People start getting sick, because the water supply is polluted.  The hospital treats the illness as a bacterial infection.  The public is not warned about people being in danger.  The reports from the science studies get buried and hidden from anyone being able to find it.

A child grabs two apples.  They eat one, but throw the second one away.  The second apple was thrown away because it didn’t look as good.  When asked why they threw away the second apple.  The response was that it didn’t look like the other one, so it was bad.

In the polluted water supply dilemma, Kant would have the public warned about the bad water.  The people responsible would be arrested.  The rights of these people were disrespected by the officials that hid the issue.  They treated the people as a means and not as an end.  The people were just collateral damage to them.

According to Locke’s rights theory, the people have the right to replace the government officials.  The rights to life and liberty are not preserved by the government.  He would push to have the government officials replaced.  Individuals were not treated with respect according to Locke’s theory.

I could go with either solution to this dilemma.  I would probably go more with Kant than Locke.  The government officials should get charged with the crime of hiding the issue.  If this was someone else that hid the situation, they would be charged for this as well.  The actions violated the second formulation of Kant’s Categorical Imperative.

In the second dilemma, a child choosing to throw an apple away because they do not look the same disrespects the farmer who took the time to grow them.  This goes against the second formulation in Kant’s categorical imperative.  The farmer is being used as a means to the end.  Instead of appreciating the apples for the time someone else took to provide the food for them.

Following Locke’s theory in regards to people having the natural right to life, liberty and property.  The life of the farmer is affected because this disposal of fruit is what happens more often than we think.  Because this one child wanted the perfect apple, the suppliers search for the perfect one.  The suppliers start to reject those same apples, which in turn reduces the sales for the farmer.  This reduces his livelihood, which affects his life.

Since the sales are not there, their liberties are not available.  In turn the property is affected because the farmer could not keep his livelihood.  Locke would tell the kid to not take the food they have been given for granted.  He would be upset with the way people’s lives are being taken advantage of.

This is another dilemma that I could go either way with.  I would lean towards Locke in this situation.  The people that look for the impossible need to be reminded of the efforts it takes to provide the food.  Their desire in the long run affects how someone else makes money.  These actions can change someone’s life for the better or worse.

References

Goldenberg, S. (2016) Half of all US food produce is thrown away, new research suggests (NPG) Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/13/us-food-waste-ugly-fruit-vegetables-perfect

Mccoy, B. (2016) Six More Officials Charged in Flint Water Crisis for Alleged Cover-up (NPG) retrieved from: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/flint-water-crisis/six-more-offcials-charged-flint-water-crisis-alleged-coverup-n619811