writings
how to write essay
Question 1 - List the ethical issues
Always have (Issue) + (Moral Actor)
Potential Corruption by the governing family of Shalaomoon
Exploitation/Pollution of the environment of Shalaomoon by the local farmers of Shalaomoon.
Forced Relocation of the people in Teemunitur
Armed resistance by the Penyu People to the Empress of Teemunitur
Age/Gender Discrimination OR sexual harassment OR lack of proper workplace conditions during Employment of the Worcester People by the Manchimus People
Rights of the Caprusiem people to privacy violated by the JJQD government.
Deceptive advertising/Corruption/Misuse of funds by Company ABC.
More Issues
Corruption
Support for repressive governments
Exploitation of workers
Failure to ensure worker and community safety
Irreparable destruction of the environment
Suppression of Safety Concerns
Exploitations
Lack of transparency
Exploitation of trust
Suppression of information
Failure in due diligence
Neglect of stakeholder interests
Moral conflict / Ethical dissonance
Violation of professional duty
Short-term profit prioritization
Ethical blindness / Ethical fading
Absence of informed consent
Failure to justify ethical assumptions
Inequitable treatment
Lack of accountability
Systemic ethical failure
Complicity in harm
CSR
Corporate irresponsibility
Conflict of interest
Vicarious liability
Abuse of professional power
Disregard for CSR/ESG obligations
Stakeholder marginalization
Employment injustice (e.g., at-will exploitation)
Neglect of vocational responsibility
Failure to enforce codes of conduct
Deceptive marketing
Manipulative advertising
Lack of integrity in brand messaging
Omission of material risk
Failure to enable consensual exchange
Exploitation of vulnerable audiences
Distortion of consumer autonomy
Unethical promotion tactics
Marketing
Deceptive marketing
Manipulative advertising
Lack of integrity in brand messaging
Omission of material risk
Failure to enable consensual exchange
Exploitation of vulnerable audiences
Distortion of consumer autonomy
Unethical promotion tactics
Environment
Unsustainable resource use
Ecological harm beyond ecosystem thresholds
Neglect of environmental stakeholder interests
Violation of intergenerational justice
Instrumental view of nature
Anthropocentrism / Speciesism (Singer vs. Cohen)
Failure to integrate intrinsic environmental value
Lack of ecological accountability
General!
Violation of autonomy (Beauchamp & Childress)
Disregard for justice as fairness (Rawls)
Utilitarian bias at expense of rights
Libertarian neglect of social welfare
Meritocracy myth critique (Sandel)
Displacement of responsibility (systemic level)
Question 2 - Apply 2-3 of the most compelling ethical theories/frameworks to the ethical issues identified.
The issues that arise on the current set of facts are the ________________________
(State ethical issues)
I will first examine (ethical issue 1) through the use of the following ethical theories _____________,
(State ethical theories used)
3) then the (ethical issue 2) through the use of the ethical theories _____________________, to determine if their actions are ethical.
(State ethical theories used)
4) Ethical Issue 1 Part 1
Ethical Issue 1 [State] The family governing Shalaomoon is ultrarich, with accusations that their riches were obtained through corrupt practices. [Moving] With that, I will be delving into the 3 ethical theories to better analyse the ethicality of the situation
5) Ethical Issue 1 Part 2 [Transitional Phrases]
"While X emphasizes..., Y argues..."
"Unlike X, which is outcome-focused, Y is duty-based..."
"However, in this scenario, the assumptions behind X fall short..."
"Both X and Y would condemn this action, but for different reasons..."
[Theory 1] Based on their accusations of corruption, we can see that the family has violated the Principle of Just Acquisition as their wealth was likely unjustly obtained through their control. However, as Nozick's entitlement theory, there is no obligation for the rich to help the poor. While Nozick’s entitlement theory might superficially defend the governing family’s wealth, his argument rests on the assumption that the acquisition is just. Given the international media’s allegations of corruption, this assumption is questionable. Unlike Rawls, who prioritizes systemic fairness and distributive justice, or Kant, who assesses moral legitimacy through universal maxims, Nozick provides limited tools to critique systemic exploitation or misuse of political power. Therefore, in contexts involving potential corruption, Rawls and Kant offer more robust ethical evaluations.
