Shell in Nigeria: A Human Travesty, Term Paper Example

There have been a great many things said about the activities of the Shell corporation in regards to its business practices in Nigeria. In this paper, I will be looking at several different points of view that a person might take towards these actions, and in summation I will be offering my own opinions based on the viewpoints that I cover here.

Firstly, I want to take a look at Shells actions from a universalist perspective. The very nature of universalism, I feel, is an excellent choice with which to view the world. A universalist believes that there are certain actions which should be considered criminal, and immoral no matter what the culture of a particular area deems as acceptable. These kinds of actions can be summed up as actions that are basically harmful to others and the environment in which others live. Things like murder, pollution on a massive scale, and intentionally deceitful comments meant to mislead and confuse the public. The basic tenants of universalism view the entire world as one working organism. Many atoms work together to form molecules. Those billions of molecules work together to form cells. Millions of cells work together to form a cellular community often referred to as an organism. We humans are very complicated organisms made up of different cellular communities. So a universalist would ask, “Why should this pattern stop here?” Why wouldn’t millions of organism work together to create something on the planetary scale?

Shell, as its own entity, does not take actions that benefit the whole. Shell’s actions benefit only Shell, and a pittance is given to the land that it corrupts in order to placate the people of the lands they ravage. According to Greenpeace as stated in The Earth Times, “just 0.000007 percent of the value of oil extracted” is given to the Ogoni people (Nov. 30th, 1995). These kinds of actions have a parallel in the cellular world. Sometimes, a cell mutates and becomes greedy, hoarding all the energy for itself so that it may live to multiply. These kinds of cells are called “cancer,” and I believe a universalist would view the Shell corporation in much the same light.

Karl Marx would probably agree with this statement, as he writes in the section “Alienated Labour,” from Karl Marx: Early Writings. The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, “The devaluation of the human world increases in the direct relation with the increase in value of the world of things.” Shell has placed such a value on its precious “black gold,” that the people of Nigeria are not only of little concern to them, but only warrant attention when they threaten to disrupt the company’s profit gains.

Marx’s philosophy would go on to further debate that the oil executives have lost their humanity in such actions, where he states, “The more of himself man attributes to God the less he has left in himself” (Marx, 168). Marxs goes on to say that “the worker puts his life into the object, and his life then belongs no longer to himself, but to the object.” Shell’s actions were all about profit, and the oil executives put one hundred percent of themselves into that goal. It seems in doing such actions, there humanity certainly suffered.

I believe that Donaldson would also have issues with the way that Shell conducted themselves in Nigeria. He writes in his article for the Harvard Business Review, Values in Tension: Ethics Away from Home, that “Cultural relativism is morally blind. There are fundamental values that cross cultures, and companies must uphold them” (Donaldson, p. 3). It is obvious from what has taken place in Nigeria, that Shell has not upheld the fundamental values that make up our moral fiber. Donaldson goes on to list three core principles that a business must consider when dealing with different cultures. The first is a, “respect for core human values, which determine the absolute moral threshold for all business activities,” followed by a, “respect for local traditions.” And finally he did believe that when looking at the ethical decisions of what is right and wrong, context does matter (Donaldson, p. 5). It seems that Shells actions in Nigeria could be argued to violate most of these principles.

Adam Smith, author of The Wealth of Nations, explains that the fundamental rights of humans is an equal right amongst all people. He says this is because we are all fundamentally the same as are differences are, “in reality, much less that we are aware of.” Honoring the local traditions are some of the actions that Shell failed to uphold. Strangely enough, Shell’s actions seem to go against the basic philosophy put forth by Smith in Book IV, chapter 2, paragraph 9 of The Wealth of Nations, where Smith explains that an “invisible hand” guides businessmen to use domestic labor over foreign labor as a means of personal self-interest. This is similar to being greedy for the greater domestic good. This invisible hand seems to have disappeared, as it is clear from Shell’s actions in Nigeria that there has been little domestic good to come of it.

Milton Friedman, in his New York Times article entitled, The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits, asks the chilling, but poignant question, “What does it mean to say that “business” has responsibilities?” and follows it up with the accurate statement, “Only people can have responsibilities” (Friedman, 1970).

Friedman makes it very clear that corporations are not people. This is an important thing to remember, as a corporation does not possess a conscious. It has only one goal, and that is to increase its profits. There have been few truer statements in regards to the actual role corporations play in our world today. Friedman also claims that it is up to the individual businessman to make the moral decision as to what should be done in dubious circumstances. The problem with that is the phrase, “I’m just doing my job.” These particular phrase has been uttered too many times throughout history, and acts a sort of moral shield, as if one could do no harm in performing their job. And when you’re job is to increase company profits, the people who are victims of the company become brushed aside.

Looking at the relativist view, instead of a universal one, their actions still do no good. From my particular view point, what good do I receive from Shell destroying a country’s land and subjecting its people? Lower gas prices? I find that concept laughable, as the actions of the past few years show that oil prices hardly center around the available resource. Much like the diamond trade, oil is simply hoarded in vast quantities and released at the whim of the companies that hoard it.

Works Cited

Donaldson, Thomas. Values in Tension: Ethics Away from Home. In Harvard Business Review, 1996. Print.

Friedman, Milton. The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits. New York Times Magazine, 1970. Print.

Gladwin, Thomas N., & Newburry, William E., The Environment: Shell and Nigerian Oil, 1997. Print.

Marx, Karl. Alienated Labour from Karl Marx: Early Writings. The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, 1844. Print.

Smith, Adam. The Wealth of Nations, Books I dn IV  (1776; rpt. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976). 1976. Print.