Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Ethics Group Presentation

Anderson VS PG&E

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Ethics Group Presentation

Anderson VS Pacific Gas&Electric CO
The Erin Brockovitch Case By:
Ashley Schuchart
Kathleen Cohen
Ryan Kalinoski
Bill Dickman What Actually Happened? How is this case related to Philosophical and Moral Positions? Background of Case Anderson VS Pacific Gas & Electric
Hinkley, California 1965
Chromium 6 Pollution Utilitarianism:
An act is right if and only
if it results in as much good as any available alternative. Effects of Chromium 6
Cancer Carcinogen in the water
PG&E flyer
Unlined Ponds Carcinogen in the air
Dust particles in the air
Lung Cancer How much chromium 6 is dangerous? How much was used? PG&E Lies Lies Lies
Growing Battle Case Begins
Erin Brockovich
Ed Marsy
77 plaintiffs 1993 1994 Initial Settlement
648 plaintiffs
Battle Ensues What The Plantiffs Proved
Prove medical causation
Deal with missing evidence that had been lost or destroyed
Reconstruct a complex hydro-geological water system
Prove the extent of PG&E's inappropriate conduct The Settlement
$333 million compensation
Required PG&E to clean up the environment
Required PG&E to stop using chromium 6
Two Year legal Battle 1994 Injury Claims
Expensive Settlement
Jury Trial? Flyers Interviews Did Corporate Know? Utilitarianism
PG&E Decision to lie:
Morally Wrong ? Company doesnt have to use different moethods
in disposing of the toxic waste, nor do they have to
go about efforts in contatining and cleaning up
the contanination. Allows the company to continue
using current policy and procedures. Failure to notify citizens about
the contamination violated their
Human Rights. They had a right
to know.
The deceptive practices of PG&E directly caused them to tarnish their
"28 billion dollar" reputation. Although they are a household name,
they are not respectable to the American population.
Contamination of the ground water, and continuous
contamination from un-lined ponds, directly resulted in
an extreme array of medical complications to citizens,
including death. PG&E lost more money in result of the act through
court costs, fines, settlements, post contamination containment and clean up, than they would have spent originally
correcting the problem when discovered. Benfits of lying Consequences of lying Saves Money PG&E continues to maintain a
good reputation. The good in telling the truth
would have been more
benefical than the good in
lying. PG&e's act was not morally right Collective Welfare Utilitarianism seeks to find the action that results
in the greatest welfare to
those involved.
PG&E's deceptive practice
regarding water safety violated
their moral duties to the
citizens of Hinkley. How Utilitarianism links to this case The harm citizens incurred due to the actions of PG&E demanded justice that involved compensation and correction PG&E's act failed to seek an action that benefited
the welfare of everyone involved, justice needed
to be served, through compensation of losses
incurred due to the direct result of their action. Moral Objectivism This theory slightly relates to this case. The 10 Morals of Core Morality were violated by PG&E
Full transcript