NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Asbestos is a mineral fiber that has many uses. It can still be found in many types of building materials and insulation products, as well as in chemical filters and brake linings. The actual fiber is so small that it can only be positively identified with a special type of microscope. Unfortunately, it has been determined that breathing high levels of asbestos can lead to lung cancer, a chronic lung inflammation called asbestosis, or a cancer of the chest lining called mesothelioma. Attacks on early asbestos producers and those who knew of its health risks. Although many valid points are raised against asbestos manufacturer, one must delve deeper than the surface issues to make a complete and just decision.
An examination of the history of asbestos manufacturing and health hazards, using contrasting ethical theories, justifies the actions of early asbestos manufacturers As early as 1932, the dangers of asbestos were known by the industry that produced it. It was in this year that the British first documented the occupational hazards of asbestos dust inhalation. In 1935, there was correspondence between the editor of the trade journal Asbestos and Summer Simpson, president of Raybestos-Manhattan. This correspondence consisted of the editor asking permission to print an article about the dangers of asbestos inhalation. Written on September 25, 1935, the message read, You have requested that for certain obvious reasons we publish nothing [about the health hazards of asbestos], and naturally your wishes have been respected... By this time, your objections to publicity on this subject have been eliminated and we would like very much to review the whole matter in "Asbestos." A discussion of [the health hazards of asbestos] along the right lines would serve to combat some of the rather undesirable publicity. (2) On October 1, 1935, Simpson replied "As I see it personally, we would be just as well off to say nothing about it...
I think the less said about asbestos the better we are... " (2) This showed that Simpson was trying to protect his business interests and by using his influence, was coaxing the editor to cover up these important findings. Two days later, the editor replied, saying, "I quite agree with you that our interests are best served by having asbestosis receive the minimum of publicity. " (2) This agreement was significant because it led to more and more facts being buried, all of which exhibited the dangers of asbestos. Simpson also worked with Vandivar Brown, secretary of Johns-Manville, another asbestos company. They tried, and succeeded, in getting a researcher to depict asbestosis as a milder condition then silicosis, in order to keep it off the list of compensable diseases on the then-pending Workmen's Compensation law. Anthony Lanza, the man who submitted the findings, complied and also omitted from his published report that more then half of the workers examined - 67 of 126 - were suffering from asbestosis. (1) There are many possible ways to approach the behavior of Simpson and Brown. Most readers would be caught aghast at the dialogue between these asbestos producers.
I, however, turn to reason instead of emotions. In my opinion, they simply did what was in their best interest. They were merely applying the views and theory expressed by Niccolo Machiavelli. His stance on ethics states that the ends justify the means.
In asbestos case, Simpson and Brown felt that they needed to do whatever they had to in order to accomplish the ends that were desired; profits. In his book, The Prince, which was originally written as advice to princes, Machiavelli suggested a view as to how and why - what we might regard as hypocrisy, harshness, deceit, and ruthlessness in governance - occurs naturally. (3) As such, his views offer us powerful and justly radical sense of ethics in relation to the natural flow of powerful. One of the points raised by Machiavellianism specifically relates to the situation that Simpson and Brown faced. Machiavelli speaks to the following: To the Prince being ready to do wrong with cunning or forceful action -- when the situation demands. Hypocrisy is also a companion - appearing moral in the public eye. A power balance requires being wary of plots and subversion internally whilst maintaining the loyalty of powerful groups.
In particular [ I tell ] the Prince to not injure any close servant who may be able to enact revenge subsequently. (3) Clearly, the wisdom in his words shines through in this brilliant example, which addresses the means to natural power. Covering up the dangers of asbestos was the right thing to do. It allowed asbestos companies to remain successful, even though it meant sacrificing some of their employees health. However, the health of the employees is of no concern under Machaivellian ethics because they entertained no fear of revenge from the employees. The fact that asbestosis was not covered under Workmen's compensation kept the workers from having a leg to stand on if they chose to seek revenge. The fact that Simpson and Brown had the editor of Asbestos, the doctors, and the researchers, on their side eliminated almost any possible subversion that could hurt the companys success.
The decision to not put caution labels on their products was wise since it made the companys products look safe in the public eye. What they dont know wont hurt them, is a socially acceptable and familiar saying that supports the decision. The omission was also a business decision because the company had to look out for its stockholders interests, and the application of such a label would have decreased sales. A legitimate Machiavellian view that one of the stockholders might have had is that as long as the company is going to continue making money, who cares how they are doing it? The stockholder would only be interested on the returns the stock produces. In the view of Machiavelli's ethical outlook, had Simpson and Brown considered the possible consequences of their decision, they would have been in fault.
