information on the Beech-Nut case, feel free to read the following article: [htt
ID: 429117 • Letter: I
Question
information on the Beech-Nut case, feel free to read the following article: [http://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/24/magazine/into-the-mouths-of-babes.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm] Once you have familiarized yourself with the details of the case, please answer the following:
(2) What kind of moral bearing, or how morally relevant were the following factors have on how the situation ultimately panned out with Beech Nut:(a) the company's difficult, preexisting financial situation; (b) the pressure applied by the parent company, Nestle; and (c) whether or not the counterfeit juice harmed the babies who drank it. In short, I want you to consider these three factors and explain whether or not you think they played a signigcant role in how this situation was judged morally. Should we hold them less morally responsible because of these things? Less responsible? Free of responsibility? Explain your answers.
Explanation / Answer
So far as the moral fabric is concerned, then I'm quite sure that whatever financial and political situation the company was in, selling a fraud product esepcially to new borns which is of course threatening to their health in the long run, is of course bound to be severely punished by law. I read the whole article, and what it seems to be an astonishing case of corporate fraud specifically when there are people with track records, I see it as an argument provided in the form of an excuse to 'save' themselves from prosecution, since they were the very same people who were selling sub-standard products. So, whatever the record of a person is, in the end what matters is his/her actions in the present situation. There are of course a lot of ethical ways to recover a loss making organization, so simply stating that Beech-Nut was suffering financially and there was dire need of affirmative action, at the cost of new born babies, is in my opinion a grave crime and needs to be dealt with the severest of punishments. No action, even it is meant to fix a financial problem, can ever be justified at the cost of a human life, or any living being for that matter. If Nestle was pressurising the company, they would have simply bailed out and could have declared the company is bankrupt. At some point or the other, they would have fully recovered, even if it meant decades, but people need to have standards and a spine when it comes to moral decisions.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.