Canadian Minister of health Allan Rock unveiled proposed a new packaging for cigarette packs at a news conference in Ottawa in 2000. The regulations also required tobacco companies to list toxic chemicals present in cigarettes and in second-hand smoke. A young boy smoking a cigarette attests to the powerful impact of advertising and adult behavior on children. Cigarette advertisers appeal to many different aspects of consumer behavior and attitudes. Although the demands of an ethic of care are aligned with the due care principle that manufacturers have a duty to protect vulnerable consumers, the principle has also been defended from other moral perspectives. Rule utilitarians have defended the principle on the grounds that if the rule is accepted, everyone’s welfare will be advanced.38 The principle has been argued for on the basis of Kant’s theory because it seems to follow from the categorical imperative that people should be treated as ends and not merely as means—that is, that they have a positive right to be helped when they cannot help themselves.39 Rawls has argued that individuals in the position” would agree to “original the principle because it would provide the basis for a secure social environment.40 The judgment that individual producers have a duty not to harm or injure vulnerable parties, therefore, is solidly based on several ethical perspectives. The Duty to Exercise Due Care According to the due care theory, manufacturers exercise sufficient care only when they take adequate to prevent whatever injurious effects they can foresee that the use of their product may have on consumers after having conducted inquiries into the way the product will be used and after having attempted to anticipate any possibly misuses of the product. A manufacturer then is not morally negligent when others are harmed by a product and the harm was not one that the manufacturer could have possibly foreseen or prevented. Nor is a manufacturer morally negligent after having taken all reasonable steps to protect the consumer and ensure that the consumer is informed of any irremovable risks that might still attend the use of the product. For example, a car manufacturer cannot be said to be negligent from a moral point of view when people carelessly misuse the cars the manufacturer produces. A car manufacturer would be morally negligent only if it had allowed unreasonable dangers to remain in the design of the car that consumers cannot be expected to know about or cannot guard against by taking their own precautionary measures.
Canadian Minister of health Allan Rock unveiled proposed a new packaging for cigarette packs at a news conference in Ottawa in 2000. The regulations also required tobacco companies to list toxic chemicals present in cigarettes and in second-hand smoke. A young boy smoking a cigarette attests to the powerful impact of advertising and adult behavior on children. Cigarette advertisers appeal to many different aspects of consumer behavior and attitudes. Although the demands of an ethic of care are aligned with the due care principle that manufacturers have a duty to protect vulnerable consumers, the principle has also been defended from other moral perspectives. Rule utilitarians have defended the principle on the grounds that if the rule is accepted, everyone’s welfare will be advanced.38 The principle has been argued for on the basis of Kant’s theory because it seems to follow from the categorical imperative that people should be treated as ends and not merely as means—that is, that they have a positive right to be helped when they cannot help themselves.39 Rawls has argued that individuals in the “original position” would agree to the principle because it would provide the basis for a secure social environment.40 The judgment that individual producers have a duty not to harm or injure vulnerable parties, therefore, is solidly based on several ethical perspectives. The Duty to Exercise Due Care According to the due care theory, manufacturers exercise sufficient care only when they take adequate to prevent whatever injurious effects they can foresee that the use of their product may have on consumers after having conducted inquiries into the way the product will be used and after having attempted to anticipate any possibly misuses of the product. A manufacturer then is not morally negligent when others are harmed by a product and the harm was not one that the manufacturer could have possibly foreseen or prevented. Nor is a manufacturer morally negligent after having taken all reasonable steps to protect the consumer and ensure that the consumer is informed of any irremovable risks that might still attend the use of the product. For example, a car manufacturer cannot be said to be negligent from a moral point of view when people carelessly misuse the cars the manufacturer produces. A car manufacturer would be morally negligent only if it had allowed unreasonable dangers to remain in the design of the car that consumers cannot be expected to know about or cannot guard against by taking their own precautionary measures.
Chapter+6.docx