Ethics Take Home Test
ETHICAL ISSUE:
The ethical issue that I have chosen for the take-home test is Nestle.
Nestle has been put in the unethical spotlight for promoting their baby
formula is lesser-developed countries. Providing free samples of the
formula for just long enough to interfere with lactation caused mothers
to be trapped into continuing using the formula. In lesser-developed
countries as well, mothers often are unaware of the sterilization
required when mixing the formula with water. The water is also often
contaminated in poor countries, which leads to diseases in infants.
Mothers also cannot read the languages posted on the formula
containers. Nestle denies these allegations.
OPINION:
Nestle should perform some due diligence in providing their samples,
to prevent infant infection and death. They are currently in the wrong.
ETHICAL SUBTHEORIES:
-Kantian Ethics (Deontological)- Kantian ethics suggests that a action
itself can only be good if it is intrinsically good. I think this applies
incredibly well and simply, because even though the idea of Nestle’s
actions in the baby food dispute may be good (Have some free baby
formula!), the actions themselves are really not good at all, because
they lead to very negative outcomes. The most imperative actions that
Nestle could execute to be accepted as “good” by Kantian ethics,
would be to still provide their formula and samples, but warn (due
diligence) mothers about sterilization and how using the samples can
interfere with lactation.
-Utilitarianism – Utilitarianism looks to maximize total utility (good) and
minimize suffering, we want the maximum good outcomes with the
fewest negative outcomes/effects. This related to Nestle’s baby
formula issues because while there are good outcomes, such as free
baby food, and access to nutritional formula in poor countries, there
are many negative implications of these actions. In these
circumstances, it would be imperative for Nestle to minimize suffering;
including infant infection, lack of sterilization, infant death, and so on.
While providing infant nutrition is good, the way Nestle is doing so is
resulting in more harm than good.
PREMISES FOR MY OPINION:
1. From a business standpoint, I think that Nestle has every right to
continue promoting and selling their baby formula in poor
countries; however, the way that they are doing so is unethical
because of the harm that is being done to infants and mothers
(as supported by the ethical theories above). Generally, most
businesses (especially ones headquartered in North America) are
considered to have ethical and moral corporate social
responsibility, and assuring that your products do no harm to
consumers would definitely fall into that category. Nestle is not
acting in accordance with simple corporate social responsibility,
because their actions are harming others, which is unethical.
2. Nestle should abandon, or change their baby formula marketing
practices in order to be seen in a more positive light. Or, a public
apology, such as was made by Johnson & Johnson with the
Tylenol debacle. They should do this because it is giving their
company a negative reputation worldwide for being unethical,
and is demonstrating that they are behaving in a somewhat
unethical fashion.
PREMISES AGAINST MY OPINION:
1. Nestle should be able to continue to market their baby formula
however they want, because they are not directly hurting the
babies, they are providing a nutritional supplement.
Fallacies:
Appeal to ignorance: Just because they aren’t directly hurting the
babies, doesn’t mean that they are actually helping them.
This argument is not sound, because it could be argued that
Nestle is, in fact, harming the babies by providing the free
samples, and undermining breastfeeding. The fact that they are
encouraging new mothers to use their product instead of
breastfeeding (as a source of nutrients) is demonstrating the
exact opposite, because it interferes with lactation and proper
nutrition from breastfeeding.
2. Nestle is not the only company that provides free baby formula
samples to new mothers, if other companies are doing it too,
Nestle should not be criticized.
Fallacies:
Two wrongs fallacy: Just because other companies are doing it
does not mean that it is right.
That being said, other companies are also giving away baby
formula in a much more ethical manner. Other companies have
proper instructions and warnings on the labels, in the appropriate
languages for where they are being sold (Nestle has not been as
proactive). There is no support for similarities between Nestle
and other companies (Mother’s Milk) that provide formula and
furthermore, this does not demonstrate that these companies
are not undermining breastfeeding.
BONUS NEW PREMISE TO SUPPORT MY OPINION:
If it were to come to light that Nestle was, in fact, bribing healthcare
professionals and nurses to give away their free samples without
warning the mothers about the sterilization, water, and care
requirements, this would prove that they are purposely harming babies
for personal gain. This would directly associate Nestle with the
misinformation and lack of information that is rampant around mothers
in poor countries where babies are dying.
