The chapter primarily focuses on the ethical evaluation of BP’s decisions in regards to spill management through the lens of utilitarianism. The latter considers an action ethical or unethical depending on the overall outcome and benefits (Halbert and Ingulli 1). When analyzing BP’s decisions and actions, it is important to include all stakeholders. Firstly, the cost-benefit analysis shows that BP incurred heavy losses due to fines, penalties, lawsuits, and damaged business. However, both long-term and short-term effects need to be considered. Secondly, shareholders of the company also incurred major losses.
Thirdly, the workers, who suffered from the spill, and other professionals were involved in the cleanup were killed, severely injured, or suffered other health effects. Fourthly, the Gulf area is a highly valuable ecosystem for fishing and other marine life forms. It is still unclear how massive the harm will be on the local fauna, but it is evident that the chemical particles will not magically disappear and will continue circulating in the ecosystem.
Fifthly, the local businesses, governments, and populations are heavily dependent on the Gulf’s ecosystem for a wide range of reasons. The spill impacted the fishing, tourism, and health of people living near the area. Although FDA claimed that seafood is safe to eat, it is still a question of time whether or not longitudinal health effects will occur (Halbert and Ingulli 3). Sixthly, the Gulf area is critical for the natural environment outside of it because fish, birds, and other marine life forms use the site for breeding, migration, and other patterns of behavior. Therefore, BP’s decision not to employ a backup switch will result in harmful consequences, but its decision to participate in deep-water drilling might equalize in terms of economic benefits to the nation.