If the categorical imperative is to keep American industry competitive, the prime objective is to do that while balancing the other considerations present. It would not, for example, be proper to focus solely on the issue of competitiveness and forget other imperatives such as worker safety.
Should lawsuits such as the one against Ford be disallowed or limited Why or why not They should be limited. There is a system of laws in place that determine culpability and liability in negligence cases. In order to remain in business, a company has to be able to produce its product or service in good faith. Limiting the ability of individuals to sue for bad outcomes that are not the result of negligence on the part of a company would serve the interests of both prime objectives; that of public safety and of corporate viability.
Should we try to restrain, in this and other product liability situations, the litigiousness that seems to characterize American life How might we do this Yes, but carefully. The categorical imperative of an individual's right to sue for the redress of grievances must be considered against the reasonability of product use. A three-pack-per-day smoker shouldn't be able to successfully sue the tobacco company for product liability after contracting lung cancer. Only the political will of the people allowed that objective to be accomplished. Balance between actors is the key.
Product Exportation: Ethical Considerations
The question of constraint upon the freedom to export various types of commodities must take into account several different interests and issues. A close examination of those concerns moves far beyond the scope of this paper; yet the use of some of the ethical theories studied lends assistance in informing the discussion. After consideration of the various positions, my conclusion is that the absence of any constraint on exports would be unethical.
Under an Egoistic construction, companies should be allowed to export anything they can; particularly if the egoist sits on the corporate board. Off-shore production means lower expenses and greater profits. While it may cost some jobs domestically, the shareholders are benefited and the company's primary responsibility is to those individuals. From a Rawlsian perspective, however, the principle of distributive justice requires that there be consideration for those under-privileged workers who have been disenfranchised by losing either their job or the opportunity to have a job. This is where the principle of balance emerges; exactly how much responsibility does a company bear for its employees when contrasted with the benefits to its shareholders Were there no constraints on exports at all, most corporations would go where the labor and material expenses are lowest without regard to the American worker. If, using a form of Kant's prime objective, the categorical imperative is the protection of the American workforce, many corporations would go out of business because of the associated loss in competitive position. It is for this reason that I advocate balance; no constraint is bad and too much constraint is unacceptable.
As for exporting those commodities banned in the United States but not elsewhere, unless the product is known to be