My discussion for the Case1-2 Cruise Ships and the Disposal of Waste at Sea is presented below. 1.

The companies that own the cruise ships can cut the cost of nonhuman waste storage, treatment cost of such waste, space for waste storage, etc. The stakeholders of the company including the shareholders, executives, staff, and so forth will enjoy the benefits of the policy. The customers enjoy relatively inexpensive vacation since they are not charged very high to make up for the waste-dumping costs. People living on the coast of which the sea cruise ships dump waste at are enjoying the trading of souvenirs, gifts, and clothing to tourists. All these people will probably be benefited from the present “dump at sea” policy. 2. The waste dumped at sea will pollute the sea of the inland nations, causing harm to the sea creatures. Therefore, the residents and fishermen will probably be harmed from continuing the present “dump at sea” policy. 3. The right of the cruise company doing business without any proof of harm to anybody will be exercise by continuing the present “dump at sea” policy. The customers’ right of enjoying economical vacations will also be exercise. 4. The right of the local residents and fishermen of the coastal areas to enjoy the fresh sea and benefit from the healthy sea creatures living in their area is ignored. 5. The method to determine fairness is “to consider what would be the balance of right vs. wrong if everyone within the society considered what regulations should be adopted while ignorant of his or her own self-interest” (Hosmer, 2008, p.12). In case (1), it is not right that a group of people benefit from a policy that harms other groups of people for a very long time. We know that once the environment is polluted, especially when the sea is polluted, it is very difficult to take the environment back to the original condition. It also take time and money to fight pollution. We also know that the sea pollution can disperse quickly and those who will be harm by such pollution will increase in number. Therefore, the vacation cruise lines should not continue to dump gray water wastes at sea. In case (2), the vacation cruise lines can continue to dump gray water wastes at sea but not within the sea boundaries of the island nations. This is because the cruise ships must respect and obey the law of the island nations once they are in the official areas of such nations. 6. According to Hosmer (2008), the economic outcomes refer to “the net balance of benefits over costs for the full society” (p. 10). In this case, the economic benefits are the cost saving from redesigning the physical layout of the ships for storing waste, the cost of waste treatment, the cost of saving pace of staff and

according to Hosmer (2008). get a mutual understanding and agree on a solution. Concealing information is also “wrong” in that it provides Vioxx advantage over its competitive drugs on which safety profile is clearly stated. it is necessary to consider the potential cost in terms of pollution treatment and the costs of the consequences imposed on the native peoples of the island nations without their consent. Consumers had the right to protect their health.customers for waste storage. It was “wrong” to conceal the information about the danger of the drug that directly affects consumers’ health. etc. The solution might be reducing the percentage of waste dumped at sea or completely stop dumping such waste. it was “wrong” of the corporation not to state the truth about the risk associated with the drug. I see the shortterm benefits are large. 8. It was “right” for the company to sell the product as it was officially approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Ethical duties. However. the long-term consequences are also enormous. As I see it. “are a method of moral analysis that attempts to provide a set of rules as to what would be in the interest of society under all conditions and/or situations” (p. In this case. It was “right” for the company to produce a drug that can help people fight diseases. It was “right” for the company to advertise and market its product in the free market. the parties involved in this situation should evaluate the benefits and harms. which is usually defined as three miles from the nearest point of land. 7. There are hundreds of drugs on the market that carry side effects. If the ships go beyond the sea of the island nation. The customers enjoy the 15% to 20% off the price compared with the price when no more waste is dumped at sea. 11). p. “The legal requirements in moral analysis refer to the laws adopted by members of society to regulate the behavior of member of that society” (Hosmer. Within the official boundaries of the island nations. such an action does not comply with the standard of fairness. The side effects of Vioxx showed in at least 18 months taking the drug. considering the balance between benefits for some people within the society and harms for other that will result in an overall improvement for the full society. the world maritime laws should take precedence. the island nation laws should take precedence. However. . They had the right to acknowledge safety information. This period was long enough for someone to switch to another alternative. Thus. However. Discuss 2 The situation is very sensitive. 13). 2008.

. the selling of the drug was right.In this case. but concealing the information about the safety problems.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful