US economy affects world economy. The predicted recession may result in crashing stock markets, bankrupt businesses, and increased unemployment, poverty and mortality rates worldwide, due to hunger, depression, suicide and lack of resources. My choice would be the “fracking” proposal which can avert the recession & boost the economy. “Green Wind Turbine” would be unsuccessful during recession, since its expense is more than its revenue. And, without economic viability all other stakeholders’ interests are lost.

Utilitarianism supports “fracking” as it produces “greatest good for the greatest number”. In the end it will create millions of jobs, help boost economy, meet Canadian and US oil needs and supports ‘energy security’. We cannot address all concerns from all stakeholders at all times. “fracking” serves the majority of Primary and Secondary stakeholders which have a higher priority in the stakeholder typology. The non-social stakeholders are dormant and are a minority.
Utilitarianism being a consequential principle focuses on the ends, and ignore the means. The shortcoming of “fracking” is that on the way to boost economy via oil production, it’s also boosting environmental and ecological dangers. Emissions, pollution, wastes, chemicals, contamination are bi-products of oil extraction by “fracking”. This principle drives us to ignore the primary and secondary non-social stakeholders and may cause an irreversible damage, while focussing on producing utility for the majority.
The principle of Moral Rights supports the “fracking” proposal because it is giving the current generation the right to live and a means of livelihood, job creation and way to get out of a recession. Taking the rights away from the current generation so that the future generation can survive is not morally right.
According to the principle of rights “fracking” is not giving all its stakeholders the Moral Rights that they deserve, by not focussing on the damages to the neighbourhood communities and waterways, and the irreversible damage that our future generations will be exposed to due to the injected chemicals that are trapped in the rock for decades and the level of contamination ion nearly impossible to measure. By ignoring one stakeholder group and giving more importance to others the industry is not adhering to their moral rights.
Principle of Justice supports the “fracking” industry because every industry has a margin of error and according to the reports of “mishaps” the industry is well within the industry established margin of error and should have equal rights as do the other industries. It will not be fair in saying that the “fracking” industry causes the most damage to people, communities and the environment.
On the other hand according to the Principle of Justice the “fracking” industry should share distributive justice of benefits they earn and burdens they cause to the communities. By compensatory justice they should compensate for the injustice faced by people whose water supply was contaminated and for all the clean up required of the environment after the “fracking” process is over.
The “fracking” industry applies the Principle of Caring by not only creating jobs at the brink of a recession giving people a lot of hope, as they have a means of earning income to feed their families. The industry generally has the most well-compensated employees in the energy sector and the employees have a share in the stocks of the company as well.
“Fracking” in many instances does not adhere to the Principle of Caring by causing reasonable intrusions to the health and does not have appropriate processes that must be put in place to secure the health of employees, and the safety checks and balances that acknowledge and respect worker’s rights to health and safety and violence in the workplace. Workers are exposed to chemicals causing neurological problems, birth defects, impact lung functioning and cancer. The industry has also overlooked the health and safety of the people residing in the communities where they build the wells. Records have shown tap water lighting up, chemical burns while showering, threat of clean drinking water and reduction in the wildlife survival around the area.

The Golden Rule says “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. The Golden Rule supports the “fracking” industry. The “fracking” industry is compensating their employees well and all the employees have stock in the company and thus they have vested interest in always promoting their companies best interest. They employ investigative journalist to actively pursue leads on any social, environmental and economic malfeasance but their loyalties lie towards the company. They are also funding the North American “fracking” responsibility committee with the same motto of the golden rule that if they help the committee in turn the committee will help them.
The Golden Rule suggests that the “fracking” industry carries huge environmental risks and is a heavy polluter. If today the industry is causing harm to the environment by emitting ozone, and is a significant source of greenhouse gases, then the environment will also give back a similar amount of damage by causing climate changes and turbulent weather, as well as depletion of the ozone layer causing the harmful UV rays of the sun to penetrate in our atmosphere and damage plants and cause skin cancer. If today the industry is polluting the groundwater and waterways then in the future the result would be lack of clean drinking water and health effects on people.
The Virtue Ethics may somewhat reflect what kind of person I am when supporting the “fracking” process. I feel that as the authority figures of the country we hold a promise to our citizens to help them through an economic downturn. Citizens look up to their Prime Minister (in Canda) and President (in US) as a leader who will get them through an economic recession. In reflection of this confidence that people have in their leader, “fracking” industry will help us achieve it.
On the other hand my Virtue Ethics are more inclined as a person who would be against the “fracking” process looking at the implications or damages it does along the way. My integrity and loyalty is towards to communities that depend on the industry that is harming them. Economy will come up slowly and steadily, but the damage caused by the “fracking” is irreversible.