The ethical issue that I have chosen for the take-home test is Nestle.
Nestle has been put in the unethical spotlight for promoting their baby
formula is lesser-developed countries. Providing free samples of the
formula for just long enough to interfere with lactation caused mothers
to be trapped into continuing using the formula. In lesser-developed
countries as well, mothers often are unaware of the sterilization
required when mixing the formula with water. The water is also often
contaminated in poor countries, which leads to diseases in infants.
Mothers also cannot read the languages posted on the formula
containers. Nestle denies these allegations.
OPINION:
Nestle should perform some due diligence in providing their samples,
to prevent infant infection and death. They are currently in the wrong.
ETHICAL SUBTHEORIES:
-Kantian Ethics (Deontological)- Kantian ethics suggests that a action
itself can only be good if it is intrinsically good. I think this applies
incredibly well and simply, because even though the idea of Nestle’s
actions in the baby food dispute may be good (Have some free baby
formula!), the actions themselves are really not good at all, because
they lead to very negative outcomes. The most imperative actions that
Nestle could execute to be accepted as “good” by Kantian ethics,
would be to still provide their formula and samples, but warn (due
diligence) mothers about sterilization and how using the samples can
interfere with lactation.
-Utilitarianism – Utilitarianism looks to maximize total utility (good) and
minimize suffering, we want the maximum good outcomes with the
fewest negative outcomes/effects. This related to Nestle’s baby
formula issues because while there are good outcomes, such as free
baby food, and access to nutritional formula in poor countries, there
are many negative implications of these actions. In these
circumstances, it would be imperative for Nestle to minimize suffering;
including infant infection, lack of sterilization, infant death, and so on.
While providing infant nutrition is good, the way Nestle is doing so is
resulting in more harm than good.
PREMISES FOR MY OPINION:
1. From a business standpoint, I think that Nestle has every right to
continue promoting and selling their baby formula in poor
countries; however, the way that they are doing so is unethical
because of the harm that is being done to infants and mothers
(as supported by the ethical theories above). Generally, most
businesses (especially ones headquartered in North America) are
considered to have ethical and moral corporate social
responsibility, and assuring that your products do no harm to
consumers would definitely fall into that category. Nestle is not
acting in accordance with simple corporate social responsibility,
because their actions are harming others, which is unethical.
2. Nestle should abandon, or change their baby formula marketing
practices in order to be seen in a more positive light. Or, a public
apology, such as was made by Johnson & Johnson with the
Tylenol debacle. They should do this because it is giving their
company a negative reputation worldwide for being unethical,
and is demonstrating that they are behaving in a somewhat
unethical fashion.
PREMISES AGAINST MY OPINION:
1. Nestle should be able to continue to market their baby formula
however they want, because they are not directly hurting the
babies, they are providing a nutritional supplement.
Fallacies:
Appeal to ignorance: Just because they aren’t directly hurting the
babies, doesn’t mean that they are actually helping them.
This argument is not sound, because it could be argued that
Nestle is, in fact, harming the babies by providing the free
samples, and undermining breastfeeding. The fact that they are
encouraging new mothers to use their product instead of
breastfeeding (as a source of nutrients) is demonstrating the
exact opposite, because it interferes with lactation and proper
nutrition from breastfeeding.
2. Nestle is not the only company that provides free baby formula
samples to new mothers, if other companies are doing it too,
Nestle should not be criticized.
Fallacies:
Two wrongs fallacy: Just because other companies are doing it
does not mean that it is right.
That being said, other companies are also giving away baby
formula in a much more ethical manner. Other companies have
proper instructions and warnings on the labels, in the appropriate
languages for where they are being sold (Nestle has not been as
proactive). There is no support for similarities between Nestle
and other companies (Mother’s Milk) that provide formula and
furthermore, this does not demonstrate that these companies
are not undermining breastfeeding.
BONUS NEW PREMISE TO SUPPORT MY OPINION:
If it were to come to light that Nestle was, in fact, bribing healthcare
professionals and nurses to give away their free samples without
warning the mothers about the sterilization, water, and care
requirements, this would prove that they are purposely harming babies
for personal gain. This would directly associate Nestle with the
misinformation and lack of information that is rampant around mothers
in poor countries where babies are dying.