Mgt315 Midterm Assignmentdeadline Wednesday March 10th 1159pmworth ✓ Solved

MGT315 Midterm Assignment Deadline: Wednesday March 10th 11.59pm Worth: 30% Length: Minimum 1500 words Bibliography: 4 references minimum QUESTION Using one of the following case studies (i) Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster (ii) The actions of Chuck Blazer within FIFA corruption (iii) The Ebay 2020 CyberStalking scandal In resolving the ethical dilemma(s) in your chosen case study, apply: a. Utilitarianism / Best Outcome model b. The Rights Model (applicable why/why not) c. Your own opinion Use the file Phantom Expenses under “Business Ethics†notes to help guide your answer. Grading Rubric Any questions please contact me.

Thanks, Dr. Marie 2 Essay/Exam Answer Evaluation Form Student Name: _________________ ______________________________ Student No: __________________ Question/Topic: ______________ (high) (low) 1. Task ï¯ ï¯ ï¯ ï¯ ï¯ Does not respond to Addressed title title sufficiently 2. Critical Thinking ï¯ ï¯ ï¯ ï¯ ï¯ Uses generalisations Original thinking, makes & reproduces links with other topics summarises texts 3. Analysis ï¯ ï¯ ï¯ ï¯ ï¯ Shallow, descriptive Deep &insightful, takes things at face recognises complexity value 4.

Argument & ï¯ ï¯ ï¯ ï¯ ï¯ Rambling, incoherent Structure vague, not developed Clearly stated, coherent effectively, no clear logically developed, well structure organised 5. Support ï¯ ï¯ ï¯ ï¯ ï¯ Questionable or Appropriate & accurate irrelevant evidence evidence for argument for argument 6. Ethics Concepts ï¯ ï¯ ï¯ ï¯ ï¯ Little evidence of Clear understanding understanding & Relevant usage 7. Reading ï¯ ï¯ ï¯ ï¯ ï¯ No evidence of Evidence of reading reading or knowledge of course knowledge of course material material 8. Sources & ï¯ ï¯ ï¯ ï¯ ï¯ Unacknowledged Referencing sources, poor Adequate acknowledgement bibliographical list of sources, ideas, competent bibliography 9. Presentation & ï¯ ï¯ ï¯ ï¯ ï¯ Untidy difficult to Style read, awkward Legible, well set out phrasing, repetitive Fluent, clear, precise Grade

Paper for above instructions

Introduction

The Chernobyl disaster, which occurred on April 26, 1986, remains one of the most harrowing events in the history of nuclear energy. A reactor at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, located near Pripyat in present-day Ukraine, exploded, releasing a vast amount of radioactive materials into the atmosphere. This not only raised questions about the safety of nuclear power but also spotlighted ethical dilemmas regarding corporate responsibility, government accountability, and public safety. This analysis will utilize the utilitarianism principle, the rights model, and personal opinion to explore the ethical dilemmas surrounding the disaster.

Utilitarianism / Best Outcome Model

Utilitarianism is grounded in the principle of maximizing overall happiness or minimizing suffering within a population (Mill, 1863). From a utilitarian perspective, one would assess the consequences of actions associated with the Chernobyl disaster.
When the reactor exploded, the immediate response involved attempts to mitigate the disaster and protect surrounding areas. However, initial reports downplayed the severity of the situation, leading to inappropriate evacuations and delays in informing the public (Patterson, 1998). This lack of immediate and effective action significantly worsened the disaster's outcomes and increased long-term health risks to thousands of people. A more utilitarian approach would have meant prioritizing immediate transparency and public safety, even if it resulted in panic or civil disruption.
From a broader perspective, had better protocols been established for nuclear safety, the overall happiness of the affected populations could have been maximized. The long-term effects of the disaster saw increases in cancer rates, psychological distress, and massive relocations, all indicating a failure of utilitarian principles in action (Gorbachev, 2011). Overall, a thorough risk-benefit analysis prior to the operation of the reactor, along with a commitment to ethical transparency, could have mitigated many adverse outcomes.

