Moral Theory Case Study --

MORAL THEORY CASE STUDY -- FULLER'S DILEMMA

The Moral Dilemma

The company in the case manufactures a product (an adhesive glue) that can also be used illicitly as a recreational drug ingested by sniffing and inhaling its fumes. In the extremely poor community in which the case arose, large numbers of street children have been misusing the product as a recreational drug in a manner known to result in very serous medical consequences in the long-term. Two solutions have been proposed, neither of which is likely to resolve the problem satisfactorily. More specifically, the political and legislative environment of this community is not, in any realistic sense, conducive to solving the problem through legislation to restrict the sale of the product to legitimate users. Another solution, to introduce an additive to the product designed to make it less capable of being consumed as an illicit drug of abuse is associated with other potentially serious risks, to both legitimate users as well as to any who might persist in abusing the product illicitly. Moreover, the additive also changes the properties of the product in ways that significantly decrease its value to legitimate consumers.

Application of Benedict's Moral Perspective

Benedict represents the classic moral relativist's perspective. According to her analysis of human morality, it is impossible ever to characterize any specific behavior or social norm as being moral or immoral. She regards every culture as representing the independent evolution of standards of behavior and expectations through the long-term collective choices of the individuals in that society. Benedict considers every set of culturally determined values to be merely a subset of all of the possible values available to human societies (p. 237) and regards the distinction between the term "moral" and "habitual" to be synonymous (p. 238). Therefore, according to Benedict's view, the evolved misuse of the company product by members of the foreign society in the case study is not appropriately judged by the behavioral standards and expectations of any other society. Benedict would likely advise the company not to change its product or marketing practices and to regard the social concerns at issue as none of its business.

Application of Midgley's Moral Perspective

Midgley presents the diametrically opposite perspective from that of Benedict. Specifically, Midgley points out that moral relativism essentially undermines the prospect of establishing any morality at all. According to Midgley, to the extent one accepts the moral isolationist point-of-view that precludes ever judging other cultures, that also necessarily implies that it is equally impossible to define morality in our own culture (p. 241). Further, Midgley points out that this is an inescapable logical corollary to the moral isolationist position about judging other societies (p. 241). Presumably, Midgley would ask whether the company involved in the case study would be considered to have any moral responsibility in its native society. If the answer is yes, Midgley would argue that the company is under the same moral duties elsewhere, regardless of local customs or expectations.

Application of Bailey's Moral Perspective

Bailey agrees with Midgley's analysis and conclusions but provides a more detailed perspective of the manner in which cultural leaders exploit social values and norms for their own purposes and to their advantage (p. 253). Naturally, the implication is that the concept of morality (if it exists) cannot possibly be determined by reference to social values or cultural norms. That is because in addition to reflecting largely arbitrary choices that evolve over time within any given community, the rules and expectations of every society are also, necessarily, a function of the attempts of its leaders and other authorities to shape social values in ways beneficial to their interests (p. 253).

Therefore, Bailey would also reject Benedict's suggestion that the company has no moral duties other than those imposed by the host society. Like Midgley, Bailey would expect the company to conduct its operations and make the same decisions that would be required in its native society. More importantly, Bailey would likely also argue that the company has a moral duty to respond to the situation even if it were the case that its native society recognized no such moral obligation.

Both Bailey and Midgley would probably require the company to consider the nature of the harms caused by its product and to take reasonable measures to prevent those harms completely irrespective of any obligation or expectation in that regard by any society. Their view would be that morality is a matter of objective principle and not subjective values and that allowing the types of harms described as a result of profit-making enterprises is always immoral and always imposes a moral obligation, by objective principle, on the manufacturer to take appropriate measures to mitigate those harms.

Application of the UN Commission on Human Rights' Moral Perspective

In spirit, the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights would support the position that the company may not engage in business practices in one nation that would be prohibited in its native society. However, because the Declaration pertains primarily to fundamental rights and freedoms (p. 258) of individuals as opposed to any specific obligations on the part of any entity to avoid causing harms unrelated to those fundamental rights, the document can be applied to this case only by considering its provisions very loosely and broadly. Specifically, one would have to rely on language about the dignity and worth of the person (p. 257), the spirit of brotherhood (p. 258), and on references to standards of health and well-being (p. 261) to apply the UN principles to this case.

Application of Berlin's Moral Perspective

Berlin offers a perspective that is decidedly unhelpful to the prospect of recognizing objective moral principles. He suggests that wherever two individuals espouse diametrically opposite positions on an issue, it does not necessarily follow that the truth of one view means that the other is untrue (p. 266). Berlin seems to offer a complex justification for moral relativism, largely by focusing on the types of cases where (admittedly) a perfect solution is most difficult. However, he seems not to recognize that these can be regarded as exceptions to general principles that provide the morally preferable (if not necessarily perfect) solution. Therefore, Berlin might argue that nobody likes the idea of street children being harmed by their misuse of the company's product but that virtually any solution to that dilemma would impose harmful consequences on the company, such as by limiting its rights to conduct business manufacturing a legal product.