An old man froze to death in his home after the municipal power company restrict
ID: 442160 • Letter: A
Question
An old man froze to death in his home after the municipal power company restricted his electricity because of an unpaid bill. He died of hypothermia — the medical examiner called it a slow, painful death.
a. Is it OK for businesses to put value on human life when making business decisions? If so, how should they calculate it? If not, why not?
b. Was it "right" to kill and eat Richard Parker in order to survive?
c. Was the electric company's action to disconnect the power "right"? Why or why not?
Explanation / Answer
1. This is an ethical issue. Businesses are run purely from a commercial and economic standpoint. But with changing dynamics, businesses have to look into aspects beyond the commercial aspect. It is expected out of corporations to contribute to the society through their CSR (corporate social responsibility) activities. A company is expected to give back to the society by engaging is sustainable practices, protecting the environment and respecting human life. Thus, corporations are no longer purely profit seeking entities. They are profit seeking but socially responsible entities.
So, as per this scenario, business should not put a price on human life. Human life is supreme and its value priceless. So, it cannot be calculated.
b. No, it was not right to kill and eat Richard Parker. Richard Parker went into coma after the shipwreck and Dudley and Stephens killed him for food. There was no prospects of rescue for the shipwrecks and the shipwrecks decided to use the apparently dying Parker to feed themselves. This rationale of the shipwrecks is unethical. They are killing a person who is not dead yet. He is merely in coma, and may have a marginal chance of revival. By killing him, they have denied him the right to live. This is completely wrong.
c. The electric company had not disconnected but merely restricted the old man's electricity. This was done as the bill was unpaid. This gives the electricity company the right to restrict the electricity supply. However, the intention of the company was just to penalize the old man for the non payment and spur him to pay the bill. The intention of the electricity company, could not have been, in any rational sense, to cause physical damage to the old man. So, the electric company did the right thing. Only the outcome was undesirable.