Choose a RLS and Compare the Applications of 2 Ethical Frameworks
RLS: Ought countries prohibit the production of nuclear power or not?
Ethical Framework 1: Deontology (Duty) Nuclear power production is racist. The nuclear industry wreaks havoc on native communities all over the world through the uranium mining process. Indigenous peoples have been harmed by uranium mines. Uranium mining is on lands claimed by, or directly affecting, indigenous groups. Navajos face 14 times the normal lung-cancer risk. The US had no plausible justification for allowing massive exploitation of the Native-American uranium miners. Inadequate compensation for radiation-induced disease continues. It’s only the indigenous people who have this greatly increased
…show more content…
Along with nuclear production comes a racist societal mindset. In the case of nuclear development, one of the choices has been to ignore the social costs. When social costs are ignored, selected groups of people are made victims. This is marginalization. Knowledge is also marginalized. Traditional ways of thinking and practical knowledge disappear forever. With the development of a nuclear society, we are becoming poorer in knowledge and solutions. We have lost wisdom, impoverishing ourselves by cutting ourselves off from receiving the rich gifts of vision that come from those who see from a different vantage point. Nuclear production requires racism, is racist, and drills a mindset into society that justifies racism in other situations as well. In our world, it’s not possible to have nuclear power with hurting minorities because they are continually marginalized and especially harmed. Therefore, countries ought to prohibit nuclear production to be …show more content…
If nuclear power production is banned, naturally, we will switch to the most reliable, proven, and popular source of energy: coal. This isn’t good because coal’s effects are worse than nuclear’s. Nuclear power production saves what coal would have destroyed. Without nuclear power, it will be harder to mitigate climate change and air pollution. Historical energy production data reveal that if nuclear power never existed, the energy it supplied would have been supplied by fossil fuels (overwhelmingly coal) which cause higher air pollution mortality and GHG emissions. Nuclear power prevented an average of over 1.8 million net deaths worldwide between 1979-2009. Nuclear power prevented an average of 64 gigatonnes of CO2 globally between 1971-2009. Nuclear energy production has prevented the building of hundreds of coal power plants. Projected nuclear power could reduce the CO2 mitigation burden by as much as 16-48%. If nuclear power production was banned, we would be back to coal again. The wastage of resources and pollution of the planet that comes with coal cannot be allowed when there’s the alternative of nuclear power production which lowers mortality and
There are many different opinions on whether we should continue to create nuclear energy or we should stop it. Some of the positive aspects are there has been no fatalities at nuclear power plants. Another one is nuclear power plants generate 20% of today power. Also nuclear energy is a clean power source with no pollution. Some negative aspects are creating these plants cost a lot of money. Another problem is we are running out of places to store waste. The waste puts off nuclear radiation
Society wants to improve itself, not make it worse. All of the things I have listed above will only downgrade society. The expense of nuclear energy is far too much. We think the U.S. should spend money on things that are needed rather than another use for warfare. The supply of nuclear energy is very low. This leads to demand from anyone, including terrorist groups. So, not only is there a limited amount, but because of that, dangerous people could do dangerous things to try to get
Creating and defining my own ethical framework is essential in future success as a businessman, a leader, and a team player. As a business student, I have learned that it can be a very cut throat industry and in order to get ahead, at some point and ethical dilemma will undoubtedly be an obstacle I have to overcome. The way I handle these dilemmas can make or break my career; business ethics are a key part of earning and sustaining respect, trust, and a good rapport with both clients and competitors in your industry. Therefore a solid ethical framework is an important tool for me to have as a standard for handling these types of dilemmas so that I can grow successfully while staying true to myself and to
Pollution is another topic with both pros and cons. Fossil fuels release harmful pollutants into the air such as carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide. Nuclear power does not release any of those toxins into the atmosphere. However, a pollution problem with nuclear energy is thermal pollution, where a plant’s “hot effluents” are put into a nearby body of water, and raise the temperature by a small amount but enough to cause a disturbance in the ecosystem of the lake or reservoir. Nevertheless, this could easily be solved by cooling the effluents before releasing them into the water. The other problem facing nuclear energy is waste disposal. Nuclear waste is radioactive and very dangerous. Therefore, it must be kept buried and sealed up for a long period of time until the radioactivity dies [Plasma-Material]. One positive fact about nuclear energy that is not disputed is its abundance.
