Dilemma:
A factory that makes batteries –Batter-Con has a toxic spill of cadmium in the water supply of a town close to the factory of about 40,000 people, Town-A. Through a huge media campaign everyone in the town was informed of the spill and ordered to stop using the water. The corporation took full responsibility for the spill. They treated and cleaned the spill. They provided free testing for the citizens of the town for cadmium toxicity. They provided drinking water for all of the residents of the town. The even invited the EPA and hired an outside source to test the water after the treatment. The residents had no reports of illness or adverse effects because the company acted so quickly and efficiently. Life was good and the water was deemed good enough to use again.
Soon after that, the company discovered that the spill had affected another town’s water supply Town B. Through the study of Town B’s water source information was received that a small amount of cadmium spilled in to Town B’s water source. Town B is very rural with a population of about 1,000 people. The amount of the spill had a very little chance of harming any of the town’s residents. The amount of cadmium found in the water supply was so small there was a 90 % chance that none of the town’s residents would be affected. Should Batter-con use the same methods of action and accommodation for Town B as Town A (cleaning the water, notifying residents with a media campaign,) as Town-A?
Kant would solve the dilemma by using the method of universal law. Batter-con should use the same methods and accommodations for Town B that was awarded to Town A. According to Kant’s Categorical Imperative Maxim I, all actions should have universal law. Moral law is universal despite the circumstance. One should only commit an act if they perceived the act to be moral at all times despite subjective details. There is no exception to the rule, there is only the rule which must be applies in all situations despite circumstances. In order for Batter-Con to maintain their morality the need to apply the law of Universality to their actions. They should treat both of the towns the same and provide Town B with the same accommodations they gave to Town A.
The Social Contract Theory used by Locke who believed that every man had the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, known as Natural Rights . He believed that all men were created equal and one man should have the same treatment and rights as the next. Thus, if all men are created equal, B-C should give the people of Town A the same treatment as the people of Town-B. No man’s rights should be violated by another man. The tainted water could potentially cause adverse effects and harm the people of Town-B which would violate the quality of the their life and pursuit of happiness. Men should avoid bringing harm to each other. If one man abandons the natural law and brings harm to another man, the man that was harmed has the right to seek justice or reparations of the violator. Therefore, if a citizen got sick from the cadmium then they would have the right to seek reparations from B-C in the form of money, medical treatment etc. To avoid bringing harm to the population the company should clean up the cadmium in the water source of Town-B.
I agree with Locke and the Social Contract because that all men have the right have to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness I believe that everyone has equal rights. If anyone violates the natural right of another man they should be required to repair their wrong doing. I think Batter-Con has a moral obligation to clean the water even if the the percentage of incidence may be decreased they still should clean the water in order to maintain the company’s moral integrity.

References
Cadmium Spill. (2012). The Guardian. Retrieved from http://ww .guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jan/30/cadmium-spill-china-river