The Dilemma of the Dakota Pipeline

According to Categorical Imperative, addressing the Dakota Pipeline dilemma would involve evaluating the moral actions of implementing the project, while considering the universal freedom and reason of the people who are likely to be affected. It would be necessary to address ordinary or common moral sense that the people whose land the pipeline will pass through.  The categorical imperative, therefore, provides the way in which an evaluation of the moral action is going to be done and the moral judgment that will be made (Young, 2014). The decision on whether to support or oppose the construction of the underground pipeline will depend on the various goals to be fulfilled, whether they will depend on individual human ambitions or whether they will respect the autonomy and dignity of every human being. Considering that the construction of the pipeline is attracting support and opposition in relation to effects it will have on the environment, cultural and religious sites, Kent would weigh the reason behind each stand. If the construction of the pipeline will results economic impacts that benefit the whole country, such a project should be supported. If the criticism for the construction of the pipeline stems from a sense of duty, by opposing the negative impact on the environment and violation of the common interests of the community, the project should be opposed.  Kent would support a decision that puts aside the personal attachment that can influence one’s ability to be rational about the project and stick to what is ethical.

Deontology theory places focus on rightness or wrongness of a given action rather than rightness or wrongness of the effects of the action (Young, 2014).  To a Deontologist, the Dakota pipeline project depends on whether the construction is right or wrong, and whether it conforms to the agreed moral wrong. If the construction of the pipeline across the land belonging to the Rock Sioux Tribe could lead to economic benefits but at the expense of the environment and the welfare of the community, this would be morally wrong. This means that the economic benefits would result to bad state of affairs since the way such economic benefits were obtained in the wrong way. This goes against the argument that the resulting economic benefits justify the action of building the Dakota pipeline. The theory holds that some actions are wrong regardless of whatever positive impacts that follows them.  People are bound to do what is right and ethical rules bind these individuals to their duty (Fisher, 2003). If the action of constructing the pipeline will lead to destruction of the religious and customary rights of the people and destruction of the environment, benefits attributed to the end results do not qualify or justify the Dakota pipeline. One cannot justify the construction of the pipeline by showing that it led to good consequences. On the hand, carrying out the right action should be done regardless of possible less good than doing the wrong one.

The best solution is the Kent’s ethics, which allows for what is reasonable among all people. As such the interest of some people should not be allowed for majority’s benefits. The business profitability of the Dakota pipeline project should not be used as a reason for violating the rights of the tribe and environmental preservation.

Reference

Fisher, C. B. (2003). Decoding the ethics code: A practical guide for psychologists. London: SAGE. 243-44

Young, G. (2014). Malingering, feigning, and response bias in psychiatric/psychological injury: Implications for practice and court.583-3584