The disastrous meltdowns that cause whole cities to become uninhabitable, as well as leaving families homeless and laborers without jobs, have defined the negative perspective of what people see in nuclear power. However, even after such catastrophes, the pure raw energy output makes nuclear power essential for the future of the human race. As time passes, the world’s energy usage has grown an increasingly massive size every year due to the consumption swell of energy. Despite nuclear plants being a heavily controversial topic internationally, its advantages are very well recognized and it’s causing nuclear plants to slowly become the basis of our growing society.
The potential and economic effects of Nuclear power can be devastating. Just look at Chernobyl. And everywhere that has Nuclear power. Where does all the radioactive and toxic waste go? We just put it in a huge barrel, and bury them in deep caves. It doesn’t get rid of the problem, it makes a bigger one. What happens if there’s an earthquake, and all of that spills and gets into our water system, or our oceans, or kills off our animals? It’s not safe.
In the modern society, energy is considered one of our most valuable resources. Humanity has managed to tap several sources of energy and utilize it for their daily activities. Almost everything in the society is dependent on energy; otherwise, humanity would cease to exist. The sources of energy vary from firewood, solar energy, geothermal energy and nuclear energy. The sources vary depending on the amount of energy that can be harnessed. Nuclear energy is a controversial subject when it comes to energy matters. Theorists argue that the world’s sources of energy are being depleted at such high rates, that the future will not favor humanity. Richard Watson establishes this ethical argument in his work known as Anti-Anthropocentric Ethics: he argues that any ethics should be based on the survival of humanity (Watson 245). Therefore, an inquiry that should be made in line with energy and ethics should consider the question; is modernization worth killing humanity? Nuclear power sources provide such high energy that can power industries and sustain industrial processes for longer times. The problem with the nuclear power energy is the danger it poses to the society and humanity as a whole (Ingram 37). The Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Russia is a good example relative to the effects of nuclear power and the environment. This essay seeks to analyze and evaluate the ethical issues raised by the Chernobyl nuclear plant as source of energy
While, coal-burning plants release tons of ash into the atmosphere, which is a cause to acid rain (“Nuclear Energy”, 2015). Additionally, coal-burning plants release a toxic gas, which has been associated with cancer; moreover, the burning of fossil fuels has been proven to cause the release of carbon dioxide and global warming (“Nuclear Energy”, 2015). On the other side of the spectrum, nuclear plants have been known for their issues in the leakage of toxic wastes, creating a risk of harm to the individuals who live around the area (Natural Resources Defense Council, 2007). Moreover, nuclear reactors create toxic wastes and until now the plans for long term storage for these wastes have not been created, which leaves the question of if there will ever be a plan implemented (“Nuclear Energy”, 2015)? Illustrates that an investment in a nuclear plant might be riskier than making an investment with a coal-burning plant.
Health care professionals are subject to a multitude of professional, legal, and ethical responsibilities which call for personal judgment to be utilized in such a manner as to protect clients as well as public wellness and interests. Overall considerations in handling such duties may be considered to be respect of a client’s autonomy, confidence, and recognition of obligations owed to all clients. While the aforementioned acts fall within the professional realm, there are also legal implications that guide care. Therefore, it can be said that ethical considerations occur in observation of legal responsibilities. Confidential information is perceived as private facts which are disclosed with the
The world as we know today is dependent on energy. The options we have currently enable us to produce energy economically but at a cost to the environment. As fossil fuel source will be diminishing over time, other alternatives will be needed. An alternative that is presently utilized is nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is currently the most efficacious energy source. Every time the word ‘nuclear’ is mentioned, the first thought that people have is the devastating effects of nuclear energy. Granting it does come with its drawbacks; this form of energy emits far less pollution than conventional power plants. Even though certain disadvantages of nuclear energy are devastating, the advantages contain even greater rewards.
