200 words essay
Consider the following scenario. Acme Oil Company (AOC) just discovered an immense oil deposit in the Amazon. Tapping this reserve would result in the creation of 25,000 permanent jobs and would be an economic boon for the participating countries: Ecuador, Peru and Colombia, where the oil reserves are located, and the United States, the country of origin for AOC. However, it would destroy a significant portion of the Amazon, including the ingenious life in that portion of the Amazon. (This scenario is not too far off from real life; see, for instance, this.) Is it morally permissible for AOC to pursue drilling in the Amazon? In approaching this question, you do not need to answer it definitively, but describe what would determine whether it is morally permissible the following three perspectives: a consequentialist perspective; a Kantian perspective, a virtue theorist perspective, and a biocentrist perspective. Explain carefully what each of these distinct approaches to normative ethics entail, and what they might have to say about AOC’s actions. (Note that it is possible that all of them would say that it is morally impermissible; what you need to focus on is why they would say this, or anything else.) 200 words
