This paper looks at the relationship between businesses and the environment. It looks at the obligation business has towards environmental protection and the way it should work with other factors to make regulations necessary. Moral ethics in business and its relation to the people and environment is explained in detail. How the business relates to outside people and animals is described, and the right way forward is given. This paper seeks to find out whether peter singer agrees with either mark or William Baxter on how business should relate to the environment. It looks at each of the author’s works and compares it with what peter singer thinks should be the right ethic for business in relation to the environment. A comparison between the views on business and environment is given regarding several authors. William Baxter in his book people or penguins looks at hoe business should relate to the environment especially in matters of pollution. Baxter thinks that the waste can only be viewed in terms of human waste in the context of employment. He says “Waste is a bad thing the dominant feature of human existence is scarcity our available resources, our aggregate labor and our skills in employing have always been and will always for some time continue to be inadequate to yield to every man as he would like to have. Hence, none of those resources or labor or skills should be wasted- that is employed to produce less than satisfaction.” He says that his criterion is more focused on people than penguins.
This symbolizes that he cares less about the effects that businesses cause to animal. He says that his observations about environment are people related to his criteria states. Baxter says that he has no interest in preserving the animal species for their sake. His theories are more focused on business ethics that enhance human progress but reducing on the care for animals. Baxter says that he rejects the position that the balance of nature is to be respected unless it is for the better god of humans. Mark on the hand contradicts with Baxter‘s theories. According to mark good business ethics goes in harmony with the environment. He says that pollution should be managed because as much as it affects humans it also affects the environment and animals. Mark thinks ethics should provide a relative balance between the environment and other external factors. He argues that when businesses want to improve and expand on the animal ethics consideration, there should be given to what the progress would cause to the animals and other natural resources like forests and animal habitats. Mark says, “It is important for appropriate rules and regulations to be appropriately set in order to watch on business of flora encroachment on natural habitats.” The two authors contradict on the business ethics concerning environment and animals.
My point of view is that Peter Singer would agree more with Mark than he would with Baxter. In the article, the place for non-humans in the environmental issues peter discusses how businesses should relate to the environment and animals. He compares human feeling to those of animals and other factors of the environment. According to peter, environmental factors include pollution of air water and converting of natural habitats for human activities. These factors have led to a thing such as global warming. The vital information that Singer makes to the entire world is that eating mammals and birds usually cause pain and suffering. Therefore, people should not eat animals or bird meat without a greater consideration. For instance, in his opinion, he states that four or five hens are crammed into a cage with a floor area that is almost equal to a single page of the New York Times newspaper. He nostalgically laments for the floor that is made of wire that makes it difficult for the hens to relax comfortably. He continues to argue that, the inhumane treatment of animals is neither morally defensible nor acceptable, when people know that they are also living organisms that feel pain and suffering.
People have a moral obligation not to inflict pain and suffering on any individual, including nonhuman animals. Singer contends that the consideration should be given to both humans and animals. The consideration "does not mean treating them like we do other humans." It means considering the interests of all things equally, not just the suffering of humans. According to Singer, most people sacrifice the interests of animals to satisfy their interests because they do not give equal consideration to the suffering of nonhuman animals. To conclude peter thinks businesses should consider the environment in its decision making and ensure that various ethical decisions are scrutinized before they are put in practice. Killing of animals for whatever reasons does not provide the actual intention of God`s creation of mankind and his co-existence with others. It eliminates the expected and intended great commission of love. Animals’ needs to be respected according to the stipulated laws and virtues provided in the constitution.