Читать реферат по английскому: "Assumption Of Risk Who Is To Blame" Страница 2

(Назад) (Cкачать работу)

airline and only claim responsibility for the transportation. The warning holds

no validity once the individual has lost control over their well being.

In continuing with the theory that the provider of a service holds the

minimum obligation to produce their product; the situation which arises in the

case of cigarette companies tends to raise several questions. If it is correct

that they provide a good which is legal under present law, how can they be held

responsible in any way? In following with the statement above, the cigarette

company holds a minimum obligation to the individual to produce a “safe”

cigarette. The meaning of safe in this context is meant to imply that the

cigarette will meet the safety requirements set by the government so that

individuals are not killed by a single cigarette. This act of producing “safe”

cigarettes for individuals covers the minimum obligation of the company to the

individual. In this case, any additional concerns or problems which the user

may have as a result of the product becomes the responsibility of the cigarette

addict. The cigarette company seemingly performs more than the minimum

obligation by also providing a product which fills the crave of addiction.

Continued use of this addictive product may lead to detrimental health and lung

disease. Cigarette companies attempt to protect themselves from such issues by

warning users of the inherent dangers and therefore eliminating their

responsibility for the result. After all, the individual must only notice the

risk and discontinue the use of cigarettes to reduce the risk of illness.

Therefore, it seems that the company holds no problems since they provide the

product and clearly state the risks of use. In this case it becomes the

individual’s responsibility to accept the risk and suffer the consequences.

A large problem arises in the addictive nature of the cigarette to seize

control over the actions of the individual user. Although the product

acknowledges its addictive quality, the addiction still continues to seize

complete control over the situation of cigarette smoking. The user becomes

chemically dependent on the product and becomes unable to avoid the risks

associated. As in the airplane case, the cigarette company gains control over

the individual and is therefore forced to share responsibility for their actions.

By outwardly admitting the problem at hand, the cigarette company must handle

the consequences. It seems logical that the company could restrict blame solely

to the user, due to the self-inflictive nature of the problem. The problem lies

in the fact that as the cigarette company admits to the addictive nature of

their product, they emphasize the fact that they have seized control of the

situation. Taking control of the situation forces the company to take

responsibility for the outcome produced. Cigarettes are intended to be

addictive in order to increase sales. Thus, if the company shares in the awards

of the addiction, they should consequently share in the damages as well.

A case which differs, due the control of the individual over their

actions, is that of the mining industry. The only problem for the company is

that of the moral dilemma accepted by the company’s executives. When we look at

the case from a distance it seems to be similar to that of the cigarette

industry, but the difference lies in the non-addictive nature of mining.

Although the company acknowledges the dangers of working in the mines, it is the

decision of the workers to accept the risk or find less hazardous job. The

individual holds the power to work in the mine or not. Unlike smoking, the mine

holds no addictive qualities which force the workers to stay. The worker

assumes full responsibility for his/her actions due to the choice to work in a

hazardous area. Since the company never gains control over the worker, the

worker stays in full control of the situation given the apparent risks involved.

The only instance in which the mining company gains some power over the

individual is in the case of monetary concerns. If the individual can only

obtain work at the mine and relies upon the income produced, it seems clear that

the company then holds some power over the individual. Although, this power is

limited by the mind set of the individual to determine the actual importance of

monetary gains. Since the mine holds no addictive quality which forces the

individual to work, the worker holds a free mind to decide what qualities of

life are most important. This freedom to decide releases the company from

responsibility of any problems which may arise as a result of the mine work, and

places all burden on the individual.

Some may argue that the mining company holds some responsibility over

the well-being of its employees. These beliefs support the idea that the

company should provide the greatest amount of safety precautions for their

workers. This can be witnessed through the use of safety equipment, medical aid,

and protective gear. Since the company has already warned about the risks, it

becomes the burden of the individual to purchase these items for themselves.

The company only holds the obligations to inform the workers of such available

equipment. If the workers feel this is unfair they may quit working and

Похожие работы