The Rights Model

The rights model of ethics prioritizes the protection of individual rights and freedoms (Donovan, 2019). In the case of Chernobyl, individual rights were starkly violated on several fronts. First and foremost, the right to life and health was compromised. Thousands of residents were exposed to dangerous levels of radiation without adequate warning or protective measures.
The actions of the Soviet government, which initially sought to cover up the incident and misinform the affected population, illustrate a severe violation of ethical standards. The right to access information and the right to participate in decisions affecting one’s health and well-being were infringed upon. The residents of Pripyat were ordered to evacuate only after the radioactive cloud had already caused considerable harm, stripping them of their right to make informed choices regarding their safety.
Furthermore, in the wake of the disaster, the rights of the individuals to seek compensation and address grievances were complicated by bureaucratic and governmental red tape (Woods, 2015). This further underscores the failures regarding individual rights during the incident and its aftermath. From the perspective of the rights model, corporate and government actors acted irresponsibly, placing operational efficiency over fundamental human rights.

Personal Opinion

In my view, the events surrounding the Chernobyl disaster illustrate the catastrophic consequences that can arise when ethical considerations are overlooked in the pursuit of technological advancement and political expediency. While technological progress often brings benefits, it must be coupled with a rigorous commitment to ethical standards and safety protocols.
The Chernobyl incident underscores the critical importance of a safety-first approach in high-risk industries like nuclear energy. It is evident that, at the time, the Soviet Union prioritized its political stability and reputation over the health and safety of its citizens. This is alarming and raises questions about accountability in organizations and governments.
Moreover, the disaster serves as a significant learning opportunity. Following Chernobyl, international norms and safety practices in nuclear energy have evolved considerably. The establishment of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and improved safety practices in countless countries reflect a global commitment to prioritizing ethical standards (Nuclear Energy Agency, 2020).
However, the lessons of Chernobyl should not be forgotten. They serve as a stark reminder that ethical considerations cannot be an afterthought. The rights and well-being of individuals must be at the forefront of any technological endeavor. This disaster should embolden us to demand transparency and accountability from corporations and governments alike.

Conclusion

In summary, the Chernobyl disaster serves as a somber case study of ethical failures in multiple domains, including the utilitarian principle and rights models. When assessed through the lens of utilitarianism, it's evident that the disaster precipitated more harm than happiness, highlighting failures in proper risk management and safety measures. The rights model elucidates egregious violations of individual freedoms and the right to safety. In my opinion, the catastrophe emphasizes the necessity for strong ethical standards, particularly in high-stakes industries like nuclear energy.
Continued vigilance and commitment to ethical practices are crucial to prevent history from repeating itself.

References

1. Donovan, C. (2019). The Rights Approach in Business Ethics: A Critical Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 154(1), 231-246.
2. Gorbachev, M. (2011). The Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster: Lessons Learned. The Economist. Retrieved from https://www.economist.com.
3. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). (2020). International Conventions and Agreements on Nuclear Safety. Vienna.
4. Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Parker, Son, and Bourn.
5. Nuclear Energy Agency. (2020). Nuclear Safety in a Changing World: Lessons from Chernobyl and Fukushima. Paris.
6. Patterson, D. G. (1998). Chernobyl: The Real Story. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com.
7. Stanev, V. (2019). Ethical Implications of the Chernobyl Disaster. Ethics in Engineering, 15(4), 299-317.
8. Vostry, V. (2019). Government Accountability: Reflections on Chernobyl. Public Administration Review, 79(6), 839-850.
9. Woods, D. (2015). The Handling of the Chernobyl Disaster from a Human Rights Perspective. Human Rights Quarterly, 37(2), 419-455.
10. Zaitseva, T. (2020). The Lessons of Chernobyl: Four Decades After the Disaster. Safety Science, 131, 104908.