A utilitarian will defend Roche Pharmaceuticals on the grounds that CellCept is a drug which benefits the entire society. Despite being accused of malpractices, the Traidos Bank is not justified to exclude Roche from investing its stocks with them. It should have been morally right to argue that its services are for the benefit of everyone. However, right based ethic can condemn Roche because its practices are immoral. To an activist, it is unethical to violate human rights. It was immoral for this company to forcefully take organs from prisoners without their consent. This is a violation of fundamental human right and Chinese law. This is the most reasonable premise because, Roche was not supposed to infringe the rights of prisoners. Imprisonment does mean the end of life. Even prisoners have rights which must be respected.
As a student of ethics, I would like to agree with the bank for taking action against this company. It was justified to exclude Roche from its dealings because of its questionable conducts. A part from violating the bank’s codes of conduct, it went against the law governing medical sector. It was not by any means, justified to take transplants from prisoners without their consent. Although it provides useful drugs, it should not be allowed to participate in the bank’s sustainable investment universe. It does not qualify because it does not meet the minimum standards of ethics set up by the same bank. These are rules which were set by the bank. Roche must have deliberately decided to violate them because of its immorality. It should not justify crime.
I would like to conclude by agreeing that Roche Pharmaceuticals does a great job by manufacturing CellCept which prohibits the rejection of transplanted body organs. However, it is unethical for it to obtain transplants from prisoners. Instead, it should abide by the law and acquire the same from free donors. It deserves the banks punishment.