Analytical methods and applications

Ethics is a moral philosophy that attempts to discover a systematic understanding of the nature of morality and what it requires of people -- which, in Socrates's words, would simply come down to "how we ought to live" -- and why (Rachels & Rachels 2009). But, who is to say how one ought to live? Every person or group has a unique vision of how they believe life ought to be lived. This is the complex nature of ethics and thus the reason why there have been many interpretations of ethics.

Many people see ethics as a personal matter, a set of beliefs and standards, developing over the course of many years, oftentimes shaped by parents or other authority figures, and oftentimes by cultural factors. Ethics may also be considered social principles, the rules or norms of one's society or groups within that society and culture. Other still might believe that ethics come from religious beliefs; for example, one may base their moral compass on the Ten Commandments or on Buddhism's five moral precepts. Basically stated, one person can have his or her set of values and another person has his or her own, and a group's ethics may be different from another group's ethics therefore ethics is very subjective.

Utilitarian ethics -- also called utilitarianism -- is the ethical theory that the "production of happiness and reduction of unhappiness should be the standard by which actions are judged right or wrong and by which the rules of morality, laws, public policies, and social institutions are to be critically evaluated" (West 2003). Utilitarianism is one of the foremost ethical philosophies to come about in the past two hundred years. It basically states that no action is right or wrong because it is a case of telling the truth or telling a lie; and the moral rule against lying is in itself not correct (2003). Lying is considered wrong because it often leads to bad consequences. "And the moral rule against lying can be subjected to empirical study to justify some cases of lying, such as to avoid a disastrous consequence in saving someone's life" (2003).

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) founded utilitarianism as an ethical thought, (West 2003) and he believed, as did many thinkers of the eighteenth century, that the production of happiness and reduction of unhappiness should be the standard for the judgment of right action and for the criticism of social, political, and legal institutions. While many other thinkers had the same thoughts, Bentham attempted to construct a whole system of moral and legal philosophy upon that basis, and his doctrine became the basis of a reform movement in the nineteenth century. James Mill, a follower of Bentham, refined some of Bentham's ideas, however, he never strayed from Bentham's core beliefs about utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is an ethical doctrine that states that actions are judged right or wrong based on the consequences of that action, not the motive. This brings us to the Greatest-Happiness Principle, which posits that "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness" (Mill 2011).

In looking at the British Petroleum (BP) oil spill from a utilitarian perspective, BP's actions are completely wrong based on the fact that the oil spill caused the death of workers, injured many others, has severely damaged the one of the world's greatest ecosystems, taken jobs away from fisherman, reduced tourism in the area, and has destroyed the physical beauty of the area. The environmental disaster created by BP is still being harshly judged and they have tainted their reputation for what appears to be good. Their lack of ethical guidance, their inability to take responsibility for the disaster (blaming Transocean, the rig owner, as well as Halliburton), and the CEO Hayward's arrogant statements ("I want my life back") all contribute to the production of unhappiness as opposed to eradicating it. Utilitarianism is a very critical way of seeing BP's ethical business culture.

In Kantian ethics, there is the belief that the "motive" is the most important factor in determining what is right and what is wrong. Immanuel Kant, the founder of Kantian ethics, believed that a moral action is one that is performed out of a sense of duty. A "moral action" for Kant was based on a sense of knowing what one "ought" to do; a moral action is not based on reward ("what will I get if I do this?") or upon feelings ("I feel bad for him, so I'll do it"). To understand the role of the motive in Kantian ethics, one must only consider a very simple example: if one were to see an old man struggling to put a big bag of groceries into his trunk and he or she felt pity for the old man and helped him because of those feelings of pity, one would not be acting morally. Or, if you think this man might "tip" you for helping him (i.e. one is rewarded), this is also not acting morally. Helping an old man with his groceries because you believe helping the elderly is right and good is acting morally. Kant said: "It is impossible to conceive anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be taken as good without qualification, except a good will" (Kant 2010).

In Kantian ethics an action can have negative consequences and still be a moral act, which is contradictory to utilitarian ethics which judges acts mainly on the consequences that occur because of the act. So, for example, if one is helping the elderly man out of a sense of duty to help the elderly and in the process of helping him one drops the bag of groceries and everything falls onto the pavement and shatters, the action is still considered moral no matter the bad consequences. To apply this theory to the BP oil spill gives a whole other perspective on the disaster.

Kantian ethics would require BP to act responsibly, which would mean taking responsibility for the disaster, considering those who have been hurt by the disaster, and addressing the damage done to the local environment. While BP was very quick to advertise that it was paying those who were impacted by the oil spill, one has to consider the blaming and the arrogance exhibited by BP, thus making their so-called "good" actions devoid of meaning. However, a true Kantian approach to helping would come from a sincere feeling of responsibility as opposed to just wanting to improve an image. Some of the ads that BP came out with were are created for consumers to begin seeing BP in a better light; however, because of the way BP has acted (arguably irresponsibly), even the good they tried to do appeared to be out of a sense to help themselves or show that they feel bad when clearly they just want the whole thing to go away.

