Thegovernment has the ethical right to impose absolute prohibition onforests. The forests, as national property owned by the peoplethrough a representative government, can be best protected andpreserved by the legal and ethical guardian of these forests which isnone other than the government (Menzel, 2009). Giving commercialentities access to these forests is morally wrong on one majorground. That is commercial entities do not serve the interest of thepeople or the government but their owners only. Therefore, awardingbusinesses access to these forests amounts to destroying the forests.Furthermore, businesses’ acting in an ethical manner has beentermed as an oxymoron by some industry players. This is because thereis conflict of interest between their commercial interest ofgenerating profit and acting in an ethical manner (Duska 2007). Theseforests are too important for human survival to gamble with them byhanding them over to private entities.
Frommy personal ethical standpoint, I would not grant businesses accessto these forests. They will be compromised by their interests tocreate profit hence cannot preserve the forests well as thegovernment does. This also applies to the US military as a group Iidentify. Critical issues in any given economy such as forests andnational security should not be allowed to be run by private players.Government is best placed to safeguard these resources for publicinterest and as the moral guardian of all public resources andaffairs.
IfI were managing these national forests, I would take a differentapproach. I would first assess my resources and capability tosafeguard these forests accordingly. If I have the resources andcapability, I would maintain absolute prohibition same way asgovernment. I would do so with ethical sensibility that defines me(Personal ethics n.d.). Alternatively, I would recruit anon-commercial entity such as an environment-oriented NGO ornon-profit making entity with adequate resources and capability tomanage the forests.
Myethical orientation does not allow me to ignore such a situation. Ifeel inclined to do not only what is good for me but also that isgood for the larger society. Consequently, I would carry out abackground search of the company to understand better the company’suse of animals and vulnerable people in experiments. Such behaviorfrom any business entity is not acceptable. Buying the stocks of suchcompany directly endorses the use of animals and vulnerable people inexperiments which is against what I believe in. Profits in this caseare not comparable to cruelty to animals or vulnerable persons(Duska, 2007). I believe in the dignity of every individual which isthreatened by the potential actions of using vulnerable persons inmedical experiments.
TheUS military as a group I identify with upholds the dignity and valueof human beings. Military training calls for respect for human life,justice and fairness to all. The military respects the independentvalue of any human being noting that the moral worth of anyindividual should not be measured by how valuable that individual isin advancing the interests of a group or other individuals. By usingvulnerable individuals for experiments equates to assessing theirvalue through their usefulness to the firm and its shareholders. Onthe other hand, the military supports controlled use of animals inexperiments. The military understands that animals especially inmedical training allow paramedics to learn and exercise various waysto treat injuries and wounds that can be experienced in the battlefield (Martinic 2012). Therefore, the main concern in this case wouldbe use of vulnerable humans in experiments and not humans.
Duska,R. (2007). Contemporary Reflections on Business Ethics. New York:Springer Science &
Personalethics. (n.d.). Ethical issues and normative perspectives. Retrievedfrom
Martinic,G. (2012). Military ‘live tissue trauma training’ using animalsin the US – its purpose,
importanceand commentary on military medical research and the debate on use ofanimals in military training. Journalof Military and Veterans` Health.20(4): 4-13.
Menzel,D. (2009). Ethics Moments in Government: Cases and Controversies. NewYork: CRC