Should Companies Dump their Wastes in Poor Countries?

Business Ethics
Case Study Presentation
By: Seth White
It will be best if the pollution is shipped to another country where its health effects will have
the lowest cost. The costs of "health impairing pollution" depend on the wages lost when
pollution makes people sick or kills them. So the country with the lowest wages will be the
country where the health effect of pollution will be the lowest.
Adding more pollution to an environment that already highly polluted makes for worse health
effects, than putting pollution in a clean environment where it can disperse. So this can
reduce harm pollution in highly polluted cities like Los Angeles. This will make better use of
those countries' clean air quality which we now are using inefficiently.
Pollution will cause more harm in a country with long life-spans, than a country where people
die young. Pollution will be more likely to cause diseases in countries with longer life-spans.
So by dumping in poor countries this will cut down on diseases in rich countries.
The wealthy are willing to pay more for cleaner looking air than the poor. So poor countries
should be willing to take money for their clean air. This kind of trade will be "welfare
enhancing" for both parties.
Would the World's Welfare benefit from rich countries dumping their waste in poor countries,
or is this hurting the development of these countries, and causing illnesses or death to its
population?
Weighing out the Options against and for the Dumping of Wastes in Poor Countries
Mill's Utilitarianism
The utilitarian view is goodness for the greatest. Which means that everybody should not kill,
not steal, and be the best person they can be. So i believe the view of a Utilitarian in this case
would be to not dump these wastes that could be potential pollutants for poor countries. They
would think this, because if these countries are polluted it could harm or kill the people
inhabiting them, and that would be against their moral rights.
Summary of the Case
E-Waste
Electronic waste, e-waste, e-scrap, or Electronic-disposal, are waste consisting of electronic
equipment which is discarded in impoverish countries such as Africa like this video will
show.
Ethical Concern
Is it morally right to dump our waste in other countries, looking at the consequences it could
cause for that country?
In what ways will this country be effected, and is it better to cause this country to have
pollution or ours?

Virtue Ethics
People who have virtue ethics would not dump their waste in poor countries, because it is
there thought to be compassionate and generous. If they were to dump these wastes in poor
countries it could harm or kill the people of that country, which would go against their moral
rights.

Kant's Deontology
Categorical Imperative #1
Kantian's who follow this imperative would not dump waste in poor countries, because there
is a treaty that goes against the dumping of waste in poor countries. Kantian's who follow this
imperative act according to rules, so therefore a treaty is like a rule. That is why they would
not dump waste in poor countries.
Categorical Imperative #2
Kantian's who follow this imperative would dump waste in poor countries, because their
thought is to treat humans as and end. Never merely as a means. So when it comes to their
thoughts they are only in it to please themselves, so if it means to pollute a poor country to
have cleaner air and less diseases in their country then they would dump waste in poor
countries.
The relationship in this case is between rich countries and poor countries. Ethics of care is a
duty-based ethics, which means that someone does something based on the "Good Will", not
for any outside motives. So a country that would follow ethics of care would not dump their
waste in a poor country, because it is a good will act that has no ulterior motive to persuade it
to happen. This could be argued, because if the country only doesn't dump its waste because
of the treaty against it, and there was a consequence against them dumping their waste in a
poor country. It would be different, and not considered an ethic of care.
I believe Rawl's principles would promote not dumping in poor countries, because the
original position states how everyone should have the same equal amount of liberty, and if
rich countries were to dump in poor countries that is taking about from the poor countries
equal liberty. It is also taking away from their equal opportunity to grow and expand as a
country since many of its peoples will fall ill or die, because of the dumping of wastes.
Rawl's Principles of Distributive Justice
Ethics of Care
At first when this problem of dumping arose it was not a problem, it is now a huge hazardous
waste problem in the developing world, contaminating water supplies and land with toxic
heavy metals, dioxins, PCBs and acids, and putting some of the worlds poorest populations
at great risk.

Summary #1 Against Dumping

Backing up Summary #1
The fact that when it gets in the water supply it can harm wildlife that lives in the water,
which could be a food source for many people in these areas. It is also a struggle for many to
find clean water in these poverty areas as is, so with the added pollution it will be even harder
for people to find good clean drinking water.
Many of these areas are already heavily diseased areas, and with all the pollutants that this
waste will bring it will increase the chances of these people receiving these disease that can
cause illness or death.
Backing up Summary #1
The Basel Convention which has been ratified by 158 countries as of February 2004 came
into effect in May 1992. This global treaty prohibits exporting hazardous waste to countries
that lack the technical, administrative and legal capability to manage the waste in an
environmentally-safe manner. The treaty establishes procedures for notifying the importing
countries about the elements of the hazardous waste and the risks involved.
Even though I state more reasons why it would be beneficial to dump waste in poor countries
I stand behind the fact that we should not dump in these countries. I believe this, because my
morals can not bring me past the fact that even though moving the waste to these countries
cuts down on how much our country is polluted, and benefits us. It is polluting someone
else's country and harming their people. So my view would be the view of a Utilitarian.
Hazardous Waste is the inevitable by-product of industrial development and several
manufacturing processes. If improperly managed, these wastes may result in substantial
adverse human health and environmental effects.
DEUTSCH PORTUGUS FRANAIS MAGYAR ITALIANO