PACINOS, Arrianne A.

September 10, 2016

MAS70 B1

Prof. Chavez
Case Analysis: Unocal in Burma

1. Analyze the case using: utilitarianism, human rights, Kantian approach, justice and
fairness, ethics of care, and virtue ethics. Which universal ethical principle do you think
applies the most in the case? Why?
1.1 Utilitarianism
The primary idea of utilitarianism is to focus on the greatest good for the
greatest number. To understand fully, we must cite the costs and benefits of
the Yadana project that the Unocal is planning on investing. The benefits are:
schools and roads are built along the pipeline, infant mortality along the
pipeline dropped, businesses are growing, the project has given the people of
Burma jobs, Thailand is able to enjoy cleaner natural gas, and Unocal was
expected to earn billions throughout the contract. However, this Yadana
project also has these following costs: hundreds of Karen were forced with
labor. They were also forced to relocate so that the pipeline project may be
accommodated. There have also been allegations of abuse and even murder
from the Burmese government for those who are opposed with the project.
Thinking about the costs and benefits, in a pure Utilitarian perspective, it
would be right for Unocal to investing in the Yadana pipeline. By conducting
the project, there were a far greater number of people got benefits from the
project, as opposed to the costs.
1.2 Human Rights
There were a lot of things from the case that has violated human rights the
Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International issuing reports about the

forced labor of the Karen people and the brutality of the Burmese arm. There
was also a report commissioned by Unocal which stated that human rights
violations have occurred and continue to occur. All of these stated were proofs
of conflict with the rights perspective of ethics. Therefore, Unocal was not
correct in investing in the Yadana project and conducting in the ensuing
project.
1.3 Kantian Approach
I think that the case seen in the Kantian perspective is immoral because it
violates both of the categorical imperatives as stated by Immanuel Kant. The
first categorical imperative is not applicable in the situation because the
decision of Unocal was not acceptable for everyone, especially for those
people who were forced to relocate for the purpose of the project. The second
categorical imperative is also not applicable because the Karen people were
treated as means, forcing them for labor and they were badly treated by the
Burmese army.
1.4 Justice and Fairness
In this universal ethical principle, we can say that the case is immoral because
the three tenets of justice were not present in the situation. The distributive
justice was not present, because there were various reports from the US State
Department and Unocals own commissioned study saying that although the
benefit of the project could have been distributed to all of Burma, it appears
that the burden of the project has been focused to those who are living within
the pipeline corridor. Retributive justice was also not present in the situation
as it was sued in both the Federal and State courts in the US and thus forced
Unocal out of business. The only present tenet, the compensatory justice,

shows that the Karen population who had suffered as a result of the project
were adequately compensated through the out of court settlement.
1.5 Ethics of Care
Based on the various reports from the US State Department Unocals own
studies, Unocal investing on the Yadana pipeline is immoral in the ethics of
care. This is due to the brutality that was experienced by the Karen population.
Since the Karen people were treated badly without compassion by the
Burmese army, and with the awareness of Unocal, it violated the ethics of
care.
1.6 Virtue Ethics
Following Aristotles perspective on being virtuous, I think that Unocals
decision was immoral, because of the excess of violation present in the
situation. It lacked charity and justice for the Karen people, and the negative
side of the case it just excessive.
2. In your view, is Unocal morally responsible for the injuries inflicted on some of the
Karen people? Explain.
Unocal should be held morally responsible for the injuries inflicted on the Karen
people because the violation of morals that obviously occurred to the case of Unocal in
Burma, including violation of rights principle, given the reports that show the existence
of human rights had been widespread; violation of justice principle, because the benefits
and the costs were not evenly and equally distributed; and violation of caring principle,
because the loss of basic compassion for the people of Karen by the Burmese army. With
all these stated, the Unocal still proceeded with the project.
3. Do you agree or disagree with Unocals view that engagement rather than isolation is
the proper course to achieve social and political change in developing countries with
repressive governments. Explain.

I agree with the Unocals preference of engagement rather than isolation to affect
changes in a country. Although occasionally isolation policies have produced point
specific result, it is however usually accompanied by greater social, political and
economic fallout typically suffered by the general population. In contrast, a policy of
engagement does provide better overall outcomes socially, politically, and economically,
although sometimes it takes longer to provide visible results.