Moral Considerations of Dumping Products Overseas Violating U.S. Law
◦Case 1.1, Chapter 1, Question 4 (pp. 37-39): Made in the U.S.A.-Dumped in Brazil, Africa, Iraq... 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?
Companies within the United States have developed products that have been found to be hazardous: cause liver cancer, birth defects, tubular births, stunted growth, etc. The FDA has found these products to be harmful, thus banning the sale of these items in the U.S. Because countries don’t have the same regulatory systems that the U.S. has in place, these banned products are ship and sold overseas. After reading the case study, I find that although dumping is not illegal, it is an immoral act. The case suggests that the United States takes on a moral obligation of informing the State Department and countries of the banned products. I believe that ethics, in this case, is not a major factor because manufacturers are motivated by profit and reframing from loss of revenue.
The U.S states that “No country should establish itself as the arbiter of others’ health and safety standards. Individual governments are generally in the best position to establish standards of public health and safety.” Because of this statement and belief system, morals considerations are irrelevant. Although our laws have made the sale of banned products in the U.S. illegal, why is it legal for the U.S. to sale banned products to other countries. Some pesticides, for example, have been banned but dumped into countries with whom we have agricultural trade with. If these harmful products were to find themselves back in the U.S, what would be the point of banning the product?
◦Case 1.2, Chapter 1, Question 4 (pp. 40-43): The A7D Affair. Do you think Vandivier was wrong to work up the qualification report? Explain the moral principle or principles that underlie your judgment.
Consequentialism is the class of
Companies within the United States have developed products that have been found to be hazardous: cause liver cancer, birth defects, tubular births, stunted growth, etc. The FDA has found these products to be harmful, thus banning the sale of these items in the U.S. Because countries don’t have the same regulatory systems that the U.S. has in place, these banned products are ship and sold overseas. After reading the case study, I find that although dumping is not illegal, it is an immoral act. The case suggests that the United States takes on a moral obligation of informing the State Department and countries of the banned products. I believe that ethics, in this case, is not a major factor because manufacturers are motivated by profit and reframing from loss of revenue.
The U.S states that “No country should establish itself as the arbiter of others’ health and safety standards. Individual governments are generally in the best position to establish standards of public health and safety.” Because of this statement and belief system, morals considerations are irrelevant. Although our laws have made the sale of banned products in the U.S. illegal, why is it legal for the U.S. to sale banned products to other countries. Some pesticides, for example, have been banned but dumped into countries with whom we have agricultural trade with. If these harmful products were to find themselves back in the U.S, what would be the point of banning the product?
◦Case 1.2, Chapter 1, Question 4 (pp. 40-43): The A7D Affair. Do you think Vandivier was wrong to work up the qualification report? Explain the moral principle or principles that underlie your judgment.
Consequentialism is the class of