Bhopal Ethical Theories

In almost every aspect, people are put into situations which test one’s ethical practices and beliefs. Everyone has their own point of view on how to react in a certain situation, but some events are more complicated to differentiate. For example, in the city of Bhopal in Central India, thousands were affected and even killed due to a local plant’s carelessness. There are several principled based approaches that explain whether ethical practices took place in Bhopal, as well as instrumental and rule approaches, but due to several reasons, principle theories are much more preferred over the others. Ethical theories stem into many different ideas about whether certain actions are right/wrong and how so. The textbook “Ethics and Business” by

One of the first principle based approaches discussed is called utilitarianism. Gibson describes it as “The significant element of an act is the amount of good or evil it produces” (Gibson 30). In this ethical idea, actions are right as long as it promotes the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Going back to the Bhopal incident, a utilitarianist would respond in a way of disgust considering the thousands that had been killed, versus the number of workers that kept the severity of the situation at hand a secret for their own welfare. Another approach is the ethical theory of deontology, which is the opposite of utilitarianism. Deontology focuses on whether an action is right or wrong, with no in-betweens or gray areas. In this specific situation, the act of killing anybody is automatically unacceptable no matter what circumstances could be considered at

I believe the most helpful of all of the ethical theories is utilitarianism because it is the most selfless morality concept, which I believe is important in a person’s day to day life. If more people are involved, it becomes more of an issue due to the fact that the consequences get larger. If less people could be involved, I believe it would be the most ethical because minimal people would be hurt. However, any of the principle based approaches are better than the rule and instrumental approaches due to the fact that they are solely based on the actions, not on economic value or a pre-determined rule book that is complicated or hard to change. There are several flaws in the law based approach which push me toward a viewpoint of a principal ethics code. Gibson also states a downfall in the rule based approach which is “…society would be deluged by lawmakers, regulators, and compliance officers, and a court system to adjudicate and punish” (Gibson 10). Other flaws include that there is no way of covering all scenarios, laws are overly specific, and some laws may be unjust. When it comes to an instrumental approach, morality seems shallow in a sense that economics is all that is to be concerned about. I truly believe that morals should be demonstrated through actions and how they affect other people, not on