A few days ago, I blogged about the notion of ?ethical oil?. That?s the label one advocacy group is applying to oil from Canada?s oilsands, to distinguish it from oil from Saudi Arabia, a country with a less-than-admirable human rights record. That, of course, is a gross oversimplification.
But it?s still an interesting ethical issue. I said,
In principle, we could look at this as a matter of ?choose your poison.? Do you want the oil that?s associated with human rights violations, or the oil that?s associated with environmental destruction?
It?s important to point out that there are two reasons this is a false dilemma. One is that consumers don?t actually get to choose: oil isn?t labeled by country of origin. The other reason is that neither of the nations named above is perfect, from a social and human rights point of view; nor is either country perfect from the point of view of environmental protection.
But it?s a philosophical thought-experiment worth conducting. So, let?s imagine: you?re driving your car, and your tank is near empty. You?re at an intersection with two gas stations. One is the Saudi brand and the other is the oilsands brand. Which one would you choose?
(Again, I do realize this is a gross oversimplification. It?s not a real choice. It?s a thought-experiment to get you to think about the relative value of the environment and human rights. Let?s all be thankful it?s not a choice we actually have to make.)
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.
Source: http://businessethicsblog.com/2011/09/30/oil-poll-human-rights-or-environment/
anderson silva atlantic beach nc atlantic beach nc nags head nc philadelphia weather chael sonnen chael sonnen
No comments:
Post a Comment