Ethical Dilemma Plan for a Moral Choices Course

Introduction

Overhearing a conversation concerning a potentially immoral and illegal act concerning public safety, one is put into an awkward situation of making hard choices directly affecting safety and livelihood of many individuals. It is of utmost importance to consider both the immediate and long term ramifications of any action you may take in such a precarious situation. In the situation of overhearing the Vice President of Production ask the environmental consultant advice on how to dump toxic waste into a holding pond, it becomes apparent there are both civil and criminal issues to consider. Reaching the appropriate decision of what action to take is not an easy decision.

Environmental ethics relies heavily on the business's commitment to minimizing environmental harm. As the assistant to the Vice President (VP) you have an ethical obligation to your boss, the company, and the community. As an employee, you must decide how to handle the information you overhear the Vice President discussing with the companies environmental consultant.

Breaches in ethics regarding the conversation you overhear vary in severity. The first matter to consider would be whether or not what you overhear the VP and consultant discuss is fact or hearsay. The conversation between the Vice President and consultant regarding dumping into the holding pond has the potential to cause the environment harm. There are basically two ways to handle the conversation overheard.

Strict guidelines have been established for handling of substances identified as toxic under the National Environmental Policy Act and state environmental acts. These acts have clearly defined policy on production, handling, transport, and disposal of such substances. Unauthorized disposal of identified substances by a senior corporate employee would most likely be classified as knowingly violating these acts and such actions carry defined criminal penalties. Any employee having knowledge of the act takes the risk of criminal prosecution. Under laws such as the Whistleblower's Protection Act (Title 26 MRSA, Chapter 7, Subchapter V-B), there is protection for whistleblowers that come forth to disclose information concerning such illegal activities, however, most of these laws require bringing the problem to the attention of your employer first (U.S. Department of Labor, 45

Clean Water Act

In 1972 the Clean Water Act (CWA) established means of enforcement for federal and state environmental agencies to protect natural water resources. Knowing violations of the act can result in fines up to $50,000 per day and imprisonment. The defense might be made that the pond is not considered "navigable waters" as defined under the CWA; however, the federal courts have extended a very broad definition to this term. In the case of United States v. Hartsell, the defendants were sentenced to 51 months of imprisonment in addition to fines (Corely,. 283).

Further criminal penalty might arise from other federal and state acts such as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976. This act requires generators of toxic substances to identify such substances and comply with established record keeping procedures. Depending on the toxin in question, EPA licensed transport ...