Consider the following moral dilemma:

You are a surveyor for an oil company. You took this job to protect the wildlife and make sure that the companies stay up to code for the good of the environment. One day, while surveying a line running across the bottom of a lake, you discover that the company was grossly neglected to care for the line. It was supposed to be replaced twenty years ago, and could crack at any time releasing enough oil to pollute the entire lake, killing half of the wildlife. Your boss assures you that it is being properly maintained, even though it hasn’t been replaced. They have an entire team monitoring it 24/7 and they have maintenance done at least once a month. He even introduces you to the maintenance team and you see their work logs. Now, you know that maintenance can only go so far, and that the line really does need to be replaced, but that would mean dangerous work and a complicated replacement that has a risky potential to rupture the existing

---

---

line. Your company knows this and won’t take the risk to replace the line. You can either accept of this decision, or you can go to the press about it to put pressure on the company to replace the line, which will incite a huge uproar from the environmentalists and they will blow the situation out of proportion for their cause.

Choose between reporting the issue to the press or keeping things to yourself and your company. Justify your answer using one of the moral dilemma's discussed in 2.2 and 3.1

Make sure to post, then reply to another student's post. Use proper grammar.

student reply

I would be slightly apprehensive only because of the risk associated with replacing the line could possibly rupture it, but in the end I would report my findings to the press. If it was my job to protect the wildlife, I would stand by my duties. Not only because it was my job but my moral obligation to the wildlife that cannot do anything to protect themselves. Yes,

---

---

there is risk with replacing the line, but the risk of the line breaking and harming the wildlife outweighs the dangers and risks of replacing the line. I can most associate this with Consequentialism because I am going for the result that benefits the most in the end. I am trying to prevent pain and harm to the animals, and am even putting myself at risk of being hated by the company by reporting them to the press. 

---

Question Field