Battling Over Bottled Water Essay Example

recommends water markets as a remedy for managing water issues. To enable voluntary exchanges and pricing of water resources, there should be a shift towards transferable rights in water.

Libertarians prioritize a free market and do not believe Nestle should be obligated to aid the community or environment in maintaining water levels due to their emphasis on property rights (Shaw and Barry, 2010). However, they must acknowledge that Nestle's water rights should align with those of neighboring property owners. Shaw and Barry (2010) caution that free markets may not always distribute commodities where they are needed most, citing Ethiopia, Ireland, and Bengal as examples where famine occurred despite a surplus of food. While encouraging charity is admirable, it alone cannot fulfill human needs.

Given the importance of water to sustaining life, I hold the view that one individual's entitlement to possess and exploit property should not infringe on another person's right to access adequate and safe drinking water. The Utilitarian Approach involves prioritizing the greatest amount of happiness for the largest majority within a society. Since happiness is the only intrinsic good, a utilitarian evaluator needs to take into account specific details of a situation along with their potential consequences in determining the ethicality of an action. The moral correctness in this case is determined by the eventual outcome, with utilitarians generally promoting equitable allocation of resources and income. For a utilitarian ethicist, resolving the Nestle water issue necessitates ensuring the maximum happiness for all parties involved. This includes assessing the possible benefits to the company from an economic perspective as well as their influence on equitable access to water.

A utilitarian would object to Nestle's

water bottling plant due to the potential significant reduction of the community's water supply. If this were not the case, they would approve the plant based on the mutual benefit of improved economic conditions. However, although job opportunities would improve economic distribution and promote happiness, a water shortage could be irreversible and sustaining a community without water would be difficult or expensive. An expensive water supply would favor the affluent citizens, skewing the distribution of basic resources.

The Rawlsian Approach emphasizes fairness and moral equality as fundamental values. John Rawls identified two principles for his theory: ensuring basic liberties and promoting social and economic equality. Inequalities are only acceptable if they benefit the least advantaged members of society. A Rawlsian perspective focuses on society as a cooperative unit, rather than just individuals. Therefore, when considering the Nestle plant, a Rawlsian ethicist would ask whether it provides mutual benefit while preserving equal liberties. If the scientists' claims of harm to the environment and community are believed, a Rawlsian would oppose the Nestle plant as it primarily benefits the company and is not mutually beneficial.

According to Rawlsian philosophy, allowing Nestle's water pumping to continue without harming the natural resources of the community would preserve its equal rights to private property and water use. Additionally, proponents of this philosophy would point out that the Nestle plant creates jobs and generates tax revenue for the local government, benefiting the least advantaged members of the community with high paying positions. However, if Nestle's pumping rate remains high and the community's water supply diminishes, it may become an expensive commodity, making it difficult for the least advantaged members of society to obtain.

Infringing

Rawls’ second principle of social and economic equality, which states that the solution should provide the greatest expected benefit to the least advantaged members of society, would be a violation (Shaw & Barry, 2010). Despite the significant contributions of all three theories regarding individual and community rights, they do not entirely resolve the current problem. Among them, the libertarian theory presents a compelling argument as it recognizes the negative effects of excessive government intervention in personal matters. On the other hand, Rawls’ theory of justice proves to be most useful since it appears to merge both libertarian and utilitarian theories in addressing particular concerns.