The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PDEP) has fined Catalyst Energy incorporation in the amount of $185,000. The PDEP has proved that, based on their unswerving water samples, Catalyst Energy (CE) has contaminated water supplies near its oil and gas well operations in Forest, McKean and Warren counties. Therefore, unless CE can prove otherwise, they are liable to paying the fine and are required to undergo counteractive actions at their well situates. CE is presumed liable for water contamination if the affected water supply is within 1,000 feet of the drilled oil or gas well and the pollution occurred within six months of the completion of drilling. My best understanding on this case is that CE was negligibly unethical in its operation. Since the company was not able prove their drilling activities has not cause environmental pollution, I would support the argument against it. Generalization test provides clear understand about pollution and contamination. If CE’s reason is to maximize profit by drilling recklessly (i.e. without looking into the mirror of ethicality), and without government’s regulation on water pollution, then their reason is ungenralizable and therefore, failed generalization test. CE has violated government’s property right by spilling iron, manganese, and methane into the water. The reason for CE to contaminate water system may have been due to the fact of fiduciary duty to its stockholders. The government has obligation to regulate its property. And so as the business who operates within the boundaries of government’s regulations. Researchers can look into CE’s obligation, as a business and government’s obligation to protect its water. Spoiling someone’s property for one’s seek is unethical even when it leads to high utility. Utilitarian test assumed an action to be “ethical only if no other available action creates greater total net utility” (Hooker, 16). CE’s action was unethical to begin with. This is because it does not proved their action satisfies other conditions for rational decision. It may seemed realistic for CE operators (even the owners of Catalyst) to satisfy their own fiduciary duty. Their argument could be described as ‘any business strives to maximize profits for its stakeholders.’ As a result, some companies may strive, even if polluting the environment is necessary to create the only greatest net utility. At least, CE may accept that polluting government water is not a big deal for the environment. Either CE’s action was necessary to maximize its utility or was unaware of the contamination, the question remains whether CE breech its honor, loyalty and integrity as a company or has defined its mission statement as helping the environment by installing water treatment systems.
Hooker, John. Business Ethics as Rational Choice. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2011. Print.
