When advancing businesses or projects, it is important not to forget the consequences of the proposed project. This is because there are impacts, either on the environment or on individual lives or a community, that are caused by every endeavour. Construction of the Wonthaggi Desalination Plant (WDP) is an issue that raises various ethical issues as regards its sustainability, its effects on the nearby environment and its cost benefits. This paper addresses the moral issues and stance regarding the construction of the WDP.
By employing the utilitarian and Kantian reasoning, it is concluded that the WDP is not a right action as it does not enhance greater good for the majority; the construction of the plant ignores the possible negative effects on the surrounding environment, not to mention that it is not a sustainable approach to water supply.
The Wonthaggi Desalination Plant has been questioned as a project that leads to considerable climate change in addition to its potential negative effects on marine environment.
Given that the plant is very close to the coastline, it has been suggested that the plant could lead to a surge in storms making the area susceptible to effects of rise in sea level (Fisher, 2010). In such a case, the huge annual pay amounting to about $570 million is blinding everyone, thus neglecting the likely consequence of flooding that would come if the project is advanced (Fisher, 2010).
This is an advancement of Kant’s reasoning in that the construction of the desalination plant does not give consideration to the consequences of the action. However, it is imperative that maximum good to a majority, as enhanced by utilitarianism, be achieved by setting up this project (Audi, 2011).
By constructing the WDP, it is expected that while there will be an increase in water supply to Melbourne’s residents, the marine ecosystem will be affected adversely. Since the location of the plant is very close to the coastline, it is expected that ecotoxic effluents will be discharged into the ocean thus threatening the existence of marine life (Watershed Victoria, 2009). The project has also been foreseen as unsustainable, more so with a rising population.
It is therefore argued that more sustainable as well as affordable options should have been considered. Such options would include capturing rain water or water from storms or managing waste water effectively. In fact storm water, if well managed, could result into better water security since the water would be channelled to Melbourne’s storages as well as give room for restoration of damaged ecosystems since urban waterways would be guarded from a lot of damage (Watershed Victoria, 2009).
From the above discussion on possible negative consequences of advancing the WDP, it is arguable that this project is not morally right as it does not enhance maximum good to a majority the long run. The creation of jobs by the project blinds the fact that serious environmental effects would result, given the proximity of the WDP to the coastline.
Kant’s reasoning thus seems to be enhanced since the consequences are not greatly considered in this case. Alternative water sources such as managing storm and rain water effectively is a more sustainable and cost effective approach that has been suggested.
The argument is that the WDP has less financial benefits since it is a remote and centralised water supply that is not environmentally sustainable. However, the alternative water supplies are a form of “integrated water cycle management” (Watershed Victoria 2009, para 7) that would promote financial benefits and environmental sustainability. These alternatives would promote utilitarianism.
Reference List
Audi, R. 2011, Epistemology: A contemporary introduction to the theory of knowledge, 3rd edition. New York, NY: Routledge.
Fisher, P. 2010, Building for a cantankerous planet. The Sydney Morning Herald. Web.
Watershed Victoria. 2009, Why would you build a huge industrial plant here? Expert opinion. Web.