Machiavelli would say that People must either be treated well (if their less than grave injuries led them to seek revenge) or crushed. A prince must take harsh action to ensure that there is no fear of revenge. (3) So actually, had they considered the possibility that their conduct may later come back to haunt them, they were required to have done something to ensure that this was not possible. One way that they could have done this would have been by writing, into the workers contracts, a stipulation that prevented the workers from later coming back and suing the company. This would, in essence, have crushed the workers, providing for no possibility of revenge in the form of future lawsuits.
There are, of course, those who denounce the asbestos manufacturers by using an emotion-based logic and naive form of rhetoric. These critics rely on the blind and insensible theories presented by John Stuart Mill. In Mills theory of utilitarianism, or happiness theory, he says that utility or the greatest happiness principle is the basis of ethical behavior. Mill would have his tree-hugging followers believe that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. (4) Happiness is considered to be pleasure in the absence of pain, and unhappiness is pain with the absence of pleasure. What he fails to exclude is the harsh reality of life and the unavoidable pain that must ultimately lead superior and naturally selected beings to power. Mill goes on to state that all desirable things are desirable either for pleasure inherent in themselves or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain. (4) According to this philosophy, the companies were wrong to hide the dangers of asbestos from its workers.
Although the doctor, along with Simpson and Brown, may have felt that they were keeping the workers happy, the pain they were causing far outweighed the contentment they felt. This is nonsense. The doctor and those in charge were entitled to their pleasure an success no matter what the cost might be to those inferior to them. The feelings of the doctor were that as long as the men are not disabled from asbestosis, they were feeling well, happy at home, and in good physical condition. These men should not have been told of their condition because their condition was irreversible, and, being notified, they would have not spread as much cheer if they knew early on that they were dying.
Looking at the short term scenario, this was an optimal solution that made everybody happy. However, according to Mills own theory, it did cause more pain but not in the sense critics would have one believe. It was not considered by Simpson and Brown that, in the future, the ill effects of asbestos exposure could come back and bite them where it hurt the most; in the wallet. Had they reasoned that they could be sued and their reputations damaged, they would have had to look at the long term effects of asbestos exposure or another way of eliminating future litigation. Had they done this and realized that it would cause more pain then pleasure for all involved in the long run, they would have thought twice about hiding their findings. Unfortunately, they did not do this, and as a result, according to Mills theory, their financial loss was the true horrific tragedy.
Amid those crying for the asbestos workers rights, another group of those who suffered are being drowned out; the stockholders. Those using Mills theories denounce the heads of asbestos factories, fail to apply their support to those stockholders who suffered tragic pain, both financially and emotionally. The average of 500 lawsuits frivolous and petty law-suits a month in 1982 destroyed some companies by approximately $ 616, 000 a case. Furthermore, $ 2. 5 billion was paid out of stockholders trust funds. Imagine, for a moment, pain this action caused. To those who would use Mills theory, I ask simple question.
Can you feel the pain of the children whose food was reduced to salad scraps and chicken bones? Can you imagine the pain suffered by the wife of a stockholder when she realizes there will not be a holly-jolly Christmas this year? Yes, this is where the real pain occurred, in the pockets of those in power. An examination of the history of asbestos manufacturing and health hazards, using contrasting ethical theories, has justified the actions of early asbestos manufacturers.
Regardless of the theory one uses, the same conclusion can be drawn. Society must stop bending and shifting ethics to the will of its emotions. We cannot cry it is wrong to kill the victim and watch with saliva, and panting as the mentally anguished murderer is fried by a machine labeled by bigots as justice. Those condemned few in charge of introducing the benefits of asbestos to the world cannot be consoled. The best we can hope for is to work towards a world where our children are judged by reason and justice and where the hypocrites within this world are condemned by their own incredulity.
Bibliography: Bibliography Scott Jr. , David F. , et al. Basic Financial Management. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall 1999 Worthington, Roger G. , Manville/Raybestos Manhattan 1996 n. pag. Online.
Internet. Jarvis, Chris, Niccolo Machiavelli 1469 - 1527 1998 n. pag. Online.
Internet. 19 October 1998 Winter grove-Haugland, Erik, Morals and Ethics: Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill, New York: McGraw-Hill
Free research essays on topics related to: seek revenge, john stuart mill, health hazards, niccolo machiavelli, ethical theories
Research essay sample on John Stuart Mill Niccolo Machiavelli