Kant believed that moral requirements are based on a standard of rationality he called the "categorical imperative." Immoral acts violate the categorical imperative and are thus irrational. Kant argued that in order to determine the morality of any situation we must "act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law" (Wood 2007). That means that each individual agent regards itself as determining, by its decision to act in a certain way that everyone -- including itself -- will always act according to the same general rule in the future. Kant believed that this expression of the moral law offers a concrete and practical method for evaluating particular human actions of different types. Another version of Kant's categorical imperative of universal law is, "So act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means." Whether or not these are equivalent terms, Kant was basically saying that the formal nature of the categorical imperative gives it universal authority (Blackburn ). The latter version also places more value on human life and sees human life as wholly deserving of moral respect and offers a more personal perspective on morality. John Rawls regarded Kantian ethics "not as a morality of austere command but an ethic of mutual respect and self-esteem" (Woods 2007).

When contemplating the BP oil spill and Kant's universal law, it is clear that the company did not consider the greater good of humanity as so many people were negatively impacted, their livelihoods taken away, because of the oil disaster. Trying to salvage oil, not acting fast enough, not putting money towards clean up immediately, are all ways of saying that they are looking out for number one. Van Ingram (2002) offers an interesting take on the "powers of rational beings," which refers to what human beings are able to do. Van Ingram discusses the forking path in the road, which basically are the different ways that one can respond to a life decision. There are several ways that BP could have chosen to respond, all of which were "open" to them (i.e. they had free will), yet those chose to take paths that were less moral. Kant's universal law would have them put their responsibility to humanity as the motivator, however, their motives have not proven to be driven by doing what is genuinely good for humanity.

Blackburn (2009) states that it is tricky to apply the categorical imperative and that the most persuasive examples of it being effective are in cases where there is an institution whose existence depends on sufficient performance by a sufficient number of individuals.

Suppose, as is plausible, that our ability to give and receive promises depends upon general compliance with the principle of keeping promises. Were we to break them sufficiently often, or were promise-breaking to become a 'law of nature,' then there would be no such thing as promise-giving or promise-breaking, because no words could any longer have the required force. So, Kant considers somebody whose principle of action is, 'Let me, when hard pressed, make a promise with the intention not to keep it.' Then, says Kant, I could will the lie, but I could not will the universal law to lie, for in accordance with such a law there would be no promises at all. It would be willing a kind of contradiction (Blackburn 2009).

Leaving the categorical imperative aside for a moment, if one is to look at BP from a Kantian perspective, one could perhaps see them as blameless since they were simply doing their job. Utilitarianism takes consequences of actions to be the judge of those actions and thus an individual or group's overall ethics. One's views on offshore drilling and big companies like BP and Exxon Valdez will also, undoubtedly, be a major factor in how BP's ethics are viewed. Looking at past disasters like the Exxon Valdez oil disaster in Alaska's Prince William Sound and how Exxon handled the disaster made many people across the world furious and not only did Exxon pay out major bucks to clean up the spill, but the company also paid fines, penalties, and settlements going into the billions of dollars. Yet, Exxon Valdez still continued to make money as a business even after the disaster, which is rather shocking when considering they fought and appealed every decision along the way, making a big statement about how they felt about their responsibility in the disaster.

A shocking article in Climate Progress (2010) states that during the early days of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, BP was making enough money (profit) in four days to cover the costs of the entire cleanup. Yet months later, clean up is still in progress. CEO Hayward went down as saying that the environmental impact would be "very, very modest" (Lyon 2010) -- a very disingenuous and ignorant statement when one considers that Exxon Valdez's spill affected the area negatively for decades after.

Kant's "kingdom of ends" is a metaphorical place where everyone acts in accordance with moral law and everyone is being acted upon with that same moral law (the universal law or categorical imperative). In looking at the BP oil spill, the kingdom of ends does not exist. BP is not acting in accordance with Kant's universal law as actions for clean up and money for those negatively affected would be forthcoming, which is exactly what happened with Exxon Valdez in 1989 as well. BP has put profits before humanity's safety. They have spent millions of dollars in order to create an image of the company being "green" while all the while neglecting the lives of their employees. Many now are questioning whether BP's business ethics (and ethics in general) had something to do with the disaster. Could better concern for safety prevented the explosion? Some of the factors that are thought to have led to the April 20 explosion were the result of really poor decisions in which a less expensive option -- run tests or use a particular type of casing pipe, for example, was constantly chosen over a decision that would have cost the company more money. Some might say that the BP spill isn't really all about BP's ethics, but rather, it's about our society and the way that saving money by using cheap products and making the most money are the values that are desired.

In ethics a moral agent is an individual who performs an action and the receiver is the individual who is affected by the agent's conduct. There is also the moral spectator, the person who observes and disapproves of the conduct. In looking at BP as the moral agent, we are able to see a company that constantly made bad decisions, always looking out for their own profits and ways to better their reputation. Because safety tests were not made and because cheap products were used for maximum profits, a disaster occurred. The conduct of BP has been harshly judged because of this. The receivers are, of course, the people who were killed, the families who are grieving, the employees who were injured and their families, people such as fisherman who have lost the source of their livelihood, tourism companies, and last but not least, people who merely liked to enjoy the beauty of the Gulf of Mexico. Then there are the spectators -- people all across the world who have seen the oil in the water and contemplated the lives lost and are appalled by BP's conduct.