[Theory 2] Through the lens of XX /Based on their actions, XX supports/ does not support it. . . . Although utilitarianism offers a pragmatic justification — maximizing well-being through economic development — both Buddhist and Islamic ethics highlight the intrinsic value of nature beyond human utility. Where utilitarianism measures outcomes, Buddhist and Islamic frameworks emphasize the moral duties we owe to non-human life. In doing so, they challenge anthropocentric assumptions and offer more ecologically sensitive perspectives. Ultimately, utilitarianism may justify short-term harm for long-term gain, but Buddhist and Islamic ethics remind us that some forms of harm — particularly to ecosystems and vulnerable species — may be morally indefensible, regardless of utility. [Mini Conclusion] By XXX,YYY,ZZ. this ethical issue is not ethical. ie. Although Nozick provides one possible justification, both Rawls and Kant clearly demonstrate that the governing family's actions, if corrupt and self-serving, are unethical. The imbalance of power, lack of transparency, and failure to benefit the least advantaged ultimately make the situation unjust.
6) Ethical Issue 2
Repeat Step 4 and 5
7) Overall Conclusion - For all issues at the end of the essay
Overall, their actions are not ethical as in a long term view,... although they may gain short term benefits like..
8) Recommendation
[Recommendation] - Don't expand the data centres as they pollute the environment - Always ask for consent. If harm is done, retributive justice should be employed. In line with Rawlsian justice and Kantian duty-based ethics, the governing family should implement transparent redistributive policies that invest in education, healthcare, and democratic institutions — not merely for appearance, but to ensure decisions reflect respect for the autonomy and dignity of all citizens. Star Paper’s investment should undergo strict independent environmental assessments, with input from local communities and indigenous groups. Aligning with Buddhist and Islamic ethics, any development must honor the interconnectedness of all life, and uphold the duty to protect the planet.
Question 3 - Come to a conclusion of each ethical issue identified. Where appropriate provide recommendations on what could be done differently?
Depth comparison:
IB
[Ethics of care] Ethics of Care challenges the impersonal, abstract reasoning of traditional ethical theories by emphasizing empathy, mutual care, and contextual morality. In CSR and international business, it reframes ethical obligations not as rights or rules, but as moral responsibilities grounded in relationships — between corporations and communities, humans and nature.
A business like Star Paper, entering a developing country, should not simply ask “What are the legal or economic benefits?” but rather, “Who will be harmed, who will benefit, and how can we maintain care and respect for all stakeholders — especially the vulnerable?” Ethics of Care would criticize extractive practices that ignore local voices, ecosystems, and long-term relational harm, even if they bring short-term development.
Implication
⇒ Star Paper’s ethical legitimacy depends on how well it cares for the people of Shalaomoon and its environment — not just whether it "creates jobs." Decisions made without community consent or that sacrifice environmental health would be seen as morally irresponsible [Buddhist]
Buddhist ethics stresses non-harming of all sentient beings, not only humans. In CSR and international business, this implies that corporations must not act in ways that cause suffering to people, animals, or ecosystems — even if it's legal or profitable.
The principle of Right Livelihood (part of the Noble Eightfold Path) prohibits engaging in occupations that harm the environment or living beings. Hence, destroying 1,000 ha of rainforest for profit would violate this precept, as it harms both biodiversity and the spiritual/ecological balance of the land.
Buddhism also promotes compassionate action and the idea of no-self (anattā) — rejecting ego-driven gain at the cost of others. Therefore, corporations must recognize their moral interconnectedness with the communities and ecologies they affect. ⇒ CSR under Buddhist ethics demands deep ecological respect and long-term harmony. Any project that treats land and people as mere instruments is unethical, no matter the financial gain.
[Hindu]
n Hindu philosophy, Dharma includes duties to society, nature, and the cosmic order (ṛta). A business acting ethically must uphold its social and environmental Dharma — which includes preserving balance and promoting well-being across generations.
Ahimsa, or non-violence, is a central tenet shared with Buddhism, extending to animals and nature. Deforestation that threatens orangutans and hornbills would be seen as an act of violence against divine manifestations of life.
Moreover, karma suggests that actions have long-term moral consequences — so harm done today, even for “development,” will eventually circle back in the form of ecological collapse, societal unrest, or loss of legitimacy.
Implication:
⇒ Hindu ethics calls for CSR that honors all beings as sacred. Ethical business isn't just about what is legal or economically efficient — it’s about living up to moral duties toward the Earth and future generations.
Environment
[Utilitarianism]
Utilitarianism would argue that exploiting natural resources is acceptable if the benefits to human society outweigh the harm to the environment. However, long-term sustainability becomes a critical factor in evaluating whether the utility derived from resource exploitation can be sustained. If resource depletion leads to greater harm than good in the future (e.g., climate change, biodiversity loss), then it becomes unethical from a utilitarian perspective.
