Toxic Waste Case - Process of Rdcar

Given the information I have in "Desperate Air" article on the toxic waste in the land being sold to Fledging business, I would try out the various techniques like "Consequentialist Theory and Deontological Theory" (Linda & Nelson, 2011) and the five step process of "RDCAR" (Recognition, Discovery, Cognition, Action and Reflection) (North Eastern University, 2012) to arrive at an ethical and moral decision.

The fact of the matter is that the land contains toxic waste is informed to me by my long term friend. Based on consequentialist Analysis, I find that the action of me withholding would do more harm to the society than benefiting stakeholder - Desperate Air. The amount of harm is more than the benefit as the land will be developed by Fledging business to build high rise condos with walking trails and recreational facilities. The people staying in these condos and walking on the trails would be exposed to toxic wastes and have a negative impact on their health. The benefit would be that Desperate Air will be able to save from Bankruptcy and employees would be able to hold on to their jobs.

Using the Deontological Theory, I would focus on what is a right and moral principle of honesty, irrespective of the consequences to Desperate Air. I would put myself in Fledging business and the condo owners shoes and decide how I would feel if the information of toxic waste was withheld and that I find it out later after there have been damages. This situation would certainly make me uncomfortable and I expect that Fledging business has a right to know even though the information disclosure is not mandatory according to Florida Laws. The question here is doing the right thing. In this analysis, the principles of Desperate Air; that they are legally doing the correct thing would conflict with the interests and safety of Fledging business and its condo owners.

I would look at the RDCAR five step processes also to make myself certain that I am doing the right thing ethically and morally. As part of the RDCAR process I recognize that I am aware of the ethics involved in this deal. While legally Desperate Air is correct, I now know that based on my earlier analysis, I am ethically wrong. As part of fact gathering, I would make sure that the land indeed contains toxic waste by having a competent authority check the land for toxic waste infiltration. I would then proceed with the step of cognition which would give me a result based on the ethics analysis conducted earlier. My actions will weigh on saving Desperate Air from Bankruptcy or inducing harm to the condo owners and losses to Fledging business as the condo owners would then sue Fledging business.

From the above analysis and going thru the RADCAR processes, I arrived at a conclusion that the consequences of withholding the toxic waste information would do more harm to the society than the good it would do to Desperate Air and me.

I will