Keystone Pipeline: Ethics And Virtue Ethics
The keystone pipeline has proven to be a decisive topic at podiums and dinner tables everywhere, with people debating the merits and benefits (or lack thereof) of the pipeline such as money, jobs and increased traffic in areas along the pipeline. I will analyze the keystone pipeline under the ethical theories of Utilitarianism, Duty/Rights Ethics and Virtue Ethics. Merriam Webster defines utilitarianism as “a theory that the aim of action should be the largest possible balance of pleasure over pain or the greatest happiness of the greatest number”. Looking at the pipeline from this perspective, the people who will primarily benefit from the pipeline is the TransCanada Company (TRP) who is commissioning the pipeline to send tar sands quickly
to refiners in America that they will sell. (Brianna, PBS) Looking into the number of jobs that will be created TRP claimed the project would create 13,000 jobs. However only 3,900 workers for a year are actually needed to build the pipeline and only 35 permanent positions will be created. In terms of creating jobs for people, it will not benefit many in the end with the 35 permanent positions being technician occupations. (Isidore, CNN) In terms of Duty/rights ethics, the pipeline has been shown to potentially violate the rights of Native Americans by its mere construction. Since the pipe will be crossing reservation territories without the permission of the respective territories, the pipeline’s construction violates their autonomy as an independent nation. This suggests under this method of ethics that the current project plans should not go forward until permission is obtained or the pipeline is moved to another area. (Peeples, Huffington Post) From a virtue aspect, it is difficult to make a descision as it depends on someone’s personal beliefs as to what is morally right. For example, some may say it is a moral right to capitalize on resources while another could say it is immoral. Similarly, they are creating jobs for construction and drawing business with the oil workers to towns along the pipeline, which could go in favor of the pipeline’s construction. One could say in contrast, that being dishonest about the number of jobs made available and building in someone else’s land without their permission is deceitful and insolent which could suggest not moving with the project.
to refiners in America that they will sell. (Brianna, PBS) Looking into the number of jobs that will be created TRP claimed the project would create 13,000 jobs. However only 3,900 workers for a year are actually needed to build the pipeline and only 35 permanent positions will be created. In terms of creating jobs for people, it will not benefit many in the end with the 35 permanent positions being technician occupations. (Isidore, CNN) In terms of Duty/rights ethics, the pipeline has been shown to potentially violate the rights of Native Americans by its mere construction. Since the pipe will be crossing reservation territories without the permission of the respective territories, the pipeline’s construction violates their autonomy as an independent nation. This suggests under this method of ethics that the current project plans should not go forward until permission is obtained or the pipeline is moved to another area. (Peeples, Huffington Post) From a virtue aspect, it is difficult to make a descision as it depends on someone’s personal beliefs as to what is morally right. For example, some may say it is a moral right to capitalize on resources while another could say it is immoral. Similarly, they are creating jobs for construction and drawing business with the oil workers to towns along the pipeline, which could go in favor of the pipeline’s construction. One could say in contrast, that being dishonest about the number of jobs made available and building in someone else’s land without their permission is deceitful and insolent which could suggest not moving with the project.