Essay on Consumer Safety Product Dumping

Essay on Consumer Safety Product Dumping Essay on Consumer Safety: Product Dumping Essay on Consumer Safety: Product DumpingThe product dumping is a serious problem that raises a number of ethical issues, since products banned in the US, for example, may be easily sold in other countries, where quality standards and government regulations are not so strict as they are in the US. In such a situation, companies, which have their products banned in the US by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) can still sell their product abroad, in those countries where there are no bans to their products. As a result, companies selling such products pursue maximum profits, although they are fully aware of the fact that they expose customers’ health and probably life to certain risks because of which their products are banned in the US. in such a situation, customers life and health are at stake, on the one hand, and companies’ profits are on the other hand. From the legal standpoint, companies can sell products, which are banned in the US, abroad, but from th e ethical standpoint, such policies of companies are questionable and, as a rule, unacceptable because material benefits of companies cannot be more important than safety, i.e. life and health of patients. If companies keep selling products that have already been banned in the US, then they intentionally expose their customers to risks and threats, which have already caused the ban of their products in the US, but the poor regulation and safety requirements allow companies to sell dangerous products abroad.In such a situation, policies of companies, which have their products banned in the US and having option to sell those products abroad, may view their position from different theoretical perspectives. In this regard, the utilitarian perspective grounded on the principle of utility is likely to be the most popular among companies because this theory allows moral agents to take decisions on the ground of the principle of utility. Therefore, if the decision to sell products is benefi cial for the company then the decision is reasonable, especially taking into consideration the fact that the share of customers, who may be hurt somehow by products banned in the US is relatively small. Therefore, the principle of utility works pretty well in such a situation, because the majority of stakeholders benefit from selling products banned in the US: companies gain financial and market in benefits, their employees get jobs, while customers get products, which they use for their specific purposes, as a rule, being unaware of consequences and risks associated with those products. The principle of utility justifies the practice of selling products abroad, even if they are banned in the US.Alternatively, policies of companies may be viewed from the deontological theoretical perspective. Deontology holds the premise that all actions of moral agents should be viewed in the context of moral rules and norms. Any action of the moral agent is reasonable and morally correct as long a s it matches traditional moral norms and principles. In such a context, companies selling products, which are banned in the US, abroad act immorally and violate rights of customers to purchase safe and reliable products. Exposing customers to risks and threats is morally wrong from the deontological perspective. At this point, it is possible to refer to one of the fundamental principles of deontology, the kingdom of ends principle. The kingdom of ends principle implies that all people or moral agents commit virtuous acts that mean acts that are grounded on moral and just principles. In case of sales of products banned in the US abroad, it is possible to trace injustice in relation to customers overseas since companies act unjustly in relation to them selling products which are a priory not safe because they have already been banned by the US CPSC. Instead, companies should be driven by moral concerns and remain virtuous through the respect to the well-being of customers. Therefore, in the ideal society, where the kingdom of ends principle is respected, companies, as moral agents, cannot sell products that are potentially dangerous and are already banned.At this point, the deontological theory is close to the virtue theory and the right formation of character. The virtue theory holds the premise that all moral agents should be virtuous and respect moral norms and values strictly. Being virtuous is the only right way of life in terms of the virtue theory. At the same time, the development of the virtuous lifestyle and the full devotion of individuals to such virtuous lifestyle are possible only on the condition of the right formation of character. The right formation of character means that individuals learn positive, virtuous models of behavior, moral norms and principles. In such a way, the right formation of character leads to the formation of moral agents, who are virtuous and commit only morally correct acts. For instance, in case of companies, which have t heir products banned in the US, the application of the virtue theory and the concept of the formation of character means that companies should act in a virtuous way, respecting the principle of justice and, thus, they should extrapolate the ban on all sales of their products, which have been already banned either in the US or in any other country of the world.At the same time, it is possible to distinguish moral and intellectual virtues which may not coincide. What is meant here is the fact that intellectual virtues imply the prevalence of rationality in actions and decisions of the moral agent, whereas moral virtues imply the prevalence of morality and moral correctness in actions and decisions of the moral agent. Therefore, from the standpoint of intellectual virtues, the decision to sell products that have been banned in the US is not absolutely wrong or not virtuous. Instead, if this decision is driven by rational reasons, then it can be implemented in terms of the virtue theory on the ground of the intellectual virtue because such act will have reasonable justification. For instance, if products are not banned in other countries, then they match safety regulations established in those countries and they are not really dangerous to customers’ health, life, etc. Instead, the US rules may be just too strict and set excessive requirements to safety of products. From the rational standpoint, such a view is reasonable and, therefore, has the intellectual virtue sufficient for the virtue theory to accept such way of actions as correct.In such a situation, the decision many companies have to make, when they face the ban of their products in the US, is extremely difficult and challenging in ethical terms. In this respect, companies should conduct the detailed analysis of their products and to assess real risks and threats of their products to the safety of customers. At this point, it is worth mentioning the fact that decisions of the CPSC may be the result of trade wars the US directly or indirectly involved in as was the case of trade wars between the US and Europe in the past. As a result, many European companies could not sell their products in the US as well as American companies could not sell their products in Europe. However, such a ban was driven not by the customer safety concerns but by economic interests and concerns of the US. Therefore, such products could be sold in other countries, even if they were banned in the US. Nevertheless, companies should put the safety of customers as their primary concern as the only criterion for taking just decisions. This means that companies should not sell products that are unsafe for their customers.Thus, the safety of products is extremely important and companies, as moral agents, should act responsibly. Even though some ethical theories justify sales of products banned in the US to customers in other countries of the world, even if such products are dangerous for customers’ sa fety, health and life. In this regard, the possible solution of the ethical dilemma companies, which have their products in the US, have is the assessment of the safety of their products and justification of the safety of those products. What is meant here is the fact that companies should justify and prove that their products are still safe enough to be sold to customers without any risk to their safety.