There are currently 61 nuclear plants in the united states and that is dangerous to us and our wildlife. What if one day we were going to have a earthquake and the tubs where they keep their chemicals broke. What would we do? What would happen to all the animals that died of radiation? What would happen if our drinking water gets contaminated? Theses are things we should have thought about before we put over half a hundred dangerous plants in our nation. Nuclear plants just don't have an effect on the environment they also have an effect on civilization. They way they affect society is a nuclear power and war. With today's amazing technology we have created nuclear bombs that can wipe out whole world out, that can kill almost everything on our planet with just a push of a button. We humans have made something so powerful we use it has a weapon and use to blackmail other countries. North Korea has used their powerful nuclear bombs as a threat for a long
With global temperatures increasing and climate change controversies arising, the world seeks a clean, reliable energy source; could nuclear energy be the answer? Due to massive amounts of carbon dioxide emitted into the air by our main energy provider, the coal power plant, society is yearning for a cleaner form of energy. Nuclear power plants release minimal amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Nuclear energy, in the public eye, has a bad reputation because of accidents that have occurred in recent history (Fukushima, Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl). With the current climate crisis in full effect, the thought of nuclear energy has been revived. Society has become so dumbfounded by global warming that nuclear energy is being perceived as the apparent solution. The idea that nuclear energy should replace fossil fuels and coal as our main energy source is downright blasphemous. Nuclear energy shouldn’t be used because it’s dangerous, dirty, and immensely expensive and time consuming to start; therefore, the drawbacks greatly outweigh the benefits of nuclear energy.
In today's society, nuclear chemistry has slowly been introduced and taking over. Over the years these nuclear power plants have been popping up in backyards and towns. Nuclear energy is even being considered as an alternate source of energy that is to be beneficial to our environment. More people are using nuclear power and it can be seen in a long range of our medical technology. This however, is not a good thing for the future of society. While nuclear energy does present some benefits to society, overall it causes too much damage to the environment and therefore individuals.to begin with, nuclear chemistry produces too much environmental waste which causes a lot of damage to the environment. For nuclear energy, the main source that fuels
In this essay I have chosen to compare two opposing theories, Immanuel Kant 's absolutist deontological ethics and Joseph Fletchers relativist situation ethics. The deontological ethics focuses on actions made according to duty and the categorical imperative - which shows how acts are intrinsically good or bad. The situation ethics state that no act is intrinsically good or bad, and that actions should b made according to love. From this perspective it looks as thought Kant 's views were less personal than Fletcher 's, although in actuality both focus on the best outcome for humans.
From an environmental standpoint, environmentalists feel that nuclear energy would be a good thing for the world. Mark Lynas, a British environmental activist said, “Anyone who still marches against nuclear today is in my view just as bad for the climate as textbook eco-villains like that big oil companies” (Van Munster 789). Ever since the bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki brought the power of atomic energy, the words ‘atomic’ and ‘nuclear’ have been Janus-faced prefixes. To people on the outside looking in, they match atomic and nuclear up to be danger, death, and destruction. Then there is other people that have the more positive perspective and see it as a strong sense of achievement and a promise of energy abundance. Nuclear energy and its positive utility could serve humans in many ways, such as in the medical, agricultural, industrial fields, and last but not least, the electricity through the nuclear power plants. Energy resources are important in any country, but nuclear electricity is one of the best ways to strengthen a country’s energy security by diversifying its resources and increasing energy supply options (Durrani 183). In developing countries like Pakistan, they desperately need ways to develop and secure their energy resources to sustain their economic growth. Unfortunately, the sustainability of their economic growth is at risk due to the energy