Yes, Milton Friedman would agree with my position on the issue to present the “fracking” proposal to Prime Minister Harper and President Obama. The “facking” proposal is focussing on the major responsibility of businesses as per Milton Friedman and that is to maximize profits for it owners and shareholders. The “fracking” industry will be creating abundant jobs and extracting oil to curb the oil needs of North America not because its concerned with boosting the economy or averting the recession, and definitely no concern for social issues, but for the sole purpose of making profit and thus keeping its shareholders happy. By funding the responsibility committee and by strongly defending the use of “fracking” as an environmentally safe technique and on the other hand consistently refusing the disclose the fill range of chemicals used in the process, along with have some areas if the environmental section underwritten to conceal the data, it is clear that the primary goal is not to protect the environment, but to make profit. To avoid conflicts of interest QBC has tried to keep the employees happy by compensating them well and giving them shares in the company so that the employees obligations, loyalties and vested interest lies within the company. And therefore employees would feel its their responsibility o keep their mouth shut even if they are not comfortable with the environmental risks that the “fracking” industry poses.

Corporate governance is the method by which a firm is being governed, directed, administered or controlled. The fundamental problem behind corporate governance is that top managers cannot be trusted to necessarily act in the best interest of the owners-the shareholders. QBC, pays great incentive to employees, and have hired their own investigative journalist, and finance the responsibility committee. Just like Enron, QBC may have been giving incentives not to act in the best interests of shareholders at times. Enron’s board were aware of the accounting gimmicks being used and conflicts of interest, but did nothing to stop them.
A similar operation mandate like the “fracking” operation is Nova Scotia’s Westray Mine. QBC also wants to get the “fracking” process running, extract the oil and gas and sell it quickly. Just like the Westray mine provided 300 badly needed jobs I the area the “fracking” industry has also proved to provide thousands and potentially millions of jobs in North America. In the Westray mine the workers health and safety rights were violated and the situation may be similar in the “fracking” industry. But the “fracking” industry claims that the mishaps are well within the margin of error of the industry.
In addition we take a look at the ethics test:
The Test of Common sense got me thinking if the “fracking” proposal really made sense to present. As a Deputy Minister of the Environment I should have proposed the “Green Wind Turbine” proposal which was not only more “Green” and environmentally friendly than the “fracking” proposal but also I was not doubted to have any vested interest (through my brother-in-law) in the deal. But considering the circumstances in which I had to make my choice (an upcoming recession) the “fracking” proposal made more sense as it would help North America directly and the world indirectly.
In the Test of One’s Best Self, I felt that by choosing the “fracking” proposal I am not being selfish and stuck up with my thought of being green but working towards the emergency, which is the recession and working on solutions to overcome it rather than do something which is “Green” but the expenses are more than the revenue it generates, which is a wrong decision to take in such circumstances.
I am not 100% in the Test of Making something public. Thought I believe I took the right decision to propose the “fracking” project, I still am very unsure of all the threats it poses. There are underwritten concealed data which I am aware of and making that public will be very controversial. This data will have to be hidden from the public for their benefit.
I have already failed in the Test of Ventilation because there are many groups and media that are opposed to my idea.
The Test of Purified idea is supported by the whole industry and various committees supporting the safety of the industry.
Gag test proves that my decision is right because it doesn’t make you gag at the idea of extracting oil and creating jobs.
When I was presented with the ethical dilemma of choosing which proposal to present I reconciled my ethical conflict by figuring out that we owe the people of the US and Canada our strongest obligation, we honour the most important idea of creating hundreds of thousands of jobs across North America in short term and millions of jobs in the long term. In conclusion my choice is the “fracking” proposal that produces the greatest good in the circumstances.