What is this chemical for? / Who would I be selling it to? / Why is it being banned? / Do these side affects cause cancer or other diseases / how much is going to cost / I would probably not distribute it /
This doesnt really say how harmful the chemical is so im not sure. if its could potentially actually hurt or kill a person then probably not depending on the state of my company. if were doing even sort of well then of course dont use it. If your business is failing its a harder choice for me.
No, I wouldn't use the chemical because I would think about the future impact of knowingly using that chemical. Although it is legal, it would still affect customers and lead to distrust. This is bad because companies need to have moral values and ethics in their business. I would change to a different chemical so that I would be able to find a supplier and not scramble last minute at the end of the year and can find one that works.
I think it is very pointless that you are making me wait a few minutes to write about what I think about the task instead of letting me answer. Do you realize how long three minutes is to sit here and think about the answer to a question that I can come up with an answer for very quickly? I don't really have any thoughts related to this task. I just have thoughts about my actual response.
i wouldnt use this chemical, because there might be negative consequence of using the chemical (consumer complaints, negative brand image, etc.) even if it's legal. / / - Risk vs. Profit.
As a business it makes sense in theory to cut costs and utilize the cheapest resource available, but in something as delicate as agriculture using a chemical known to be dangerous can have serious consequences. Whether I would consider using it depends on the reason for it being banned. If it is something regarding contamination to local aquifers or threatening pollinator species, I would not, but if it is a ban based on a fear less substantial, I may still consider it.
how much product does Steve normally sell during a given period of time? / how long is Steves lead time? / would this decision have a negative affect on steves business?
what the heck Steve. If you know the chemical is toxic why use it? What if it kills someones dog or baby? Do you want to be responsible for baby deaths Steve? Where is your sense of honor broh? If your company ends up being responsible for deaths
I am wondering about about how toxic these chemicals are and what side effects there are if they are used. I also what about what happens if I get caught using these chemicals.
Well first off, if it's going to be illegal soon, so I would already feel bad even considering continuing to use it until it becomes illegal. I would probably rather spend the time I had coming up with a more long term solution that didnt involve that
If it's available for cheap right now and it doesn't get banned for another year, I see no reason as to why he shouldn't purchase and use this chemical if it adds profit to his firm.
Does this do the same thing as the card game? If Steve chooses to sell is he a bad guy? I like money. What would be the bad things to selling this chemical? what if Steve has ulterior motives? We do not know the rest of the story it only gives us a small glimpse of what the story is about. I want to know more about steve before I
I wouldn't. There is a reason that the chemical is going to be banned. It ethically doesn't make any sense for a company to attempt to profit while cost is low on a dangerous product /
banned in a year, cheap now , nice profit
Are people going to buy this pesticide that will be banned soon?
Steve should absolutely use this product while it is still legal. It will help his business grow and possibly keep him afloat when the possible replacement is out. The downside is he is not helping the environment and that could cause people to think differently of him and possibly not support his company. Have to measure the trade off
Reflect upon moral obligations and practice good ethics.
I would use this chemical as long as i can if it's going to help me make a big profit.
I probably wouldn't use the chemical if there where negative effects that i knew about. I probably would not even buy the chemical in the first place. If i had already bought the chemical i would probably use it but only so i wouldnt lose money.
I don't think it is morally right to buy a product that will be illegal next year. Yes I could make a nice profit, but distributing a toxic chemical for personal gain doesn't feel right. It is hard to pass up an opportunity to make a nice profit and maybe if my financial situation wasn't the best I would consider it.
It can take away from my concentration on the subject by having to wait several minutes everytime
I would do it. I see no problem with it as long as it's legal. It would be a different story if it was illegal.
I am thinking I would not do anything to harm the environment. I am thinking that small business is just as bad as big business.
i would use it, make money for the company quickly and maybe get a raise
I wouldn't want any prison time just to make money. It's only a matter of time before he's caught.
I'm wondering if Steve cares about the environment or just cares about profits at the expense of doing damage with the toxic chemical.
I'm contemplating whether or not the ethical implications would cause me to choose a more expensive alternative. I'm also thinking that if the chemical is known to be extremely toxic then why is there a year wait before it's banned. That makes me wonder about the motives for banning the chemical. If a government agency has a definitive reason to ban a certain chemical for toxicity, then it would be irresponsible of them to have some sort of waiting period. If they are concerned about the economics of the situation then they should of
Well if it is not going to be legal, than there is probably a good reason why. I would not want to risk the ethics of my company, and would probably choose the cleaner option. I realize that our company could make more money, however I feel that in the long run it would be more opportunistic to have people trust your company.
