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.
When using the basis of Consequntialism, I would not let the truth of the matter come to see the light of day because then everything would blow out of proportion. Because Consequentialism is making decisions when thinking about the consequences, this would mean that if I choose to put pressure on the company that there is a greater chance that the pipe can break when it is
being replaced. By keeping the information to myself with proof that the pipe is being maintained correctly, then nothing serious would happen. The perspective of consequentialism focuses solely on the consequences of a decision you make. For the scenario, I personally don't think that a Consequentialist could morally go to the press with the information if they knew that something far worse could happen by doing so.