Q1. What are the ethical issues in this case? In the case it has been said the company was clearing out the oil spill physical effects. But the company was not looking at the impact it had on the people and their lives. Also it was saying that it will make good the loss suffered by the people. But then it was not looking into the mental stress and trauma which the people were facing, whose life had been affected. Thus the ethical dilemma can be said to exist that the company is only looking at the physical damage and not the psychological damage of the people. Q2. Who are the stakeholders and how are they impacted by this situation? In this situation, the stakeholders are the company’s share holders, creditors, the people affected by the oil …show more content…
Do you agree with Feinberg’s assertion that “you have to draw the line somewhere?” I totally agree with Feinberg’s assertion that “you have to draw the line somewhere”. But the situation here requires the company to morally act rather than think rationally. This is because, if they act rationally and not morally, then it would go against the image of the company. Thus in this case I agree that the line has to be drawn at humanity and not at rationality. If the company would have spent a little more to make good the psychological loss of the people, the situation would not have been hiked to this great an extent. Q4. Do you agree with Feinberg’s decision rule? His expectation is that there be a signature physical injury is consistent with tort law. Does that affect your answer? I do not agree with Feinberg’s decision rule that there has to be a physical injury in order to get compensation. Yes, I do agree that if that was not there, every individual would come and ask for compensation. But he could have asked for something like a doctor’s certification to show that the person is mentally unstable. Thus his idea was right, but the way he had implemented it was not right. He could be rational, but with a little more human thought, it could be