, and follow that by arguing that utilitarianism, as well, would favor the continued operation of the coalmines. Health Canada argues that coalmines in Belleville, Nova Scotia, need to be closed down as it has extremely harmful effects on its workers. The former states that working in mines leads to an increased chance of
contracting pulmonary disease. While it is true that keeping the mines open leads to economic benefits, these benefits are outweighed by the adverse health effects that the miners in turn suffer as a result of their inherent working conditions. Health Canada states that to allow the workers to work in such conditions “creates ill-health and consequent unhappiness” (Argument for Paper 2 ll.9). Therefore, it is more beneficial for the workers in the long run that the mine be shut down, as any economic stress suffered by the workers would be compensated for by the workers moving away from the hazardous source in order to find new jobs elsewhere. Further, as most the workers are middle-aged and unlikely to continue working for much longer, Health Canada recommends that the mines be closed as soon as possible. This would also have the result in increasing the workers’ happiness levels, as by moving away to seek other employment, they would be less exposed to the health hazards and therefore maximise their health and freedom (Argument for Paper 2). Modern Virtue theory argues that we should determine what makes a person good or bad by whether he or she has certain virtues in their character. For example, traits such as courage, honesty, generosity, in a person, if they have these traits, would make the person count as a good person. Virtues as well are such that they must not be too extreme towards either the positive end, or towards the negative end. For example, the virtue courage is a virtue because it is a middle ground between being a coward or being extremely impulsive. As such, the virtues are virtues such that if it is good for a person to possess such a character trait, then it is a virtue. When applying virtue theory to the case of shutting down coalmining in the town of Belleville, we must then in this case consider the moral character of both the authorities who are trying to shut down the mining, as well as the miners whose jobs are affected. In the case of the authorities, while they might regard themselves as having the ‘good’ virtues, such as of honesty and courage, of their attempt to shut down the mines, I feel that the ultimate outcome of this intent does not reflect the virtues that are supposed to have created this shutdown, and therefore the traits are not morally good. Let us look at the two virtues of honesty and courage. I will first examine honest. Are the authorities being truly honest with the miners by alerting them to the potential health danger of exposure while playing down the other dangers such as unemployment, loss of benefits, the additional stress of relocating and having to look for new jobs, and so on? It seems like they are not being wholly truthful, as they have failed to highlight the other potential health dangers of closing down the mine. As well, I find that the Health Canada authorities are not being truly virtous when it comes to the moral trait of courage as well, as their cause to shut down the miners’ jobs and relocate them is not a worthy cause. This is because the negatives of performing such an act outweigh the positives when it comes to benefitting the miners. We could therefore conclude that while Health Canada might be performing a courageous act by asking the miners to relocate, it is not for a worthy cause, and therefore their behavior is unvirtous. Let us consider this case from a utilitarian perspective.
I will first explicate on the theory of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a philosophical theory which states that that which is right is what brings the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest maximum number of people. The act that manages to fulfill this criteria is the act that is then morally right. As a result, whenever we consider what is a morally right action to do, we have to keep in mind that the action that would make it so that the accumulated level of happiness in the majority would be higher than the accumulated number of unhappiness in a majority. As well, utilitarianism is bias-free, in that the happiness levels of your close friends and family do not take priority over the happiness levels of the neighbors next door, or of people in countries that you have never visited and will never
know. I argue that under the principles of utilitarianism, closing the mines would ultimately be a morally wrong act to befall the miners, and consequently, the majority. While the closure promises long term benefits, we must remember that most of the miners being affect are 50 years old or older. This means that in terms of long term health effects, they are unlikely to be able to enjoy it in time or, even if they do live long enough to get the benefits of reduction to exposure, these benefits are only likely to last a few years before they pass away. This then does not seem like it would benefit them, or the families that are depending on them for sustenance, as the short term and possibly long term effects of closing the mines means that they would not be able to support themselves financially. In short, the negative potential for happiness is a certainty, while the positive potential for happiness is only theoretical. When we weigh one potential against the other under the terms of utilitarianism, it is quite obvious that it is only by not going through with the negative potential aspect of closing the mine that we can ensure the maximum amount of happiness for the majority of the population. In this paper, I have argued that it is morally wrong, under both the philosophies of virtue theory and utilitarianism, to advocate for the closure of the mines in Belleville NS. I have argued the above by explicating the positions of both theories, and applying them with regards to the case study.

Works Cited
Argument for Paper 2. WebCT SFU. Retrieved June 13, 2010.