Wikipedia on Gendercide - Gendercide Is Gender-Selective Mass Killing

Wikipedia on Gendercide - Gendercide is gender-selective mass killing.

For decades, and according to the #empirical facts collected by several international agencies such as the United Nations, NGO's and other international organizations, that the misuse of technology like the one provided by GE Health Care and other international health corporations to the Indian market is facilitating pre-natal diagnosis, which leads to selective abortions and therefore a societal in-balance. This will have a deep negative outcome on India's future generations, society and economy.

We also know that such practices are illegal in India.

Hence, all agents of change must act immediately to stop this activity which, according to the Indian law and International law, is considered to be criminal, since millions of humans lives are in jeopardy . All corporations involved in such activities are included. GE Health Care is therefore included.

Ethical reasoning provided humans and business, which is a social phenomena developed by humans, two ways of solving ethical dilemmas when business is confronted with such powerful scenarios. Both are universally approved: the Consequentialist/Utilitarian reasoning and the Deontological reasoning. While formulating both theories they sometimes might overlap but above it all they are summoned by one common ground - universal good must prevail. And i will try to state that the outcome of both consequences and actions in this matter is inevitably just one.

I opted to follow only these two approaches because the presented case lacks some vital information. For instance, if I wanted to argue trough the Virtue Theory ethics points of view, I needed to know something about the actors character. By actors i mean the real people, managers or politicians, who are involved in this case. I also consider that Relativism it is not an appropriate approach to this case since it prevents any positive or negative argument to go much further than it's initial formulations.

Coined in the 18th century, Utilitarian reasoning concentrate on the consequences of human actions, and all human actions should be evaluated on the basis of the #"benefits and costs they will impose on society". It also states that, the right action must maximize overall good from the perspective of society.

To evaluate how one's action follows that assumption, Jeremy Bentham formulated the Principle of Utility. This principle states that one action is right - under the light of alternative actions - if it produces the greatest balance of good and bad. And the proof that gives life to this Principle of Utility, can be found by asking humanity which are the most desirable things? Hence, utilitarians argue that if everybody wishes to live, then to live is the most desirable thing amongst society. According to utilitarians #"the concepts of right, wrong and duty are subordinated to the concept of the end or purpose of an action".

Therefore, the set of questions that one utilitarian could define to solve the GE dilemma could be found within the range of the following formulation: From a moral perspective which of the alternatives constitutes a maximization of good? How many people will be affected and in what ways?

GE is clearly confronted by an economic and moral dilemma. According to my perception, to solve this dilemma ,GE has basically two options: continue selling the product or stop selling the product.

The consequences of the first option will be significant on GE's several stakeholders, and can be the following: (1) people will continue to use the product to perform selective abortion; (2) more baby girls will die; (3) shareholders, the company owners, will keep benefiting from short-term sales profits; (4) India will face a demographic catastrophe - unbalanced society; negative impact on corporate image; (5) through a long-term perspective, less woman will also be synonym of less tests, and therefore less long-term profits; (6) allow that some immoral business man to continuing profiting by using GE products and therefore GE become a vehicle of immorality.

In the other hand if GE stop selling the product the consequences could be the following: (1) become an active part on solving the problem, thus increase company's social audit; (2) company owners will have no short-term profit; (3) the selective abortion process will decrease, therefore more girls will be born and logically less will die; (4) other natural competitors will get GE Indian market share; (5) Indian society will become more balanced; (6) in a long-term perspective more women will be living to perform more tests, therefore more profit will be created; (7) other health benefits such as preventing infant mortality could be disrupted and create other types of problems for Indian society.

While evaluating the impact of these consequences, we must always take in consideration present and future generations. And this is not easy to evaluate since both options will somehow affect in a large scale Indian society. It's impossible, though, for me to formulate one exact Utilitarian cost-benefit analysis.

In short, i consider that, if GE continues selling the product, the predictable consequences will produce more negative outputs to both Indian society and GE, than positive outputs.

All involved stakeholders, inclusively the owners, will be adversely affected by this option. I base this statement on a long-term perspective. In the future, less women equals a gender unbalanced society, which will produce less profit since women are primarily the ones to perform the tests. If there are no women, there will be no one there to physically use the product, thus no profits.

Other utilitarians can also argue, that the use of the same equipment produces other positives consequences, like preventing infant mortality, however, when Utilitarians argue that the consequences must maximize the good from the point of view of all society, I must conclude that the most good will be produced if Indian society reaches an even gender-balance, since the problem of infant mortality is a consequence of human procreation, and without woman to procreate there will be no children to be born.

Critics of Utilitarianism often argue that this theory benefits the majority and usually allows injustice amongst small minorities, now those same critics can also argue that, if the technology continues to be sold, as a matter of empirical fact, the consequences will also affect a big majority - Indian society as a whole.

#"Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

Some Utilitarianism critics argue that the proper focus on ethical reasoning should not be consequences