If I were Steve, being an operations manager I would want to make the most profit possible so my business does not shut down. I feel like Steve would most likely purchase and distribute this chemical, without any regards of the repercussions because he seems like the type of guy that would only be interested in his own self instead of the concerns of others. He does not seem like the type to contemplate why it would be banned in a year and that maybe on ethical levels, he really shouldn't buy this. Even if it does make him a profit
How toxic is the chemical? Aren't all pesticides toxic? How much of a profit is he set to make? How toxic is the chemical? Does it matter how much profit he'd make if it harms people/pets? Are others going to buy it? Would they abuse it more than I would? What is the moral thing to do?
likely. Might as well do it while i still can.
Since I know it will be illegal I probably would not use the chemicals. It would not be right for me to do so. I think in this instance it would be important to abide by what the law will be, as opposed to what it is right now.
It doesn't seem ethical, but it is legal. I think in the long term though it would look better for the firm to take the lead and openly say they are avoiding the chemical. It's the right thing to do and you can put a positive spin on it and possibly help the firm's image.
I am thinking about the opportunity I see to make a quick profit. I like to benefit myself financially, and when something like this pops up I would take advantage of it and make a quick profit for myself.
I'm thinking of how harmful the toxic chemical would be. The value of it being cheap doesn't outweigh the damage that could be done.
i am thinking about the environmental impact of the chemical. / I am thinking of what other things we can use instead of the chemical / will my decision affect employee morale? / can we survive without it?
I would think I would have to think carefully about whether all of the inventor could be sold before the ban. The decision also depends on what is toxic about the chemical. Is it a harm to human health? Is this just an environmen
I'm thinking about how to answer the question. Am I not supposed to answer it here? / / Still listening to the music, so I guess I'm cool. Enjoying some chocolate too.
I'm thinking Steve should not use this chemical. Sure, it is still legal, but it is destined to be banned for good reasons. If I were Steve, I would not use it.
Is Steve using the chemical, or merely redistributing it before it is made illegal? If I were in Steve's place, I would consider producing and redistributing the chemical before it is made illegal so that I can turn a quick profit. My actions still fall within the realm of legality, so there is nothing immoral about what is being done. If Steve were to redistribute the chemicals after they were banned, then his actions would be wrong.
It would be very immoral of Steve if he used the chemical to make a profit. I would feel very guilty if I did so and so should he. Money isn't everything.
If I knew that the chemical was going to be banned in a year, there is no way I would use it now to make a quick profit. I would be extremely concerned about the impact it has that led to it being banned and also, if it was that dangerous, why it wasn't banned sooner. Why wait a year if it's that toxic?
I feel that it's morally wrong to use that product but would I resist the possibility to make a nice profit?! Would I think that "if I don't use it someone else will use it anyway", so nothing it's gonna change for the environment?! Maybe.. I think I would use it because I'm a greedy human.
Steve likes making money and nothing is wrong with that. If this chemical is so "toxic" why is it not being banned immediately instead of a year later? If I was Steve I would do that same thing, the chemicals obviously not that bad and to be honest who really cares if it is.
What is with this timer? Seriously. I am thinking about how arbitrary and stupid this timer is.
i would be hard pressed to use this product as such there is a reason for it to be banned. While it would be nice
I am thinking about what steve should do and try to make the best decision / I am trying to put myself in steve shoes and figure out the best plan of action /
Well my first thought is I don't like writing. I'm not as calm as I was before. I feel like I need to take 5 minutes to calm down, breathe, etc. Also I probably wouldn't use the chemical just because I am moral.
I would not use it. That is all. These timers are too long.
I think that it would be wrong and foolish to engage in this idea. There is a reason why is it going to be banned so I think that it shouldn't be messed around with. It would probably do more harm than good.
I wouldn't use it because it's basically poisoning people for money and is evil
I would, against my moral judgement, probably use the chemical and make some extra money. It's currently legal so that will help my conscience.
the chemical is toxic so even if it's banned one year from now, it's still doing harm while we're waiting for it to be banned. there's a reason for it being banned which means it's a bad thing, so I don't think morally he should use the chemical because of the harm it can do. Morals is important in this decision. it's morality vs. money
Legally - Steve has the right to product the chemical and sell to make a profit. Morally - Steve has a decision to make in regards to his preference for profit and the health and wellness of those who may use his product. If I were steve, I would continue selling to make up for the drastic change in price as it may be detrimental to my business and ability to keep the doors open. It is legal if he does so, and he keeps the lights on in his establishment and keeps employees working - that is, if these are his circumstances.
I am thinking of the things I will say on the task itself. Is this the task itself? I'm a little bit confused. I don't want to risk using a toxic chemical. What if all my customers will die and then in the end I will not have a business. What kind of ethical irresponsibility would I have if I use the toxic chemicals!
it is low likely for me to use the chemical which is going to be banned from the market whether it is cheap or expensive, It is banned because it is bad for customers.
I wouldn't do it because it is toxic. No risk is worth going to prison for. /
If I were Steve I will immediately try to create new method for producing pesticides.