This essay ethically discusses the decision of a country (Country A) to introduce a two US-$ can deposit on all plastic bottles sold in order to improve sustainability.
A currently discussed sustainability dilemma is natural resource depletion and environmental pollution through plastic. Since plastic has several fields of use, a lot of crude oil is extracted. As products made of plastic usually have a short duration of usage, using plastics is considered to be a waste of resources. Furthermore, plastics are not biodegradable which leads to increasing waste of plastic in the environment. Several measures are undertaken to counter the impacts of plastic, for instance implementing recycling systems or developing alternative packaging.
The opinion held in this paper is that introducing a 2 US-$ deposit in order to improve sustainability is morally wrong from a deontological point of view. First, the introduction of the can deposit limits people’s freedom of choice. Second, the amount of two US-dollars is unjust, considering that some people will not be able to always raise them. Third, sustainability is not addressed appropriately, since sustainability dimensions other than ecology are not well considered.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Main reasons against a two US-dollar can deposit
3. Main reasons for a two US-dollar can deposit
4. Ethical analysis
Freedom of choice and freedom of markets
Implementing values as a law: Environmental conservation
Equal opportunities
Concepts of Sustainability
Terminology
5. Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
This essay evaluates the ethical implications of implementing a two US-dollar deposit on plastic bottles as a measure to enhance environmental sustainability, balancing ecological benefits against individual rights and socio-economic justice.
- Deontological ethical assessment of environmental regulation
- Freedom of choice and market intervention
- Intergenerational and intragenerational justice
- Economic implications and efficiency of take-back systems
- Sustainability dimensions beyond ecological preservation
Excerpt from the Book
Freedom of choice and freedom of markets
Consumers of plastic bottles may claim that the introduction of a can deposit on all plastic bottles sold would abridge people’s freedom of choice. They would be constrained to pay additional money when purchasing plastic bottles which they only get back by returning them. Milton Friedman’s (1912-2006) statement about freedom of choice supports that by saying that the government should, in fact, inform about advantages and disadvantages of a product but at the same time allow people to decide for themselves which chances to take (Friedman et al., 1980, p. 245). The can deposit would therefore violate individual freedom of choice.
Adam Smith would agree that the state should intervene in the market as less as possible, saying that the public good is best achieved by letting people pursue their own interests (Smith, 1983, p. 371). Yet he believes that some regulations by the state have to be done, otherwise greedy actors in the markets will abuse their power and build monopolies in the market (Smith, 1983, p. 407). Hence, the can deposit on plastic bottles could be understood as means to control excessive extraction of natural resources by a monopoly at a disadvantage of the public good. Friedman would counter, saying that even though the state could help compensating for market failures or managing resources, it is not easier for the state to solve the reasons that caused market failures. He reasons that attempts to outweigh market failures by the state often resulted in government failures (Friedman et al., 1980, p. 232).
Chapter Summary
1. Introduction: Outlines the problem of plastic pollution and the author's stance that a two-dollar deposit is morally questionable from a deontological perspective.
2. Main reasons against a two US-dollar can deposit: Discusses the infringement on consumer freedom and potential socio-economic burdens created by the high deposit cost.
3. Main reasons for a two US-dollar can deposit: Highlights the potential for reduced pollution, increased environmental awareness, and the establishment of sustainable recycling systems.
4. Ethical analysis: Critically examines the policy through the lenses of market theory, justice, and the definition of sustainability.
5. Conclusion: Summarizes that while the policy aims for ecological conservation, it fails to adequately resolve issues related to justice and economic efficiency.
Keywords
Sustainability, Deontology, Plastic Bottles, Can Deposit, Freedom of Choice, Market Failure, Environmental Conservation, Social Justice, Rawls, Friedman, Utilitarianism, Resource Depletion, Economic Efficiency, Responsibility, Sustainability Dimensions
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this essay?
The essay investigates the ethical validity of a hypothetical governmental policy imposing a two US-dollar deposit on plastic bottles to improve environmental sustainability.
What are the central themes discussed?
Key themes include consumer freedom, the role of state regulation in markets, intergenerational responsibility, social equity, and the definition of sustainability beyond just ecological factors.
What is the author's core research stance?
The author argues that such a high deposit is morally problematic from a deontological perspective, as it restricts individual freedom and may be inherently unjust to those with lower financial means.
Which ethical frameworks are applied?
The analysis utilizes theories from Milton Friedman, Adam Smith, John Rawls, and Hans Jonas to weigh market liberty against public interest and collective responsibility.
What does the main part of the paper cover?
The main part presents arguments for and against the deposit, followed by a detailed ethical analysis concerning market intervention, legislative implementation of values, equal opportunity, and sustainability concepts.
Which keywords best describe this work?
The core keywords include sustainability, deontology, consumer freedom, market failure, social justice, and environmental policy.
Why does the author critique the term "can deposit" for plastic bottles?
The author argues that "can" refers to metal containers, making the application of this term to plastic bottles linguistically and logically inconsistent in a formal policy context.
How does the paper address the economic impact of the policy?
It discusses the potential for economic inefficiency, noting that retailers face extra costs for take-back systems, which could lead to higher prices being shifted onto consumers.
- Citar trabajo
- Melanie Bayo (Autor), 2018, Ethical discussion on can deposit in order to improve sustainability, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/468573
