Sample Essay On Blood Bananas

The major discussion in the blood bananas case is the ethical dilemma faced by Chiquita company which after years of successful banana business in Colombia, its reputation is gravely damaged after it is discovered that the company had made huge payments to the AUC militant group amounting to US $ 1.7 million within the course of business. This group had come up in 1997 to counter the already existing groups such as FARC, EP and ELN, that by 2008, controlled up to 40% of Colombia. AUC protected its sponsors from attacks and protected their businesses and activities from interference by another militia. It was considered a terrorist group in 2001 due to its inhuman activities. Chiquita Company began paying protection payments to this group in 1997 and continued to pay, up to 2004 despite the group being listed as a terrorist group in 2001.
Colombia’s environment had not been conducive to trade and business due to the existing wars. The state government of Colombia had failed to provide protection and stability without which no business could successively be a going concern. Chiquita Company was also facing some financial constraints and stiff competition in the market. The fundamental questions are therefore whether it was prudent for the company to obey the law and cease having business dealings with the terrorist group to the detriment of its business, or was the company justified in the indicated circumstances to do what it did. What was ethically correct to do, in this case?
According to the Utilitarianism theory, Jeremy Bentham advocates that an action is justified if it results in the greatest happiness for a person. He asserts that if an action brings about more pleasure than pain, then it is justified as good. In the application to the blood bananas case, the Company was indeed trying to maximize benefits for themselves while ensuring they suffered less harm. I n Bentham’s interpretation, for this reason, they were justified in paying the amounts to the terrorist group to secure their business.
The rule-based approach is a theory of ethics that simply commands obedience to the rules as they are. The major philosopher of this theory is Immanuel Kant. Kant argues that a moral action is one that comes from duty, and that obedience to the rules put in place is more important than utility. The weakness of this theory is that it advocates blind obedience to rules as they are without any due consideration of the consequences of such obedience. Chiquita Company was for this reason expected to desist from dealing with UAC immediately it became an illegal group.
Rights based approach asks one to consider human dignity before undertaking any action. This means ensuring that the rights of others are not infringed by the individual’s decision where a conflict of interest ensues. This theory was also propagated by Immanuel Kant. The actions of the Company did not necessarily put in consideration the acts of the Terrorist groups and the consequences of their funding. Virtue character ethics theory emphasizes that the character of an individual and moral virtues should dictate what a course of action should be. Virtue theory dates back to Plato and Aristotle, who said that the virtuous are aware of the consequences of their actions. It is clear as a result that Chiquita could not be said to have been virtuous in the actions they undertook. Their actions were merely to secure their business and employees.
The social justice approach is defined as treating every person in society equally by availing equal opportunities, wealth and position before the law. John Rawls in His work “A Theory of Justice” states that actions are just when at the original position of all humankind, the action can be said to be fair to all. The Chiquita actions are clearly against social justice. This is because the profits made by the company would not have been made without the help of the illegal group. They aided, though indirectly to social injustice.
My recommendations to Chiquita would be to cease its operations in Colombia and concentrate on other markets. The Colombian Subsidiary could be managed by another company, and Chiquita could trade with that company while minimizing hardship as it already has a poor image in Colombia. The company should also come up with ways to respond to terrorist threats, for instance by seeking protection from the federal government in order to protect its interests.