[Deep Ecology, a biocentric ethical theory, would reject any form of exploitation that leads to environmental degradation. It advocates for intrinsic value in nature beyond human utility, asserting that all living beings have inherent value and deserve moral consideration. From this perspective, environmental exploitation is inherently unethical, regardless of human benefits, and sustainability becomes a moral duty.]
[Conclusion: Deep Ecology and Islamic ethics prioritize the intrinsic value of nature, while utilitarianism can be more flexible depending on the perceived benefits and harms. However, all three would agree that long-term sustainability is critical for ethical decision-making.]
CSR
Rawls' Theory of Justice, by contrast, would argue that businesses have a responsibility to ensure their actions do not perpetuate inequality or harm the least advantaged. In this sense, Rawls would argue that CSR is an ethical obligation for corporations to ensure fair treatment and improve the conditions of disadvantaged communities, especially if they benefit disproportionately from resources that belong to the public.
Milton Friedman’s view, often invoked in business ethics discussions, holds that businesses' primary responsibility is to maximize profits for their shareholders. Friedman would argue that engaging in CSR or considering social welfare detracts from business efficiency, is a misuse of corporate resources, and ultimately harms the economy by redistributing wealth unnecessarily. Market-based ethics would thus support profit maximization as a moral duty.
Utilitarianism would assess whether CSR increases or decreases overall happiness. If CSR leads to positive social outcomes (e.g., environmental sustainability, improved working conditions), it could be justified. However, if the company’s CSR initiatives are mere public relations stunts or fail to generate tangible benefits, they would not be considered ethical. Utilitarianism would always weigh consequences to determine the ethicality of CSR.
Conflict of Interest
Kantian ethics would argue that acting in one’s self-interest, when it conflicts with professional duties, violates the moral principle of duty and respect for others. A person’s duty to act impartially and according to moral principles overrides any self-interest. Therefore, Kant would strongly condemn conflicts of interest as a failure to respect others as ends in themselves.
From a utilitarian perspective, a conflict of interest could be justified if it maximizes overall utility. For instance, if personal gain leads to more productivity or a better outcome for society, it might be morally acceptable. However, if the conflict harms others or undermines trust in the institution, the long-term consequences would likely render it unethical.
Virtue ethics would assess whether acting in one’s self-interest aligns with virtuous characteristics like honesty, fairness, and integrity. A virtuous person would avoid situations where personal interests could undermine their professional duties because it’s a failure of moral character to put oneself above the collective well-being.
Conclusion: Kantian ethics offers the most rigid stance against conflicts of interest, arguing that moral duties are paramount. Utilitarianism may allow conflicts of interest if it leads to greater good, and virtue ethics would criticize them based on the individual’s character.
[Rawls]
According to Rawls’ difference principle, inequalities are just only if they benefit the least advantaged. The key legal-like move here is asking: Has the inequality passed procedural legitimacy and outcome legitimacy? Given the family’s wealth accumulation through alleged corruption and absence of distributive benefits to citizens, the inequality fails both tests. Therefore, it's not merely unethical — it's structurally unjust.
Procedural -> Company conducts a proper public consultation before stating a project -> even if people disagree with the project, it is procedurally fair.
Build trusts in systems.
Outcome -> End result is seen as good; even if the process was flawed.
Ensures fairness and justice
[Kantian] Under Kant’s categorical imperative, the maxim "those in power may enrich themselves through opaque means" cannot be universalised without collapsing public trust in governance. A Kantian legalist would also stress the violation of respect for persons: the public is treated as a means to an end — funding the elite — rather than ends in themselves.
Precedent Thinking -> Using past examples to justify a position
Hypothetical Thinking -> Creates what if tests to show consequences.
[Nozick] Nozick’s theory hinges on justice in acquisition and justice in transfer. If wealth is acquired through corruption — a non-consensual, coercive act — then even Nozick’s libertarian framework collapses. It would be akin to property law where initial acquisition through fraud invalidates all subsequent claims. Nozick is not a blanket defense for the elite; rather, his theory assumes clean hands. [Summary] Rawls and Kant provide clear grounds to reject the governing family’s actions — the former based on distributive justice, the latter on duty and respect. Even Nozick, often misunderstood as a laissez-faire apologist, would reject acquisitions made through unjust or coercive means. Where Rawls demands benefit to the least advantaged, and Kant demands universalisable principles, Nozick requires legitimate acquisition. The governing family fails all three standards — suggesting a systemic ethical and legal failure.
Last updated