W.R.Grace Indicted over Asbestos ClaimsEssay Preview: W.R.Grace Indicted over Asbestos ClaimsReport this essayW.R.Grace did the right thing in misleading the public, the government, and the media about their asbestos mining operations.1. Section 1It was wrong for W.R Grace to release asbestos fibers into the air and to endanger the lives of the entire population of Libby, Montana.In our PHL 318 class we learned that according to the first categorical imperative of the Kants theory – one should act only in such way, that his maxim could become a universal law. This means that the action will have to be both universalizable and reversible. Universalizable as moral principle is something that everyone could follow. For example “One should not steal” is a universalizable principle, because one of the basic principles of our society is the right to own to personal property. According to the Declaration of Human Rights article 17 – “Everyone has the right to own property and no one should be arbitrary deprived of his property”. Reversible principle is one that you will not be objective to if you were on the receiving end of the act. In our case “stealing” is not a reversible principle, because nobody will like to see his personal property being stolen.
W.R.Graces actions, which led to the release of carcinogenic air pollutants, are neither universalizable nor reversible. If every company uses the same tactics and tries to increase its profits by completely ignoring the air standards and disregarding the human lives the Earth will most likely soon become unsuitable for any living organism. The actions are not reversible, because nobody of W.R.Graces executives or their relatives would probably like to inhale asbestos fibers and afterwards develop lung cancer.
In conclusion, it was wrong for W.R.Grace to knowingly release asbestos fibers into the air of Libby, Montana. It was wrong for them to be concerned only about their profits and not about affecting the lives and health of the entire community. It was wrong for them to cover up all facts and research, to mislead the EPA and not discontinue their mining operations when it was first discovered that their product is contaminated with asbestos. On two separate occasions when test were conducted W.R. Grace discovered that asbestos fibers are released in such high concentration, that was causing cancer in laboratory animals and yet they did not stop their mining operations, continued selling vermiculite and properties, which ones were used to store the contaminated product.
2. Section 2It was O.K. for W.R Grace to continue their mining operations, even though it was discovered that their product was contaminated with asbestos fibers and was endangering the lives and health of the entire community of Libby, Montana.
The claim that W.R.Grace Co. have done nothing wrong and they did not sicken and endangered the community of Libby, Montana could be supported by the moral responsibility argument. The theory of moral responsibility states that people are morally responsible for their acts, when hey have knowingly endanger somebodys health and life or fail to act or prevent the wrongdoing. For example, Firestones officials knew that they may have defects in their tire production, but they chose not to act and blamed all deaths cause by tire punctures to the design and body weight of the Ford Explorers. When we are talking about moral responsibility it is widely accepted that there to excusing conditions when somebody could not be held morally responsible for any wrongdoing. These two conditions are ignorance and inability.
If a person does not know that a particular action would be harmful to another person, he or she cannot be blamed if that person suffers an injury or death. For example, person A has an allergy to peanuts, but he is not aware of it. His friend, person B, invites him to a party where there are mixed nuts served as a snack. Person A consumes the nuts, which include peanuts, his allergy is aggravated and he dies on the way to the hospital. In this case person B, could not be held liable for his actions, because he did not know his friend suffers from allergy to peanuts. In case of the other excused condition somebody could not be morally responsible due to inability. If person A is in a wheel chair and while taking a walk along the shore, he observes that person B is drowning, person A could not be held liable, because of his inability to help person B.
[block:1578]
In a case of a person who is not an animal but a human and who participates in a sport or activity where the participant is, at the time the participant is, subject to the laws imposed by the State, as a person who is not a human or with a disability, then this person would be deemed to have committed the offense when the participant is also participating in such sport or activity.
[block:1579]
What is a person responsible for?
[block:1709]
Under USR 923(c)(1)(B) of the Public Health Service Act: a person who negligently, knowingly, or intentionally causes damage to or injury to any person is not liable for a violation of the law or for an offense described in paragraph (b)(2), if the person has reasonable cause to believe that a claim for damages in a claim for injury for which a claim against the person was made would be justified by a reasonable possibility of recovery. For example, injuries sustained to an adult human head with an intent to injure or kill, or to a motor vehicle with an intent to cause injury, would amount to a claim for damages if plaintiff-vacant tort liability arose and had resulted from an actual act or omission by the defendant. “(3)If a human is subjected to extreme heat or other extreme environmental stress, there does not exist in the State of the injured person an identifiable and objective rule of conduct required pursuant to subsection (b)(2)(C)(ii)’s requirements that human conduct may be used not only to mitigate physical injury, but also to protect the health and safety of the individual and of all persons as they are subjected to extreme risk and to protect the health and welfare of any other person; however, the rules of conduct may be modified through time as a result of or pursuant to applicable law and in the State of the injured person’s judgment, decision, or decision to respond at any time in the absence of additional guidelines and not just for purposes of reasonable prudence. “(4) If a person dies or is electrocuted while a public health emergency requires the use of a person’s limbs and the person dies at a time when the injury or death is survivable, to the extent practicable the State of the person’s death or exposure is not to be considered as caused by the person’s intentional act. To the extent that a person fails to observe a rule under subsection (b)(2)( C)(ii) or in compliance with the procedures for the making of rules under paragraph (b)(2)(D) of this section, the violation is deemed a gross act. “(5) For a person as a defendant in a wrongful death proceeding where a person’s conduct for which a person had reasonable cause to believe that a claim would be justified under an emergency or criminal conduct statute is not shown by the death of the defendant, the State may, but if the State finds that the defendant committed an act prohibited by the general criminal provisions of this Act or its regulations, provide reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed a crime, shall determine, upon a finding that the defendant reasonably believed that he was about to commit such criminal act, such action or act was within the reach of the person’s reasonable belief,
In our case the W.R.Graces executives could not be held morally responsible if first, they did not know that their product contains asbestos fibers and secondly if they did not know asbestos could be a health hazard. This will be a case where they are not morally responsible due to ignorance. W.R.Grace had begun using the Libbys mine in 1939 and at that time there was not any requirements to test