We want to catch the bad guys and promote justice. But how can this happen if we don`t speak up and denounce immoral behavior, even if it`s legal? Perhaps our willingness to give people a pass when they do bad things, even if they are legal, undermines the likelihood that people will follow the rules, let alone the spirit of the rule. In the 1970s, the speed limit on the federal highway was lowered to 55 miles per hour, not to save lives, but to reduce national oil consumption. So speed was illegal back then, but could we consider it immoral now? A good example of this is oil and gas wastewater injection and earthquakes. The discharge of wastewater is legal, but if it has a correlation with earthquakes that has not yet been determined; Is it ethical? Some things to consider are that the methodology for correlating wastewater injection or removal with earthquakes builds a model and methodology to determine why, how and to what extent wastewater injection induced seismicity or earthquakes. To begin this model, we need to collect data on the number of barrels of wastewater injected into disposal wells in the United States or even by region, and compare it to seismic activity over time. That would give an excellent image. Other considerations for the model methodology are to take the volume of fluid injected into the immersion wells and try to correlate the proximity of these storage wells with the epicenter of the seismic event or earthquake. The next step would be to superimpose geological maps of fractures and faults. This would provide data on the proximity of epicentres to known fractures or faults, provide a possible correlation between volume and epicentres injected into removal wells, begin to define an induced seismicity radius and establish parameters around areas of interest that may be very sensitive to immersion well injection, as opposed to areas, which are less sensitive or even advantageous to receive such an injection. Building a data-driven model, rather than seeing a trend and making assumptions, seems to be the best approach. I can assure you that oil and gas operators are just as interested in this data as the general public and academics, if not more so.
Rest assured that state regulators are closely monitoring correlation and data from the academic community. In fact, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission has already introduced regulations for injection wells. If it is determined that the disposal of oil and gas wastewater is directly related to earthquakes, the oil and gas industry and our country will face very difficult choices. Without entering into the debate on renewable energies, this country is still heavily dependent on hydrocarbons for energy sources. Operationally, oil and gas operators would be forced to close almost overnight unless they find a proven way to recycle the produced water. This overnight shutdown would cause massive unemployment, power outages, outrageous fuel prices and a general chaos that is a multitude greater than the oil embargo of the 70s. Ethical decisions would focus on future oil and gas demand, environmental responsibility, community engagement and dependence on foreign oil. The utilitarian ethical dilemma is becoming one of the best things for the United States; stop all oil and gas development in order to reduce the risk of a severe earthquake, loss of life and shock waves, stop domestic oil and gas production or try to mitigate and promote responsible domestic oil and gas development while trying to understand and reduce the risk of earthquakes in “overflown states”? Given what we know today, the disposal of oil and gas wastewater is still legal, but is it ethical? Is it ethical to infer the main industry that runs Oklahoma`s economy based on assumptions rather than verifiable data? This appears to be changing as the law seeks to impose broader obligations with respect to commercial and corporate activities, e.B.
with the duties of directors and obligations in the best interest of financial advice. But legal and ethical obligations do not always coincide. While I make an excellent point, I think the other side of the coin is more important these days, not everything that is illegal is unethical. There are so many laws governing our behavior that one author notes that we commit an average of 3 crimes a day in the United States (online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574438900830760842.html). We certainly do not commit the 3 unethical acts per day that reach the level of crime. Something is wrong here. The fact that something is legal does not make it ethical. You may think it`s obvious, but it`s not, as evidenced by the fact that a former student recently told me that his finance professor specifically told him that if something is legal, it`s ethical.
Point. Of course, the student – my student – knew better and told me the story by rolling his eyes. Some things are immoral, but completely legal. While other things may be illegal, but not necessarily immoral. So what is the relationship between legality and morality, between conformity and ethics? And what are the implications of giving someone a passport if they do something legal but that makes us cringe morally? Something may be legal, but we may find it unacceptable. And we may think that something is right, but it may not be legal. Many companies face a negative public reaction because they do not pay enough taxes in a number of countries. While this is not an illegal activity, it is considered false and we look to the law to make sure it doesn`t allow it.
Please explain what the difference is in your opinion. These words are used differently by different people and in different literatures. In at least one traditional use, they are interchangeable. .