Some ethical concerns have been raised over a move by the United State to increase gasoline taxes so that gasoline related issues in the automobile industry could be alleviated. This was raised due to the environmental effects that carbon dioxide emission associated with the use of gasoline in automobiles soared high. Global warming, characteristic of climate change has been linked to the extensive use of gasoline hence counter measures had to be employed. Inasmuch as this move may seem plausible, it underscores ethical issues hence my not be the best option for arresting environmental pollution. In this regard, I believe the move is unjustified and untimely basing it on the utilitarian theory.This theory suggests that if any activity is to be carried out, it should out to meet the interests of the majority. The activity should not enrich only a minor group as opposed to the satisfying the needs of the majority. In this regard, the move by the U.S. government to increase the taxes on gasoline will not have the desired output. There are many injustices involved, particularly to the majority of the people, hence will not have the interests of the people in mind. For example, many automobile manufacturers are involved in manufacturing gasoline vehicles. This is du to the manageable cost of production and the ready market that is involved. However, when alternative forms of fuel vehicles will be introduced, the cost of production will change meaning that some people may lose their jobs due to the increased financial demand. Furthermore, most of the people in the United States can afford gasoline vehicles hence banning the manufacturing of these vehicles will lock out majority of the population. This will be the greatest form of injustice to the middle income earners, who make up the majority, in the United States.
The only practical way of solving this problem would be continued sensitization on the effects of fluorocarbons and other environmental pollutants. Furthermore, the use of unleaded gasoline should also be promoted through the formulation of laws that would govern the production of petroleum products. The other possibility would be for the government to encourage and financially input into the production of non-gas guzzlers. Large gas guzzlers like hummers heighten the use of gasoline hence increasing its effects to the environment.
Nonetheless, it is not only unethical but also illegal for the government to prevent a U.S. company from producing legal goods. As it stands at present, the manufacturing of gasoline automobiles is legal in the United States and not until laws ill be formulated and implemented to stop this, the government is not mandated to do so. These companies are not only protected by the law but also ethical values that prohibit infringement into the rights of an individual or a group and the assurance of freedom for any legal party.Finally, with poverty being a main agenda in developing countries, it would be unethical for the United States to ban the global use of cheaper technologies exemplified by fluorocarbons, coal burning plants and others. This is based on the ethical rule of utilitarianism as many of the low income earners will be exempted from owning vehicles. Furthermore, with the levels of poverty in those countries, their governments may not sustain their economy by adopting expensive technologies.In conclusion, the right to own a car of your choice should not be infringed into by the state or government. It is a matter of what you can afford but not what the government wants you to own. The utilitarian theory of ethics seeks to protect such kind of people from exploitation hence should be set s the guiding principle towards the implementation of this move.