Business Ethics

Individual Assignment

Battling over bottled Water

Nozick maintains that people are entitled to their holdings as long as they have acquired them fairly ( Shaw and Barry, 2004, 110). This is a sound statement that most people would agree with. Where we get conflict or disagreement is the nature of what we determine is fair and to extend that point reasonable. Aside from asking is it fair and reasonable we must ask is it just.

When one considers the land the notion of ownership and how that is applied to what is below the land can be seen in some eyes to be different when scale and purpose is applied. A farmer taking water for irrigation from this own property ( land ) is seen as means to an end. The general perception would be is that is a fair and reasonable use of water which comes from the land. It would become unfair should the farmer by use of the water through scale negate others from the use of the water.

Rawls theory of justice has two key threads the notion of agreement and someone’s self interest, ( Shaw and Barry, 2004, 118).. Agree a framework and then he or she is entitled to drive are result for one’s own benefit. Where this fails is when something that is outside the framework that was agreed is put into play. People tend to feel that the rules are being changed and not everyone has agreed or at least been advised. This would give cause to raise issues on fairness due to a lack of disclosure. As the actions by Nestle are likely to impact of others it will be seen as unfair. Having said that it could be a question of informing people objectively with what impacts Nestles actions will have on others. Why, because we all fear the unknown and as such tend to make assumptions that may in fact be incorrect.

It would appear that Nestle a world wide brand building company with great marketing may have failed to market it’s intentions well enough to the various lobby groups that have become involved.