When you hear "Nestle" what do you first think of?

Tuesday, November 14, 2017

4 - Frameworks for different Viewpoints

Frameworks for different viewpoints: How different shareholders see it as ethical or unethical.

In order to analyze whether Nestle's actions could be considered ethical I'm going to look at this using the ethical frameworks provided in class, and I'm going to try to frame it from the people's point of view, including stakeholders such as landowners, people who use water, and environmentalists. I am also going to look at this from the point of view of Nestle, and it's shareholders.

People, environmentalists, locals

From the point of view of the people outside Nestle, while using the teleological framework, Nestle's actions would be seen as unethical.

If viewing Nestle's water extraction while being consequential-ist people would be concerned with the long term environmental consequences of extracting water. They would focus on the consequences of  Nestle's actions such depleted aquifers, damaged ecosystems, and monopolies over water, which would show these actions to be unethical.

To look at it from a utilitarian standpoint, they might also see that while Nestle's water extractions are benefiting the few, those who work for Nestle, its actually hurting the majority due to the environmental impacts and the water removed that can only be used by Nestle unless paid for.

If considering ethical egoism, locals would believe that them having their own water for their own use would benefit themselves, as is in their own best interests, as long as by keeping it to themselves they are not harming anyone else.

Nestle 

From the point of view of Nestle and it's shareholders, while using the deontological framework, Nestle's actions could be seen as ethical.

Considering it from a rule-based standpoint, Nestle is usually not doing anything technically illegal. Even in the case of the San Bernardino National Forest Nestle is paying the annual fee for not having a valid permit.

Right and wrong would be based on their own perceptions of right and wrong. Nestle would likely see that as a business, the right thing to do, as well as what is their duty, is to grow as a business, to provide their product (water bottles) and to make money for their shareholders, and so by extracting such large amounts of water they are doing their duty. 

If looking at only the actions, and not the consequences, in being non-consequentialist, Nestle would only see that they are performing actions necessary to run their business, and are providing a service to people be selling them water bottles, while not looking into the environmental consequences.

Similar to this, Nestle could claim that they have good will, because they are providing a good for people, the water bottles they sell. Because their actions are with good will, they are good. 





8 comments:

  1. I agree with people view through the teleological framework. However, i think a big part of deontology is the idea of "can this be made universal". So, if nestle looked at this through a deontological viewpoint and asked "should this be a global practice?", I think most would say no.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ach, you're right. I completely missed that part of deontology.

      I don't believe Nestle would personally care if their practices could be made universal, because they rather be the only ones doing them so they don't have viable competitors.

      "should this be a global practice?"
      By this perspective, I think Nestle would also say no.

      Delete
  2. I agree as well that Nestle is clearly unethical through a teleological framework. The deontological framework perspective is tricky. Yes, they should follow their duty, but duty to what exactly? To themselves? To the environment? To the people? If they are following their duty to themselves to grow their company, then yes they are being ethical and taking any measure necessary. If they are following their duty to the environment, then no they are definitely not being ethical. Lastly, if they are following their duty to the people, I would argue that they are not being ethical. They are providing a good for the people with the water bottles they provide, but they are selling them to people who shouldn't have to purchase them in the first place. Nestle illegally extracted so much water from the California lands, which could have had an affect on the natural cycle and people's own supply of water. It's like taking candy from a child and selling it back to him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Their duty as a company to themselves and their shareholders to survive, grow, and make money.

      It's not so much taking candy from a child, it's taking a necessary resource for survival from a child, but Nestle is no stranger to harming children.

      Delete
  3. I agree with your utilitarian viewpoint I came to the same conclusion as you. However, most people don't purposelessly want to be evil. So therefore they probably dont see themselves as evil. What is probably going through their head is "We are providing water to people all over the world who dont have access to clean water." It's just something to consider when trying to fix the problem.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes! From Nestle's point of view they are able to justify their actions as ethical, that is what makes this an ethical dilemma.

      Delete
  4. The teleological viewpoint brings great points to this ethical dilemma. Can we justify the actions of this company? Did they produced the greatest good for the greatest number of people? In the end, what this company is doing produces more harm than good. We can see effects taking place now and things can only get worse if changes aren't made.

    ReplyDelete