CASE 7

In January of last year, the S.S. Vulgass, an oil tanker of the Big Dirty Oil Company ran around in the
area just north of Vancouver, spilling millions of gallons of crude into the waters and onto the beaches
of British Columbia and southern Alaska. The damage to the beaches and wildlife and consequently to
the tourist industry, the ecology and the quality of life of the local residents is incalculable, but in any
case will require many millions of dollars for even the most minimal clean-up.
The ship struck a small atoll, well-marked on the navigational maps, but it was a dark night and the
boat was well off course. On further investigation, it was discovered that the Captain of the Vulgass,
Mr. Slosh, had been drinking heavily. Leaving the navigation of the ship to his first mate, Mr. Mudd,
he retired to his cabin, to "sleep it off." Mr. Mudd had never taken charge of the ship before, and it is
now clear that he misread the maps, misjudged the waters, maintained a speed that was inappropriate
and the accident occurred. Subsequent inquiries showed that Captain Slosh had been arrested on two
drunk driving convictions within months of the accident. The Vulgass itself, a double-hulled tanker,
was long due for renovation and, it was suggested, would not have cracked up if the hull had been
trebly reinforced, as some current tankers were.
Page 2 of 3
R. U. Rich, the Chief Executive Officer of Big Dirty Oil declared the accident a "tragedy" and offered
two million dollars to aid in the clean up. The Premier of British Columbia was outraged.
Environmental groups began a consumer campaign against Big Dirty Oil, urging customers to cut up
and send in their Big Dirty Oil credit cards in protest. In a meeting to the shareholders just last month,
CEO Rich proudly announced the largest quarterly profit in the history of the Big Dirty Oil Company.
He dismissed the protests as "the outpourings of Greenies and other fanatics" and assured the
shareholders that his obligation was, and would always be, to assure the highest profits possible in the
turmoil of today's market.

Questions:

1) The question is, who is responsible?
2) Against whom should criminal charges be leveled?
3) What should be done, if anything, to punish the corporation itself?
4) What about the CEO?

Answer

1) The question is, who is responsible?

According to the Dictionary.com, responsible is defined as being answerable or accountable, asfor something within one's power, control, or management.In the above case, we are presented with a few numbers of characters. The persons responsibleare the captain, which were Mr. Slosh, the first mate Mr. Mudd and the Company because allcontributed to the situation so therefore all characters are responsible for the tragedy. First andforemost the company which is controlled by Mr. Rich should be held responsible for allowingMr. Slosh to be the captain knowing that he got arrested on two drunken driving convictionswithin two months of the accident. It should have been the company’s right and duty to fire himor replace him with another captain. The company should have also ensured that his first mateMr. Mudd knew how to control the ship and read the map for the safety of them onboard. Mr.Slosh is also responsible in some way; he should have not allowed the captain Mr. Mudd to drink while on sail for their own safety and the safety of the ship. Mr. Mudd should not have beendrinking because he knew what would have happened but instead he did and caused a tragedy byleaving the navigation ship to his first mate Mr. Mudd who had no knowledge on how to operatethe ship. Also Mr. Slosh should have known that it’s a law not to drink and drive and he brokethat law so therefore he should be held responsible for the outcome as well.

The CEO shouldn'tallow any form of alcoholic beverages on the ship, reason being, to ensure the safety of thecaptain and his crew. According to the Virtue theory, it states that whether an intention is right or wrong, it focuses on whether or not the person is expressing good character. In this case none of the characters were portraying good virtues. Mr. Slosh was being naïve to be drinking anddriving and Mr Rich was being carefree, meaning he did not ensure that the captains were up to par, all he was concerned about was his money and the profit at the end of the season

2) Against whom should criminal charges be leveled?

Criminal charges should be leveled against the first mate Mr.Mudd and Mr. Slosh because their responsibilities were somewhat equal.Mr.Mudd knew that Mr. Slosh was drinking and heMr.Mudd knew that he could not take over from Mr. Slosh so therefore he should have ensuredthat Mr. Slosh didn’t drink any alcohol., so therefore he should be the one to get most of thecharges as well as Mr. Slosh because he was drinking and driving and because of him drinking,he had to give his first mate to take over and he did not have clue what to do. Due to all this, itcaused the company millions of dollars for even the most minimal clean up. If Mr. Slosh was notdrinking, his first mate Mr. Mudd would not have to take over causing all the damages. Both parties were acting unethical and so there unethical behavior would lead to consequences. The justice theory states that when situations arises, we need to compare and weigh the conflictingclaim and strike a balance and in this case both parties did not carry out their duty and so chargesshould be leveled against them both.

3) What should be done, if anything, to punish the corporation itself?

To punish the corporation itself, their license should be taken away (suspended). Thecompany should also be fined for the damages that were done, The government shouldensure that they clean up the place, work with other regulatory bodies to execute a clean upuntil they are finished they cannot conduct any business. Also to punish the corporation touse the license, they will have to clean up everywhere before they can operate any more business. Also to punish the corporation, the captain Mr.Slosh should be arrested andcharged. Until their ships are up to scratch they should not conduct any business because itwas stated in the case that the double-hulled tanker, was long due for renovation and, it wassuggested, would not have cracked up if the hull had been trebly reinforced, as some currenttankers were.

4) What about the CEO?

The CEO was being very unethical in not ensuring that the captains were able to sail beforeassigning them to the duty. He was also catering for the greater good of the company andensuring the majority is happy. According to the Justice theory, it justifies the actions taken by Mr. Rich, take into consideration his speech. It was aimed at producing higher amounts of  profit with regards to the shareholder. According to him, his shareholders and the increase of their profits are his priority. Also he was able to do his part in helping with the clean-up byselling out 2million. These actions justify his cause under this view.The action of Mr. Rich however one may view it, depends solely on his intentions on doingthat action. One must note that Mr. Richs statement at the end of the case studies. There itmade mention of his obligation to the shareholders, which was to gain much profit as possible. From this statement alone, we may be able to conclude that Mr. Rich’s intention of donating the 2million to clean up was to gain better views from the people. Because of thathe may retain the status of his company, despite the oil-spill scenario.