The environment suffers because business has no ethics. Discuss

In some underdeveloped countries stricken with poverty, some companies take short cuts with the environment, such as by burning traditional fuels, using lead petrol and creating rubbish dumps in order to help the country grow and provide a better way of life for those living there. An example of such would be the accumulation of rubbish when a building company is building homes at a quick pace in order to benefit the population of the country. While this rubbish may take years to decompose which will give out pollution and take up land space (as well as the homes themselves taking up land) this is still an ethical business because it is looking out for the interests of those suffering from poverty. A utilitarianist such as Jeremy Bentham would use the Hedonic Calculus to weigh up as to whether this was the greatest good for the greatest number, and it evident that this will lead to pleasure for all of those involved, as it will bring pleasure to those living in poor conditions, as well as providing a profit for the building company. In light of this, it could be argued that businesses so possess ethics, it is simply that these ethics are more so enticed to the interests of the people as opposed to the environment. However, a follower of natural law may argue that looking after the environment is in the interests of the people, as the primary precept of an organised society will reject the leaving of land fill as this may cause disruption to the running of society by getting in the way of building schools etc. Not only this, but if we do not look after the environment, there will be no world for us to obtain and fulfil the primary precept of reproduction, and in light of this, we will be unable to achieve eudaimona. Therefore, this suggests that businesses need to reposition their ethics to account for the effect on the environment because by allowing the environment to suffer for the good of the people, in reality were are doing the future generations a disservice. Thus, perhaps businesses do not have good ethics because while they may think they are doing a good deed by helping those in poverty, it cannot be a good deed if it is at the expense of the environment. However, it could be argued that businesses should not have to be ethical and consider the environment because their responsibility is to the shareholders in their business, and thus they should be focusing on producing a profit for their shareholders as opposed to considering the environment. This reflects the view of Milton Friedman, who argues that the only people we should be ethical towards are our shareholders and thus we should do everything in our power to maximise these profits. By looking after the environment, a companies profit would be reduced as it would be ethical to the environment to cut down on the number of factories a business had as it would reduce the amount of fossil fuels used and pollution realised, yet it would also mean the company would not be able to make as much profit. In this sense, it could be argued that businesses are still being ethical because in the words of the synderesis rule “do good and avoid evil”, the companies are being moral to their shareholders by providing them with a good wage. A good wage would arguably be a requirement of an ethical business and thus, while the company may not be specifically ethical to the environment and causing it to suffer, the business is still ethical.