Inequitable Living Quarters on the Explorer IV Oil Rig

Off the coast of Angola is an oil rig, “Explorer IV”, that operates under the umbrella of a major U.S. multinational oil company. Its population consists of a roughly 80/20 split between local Angolans and American Expatriates. The former occupies more monotonous positions as laborers and roustabouts, while the latter comprises more technical and administrative positions such as roughnecks and drillers. Despite the overwhelming majority of local Angolans aboard the rig, the one hundred twenty local oil workers and the thirty American expatriates maintain two distinct residences of equal square footage on the rig. While there are no explicitly written mandates outlining such conduct, the only Angolans allowed in Expatriate quarters are cleaning and galley staff. The expatriates are flown in to the rig by helicopter while the Angolans travel the 18 hours by boat. Medical care available during the day to Expatriates is only available to the Angolan population during shift changes, and severe Expatriate injuries are rushed to nearby facilities while those suffered by local workers are dealt with ad-hoc on the rig. Occasional visits from government officials generally consist of meals taken with the Expatriates, as the food available to Angolans is quite unremarkable by comparison. While there is one American Black onboard the rig free to partake of Expatriate privileges, seldom are such freedoms granted to blacks on oil rigs.

On Equity for All

Ensuring that domestic resources and opportunities receive equitable distribution here in the United States is a difficult enough task on its own merit, so one can fathom the challenges associated with maintaining that equality on a small oil rig more than six thousand miles away. An understanding of business ethics and organizational culture is needed in order to approach this equitably. Some suggest that adhering to a more utilitarian view of justice will suffice in such environments, a more realistic outlook on society concludes that such approaches are simply unrealistic as few are willing to sacrifice individual gain in order that the prospects of the common man are improved. Rather, a more distributive approach to justice may be the remedy for such social institutions. Considering the principles of difference and equity that entail the distributive approach, the living arrangements of oil workers, the apparently disproportionate division of resources of those workers, as well as the business practices of such oil corporations are all examined in order to more fully understand how a distributive approach to justice can mitigate the injustices otherwise in place.

The disparity in living quarters onboard the “Explorer IV” has numerous characteristics that are neither adherent to nor condoned by the principles of distributive justice. From a utilitarian perspective, John Rawls suggested that varying levels of comfort afforded to Expatriates at the expense of the local Angolans might be justified in one way or another when the former’s expectations are considered (Donaldson 223). Utilitarian justice asserts that advantages granted to some, which may exist only because of a lesser loss suffered by others, may be deemed acceptable, or just when such advantages work to the benefit of an entire population. However, it may be difficult for some to see how the apparently “slightly disadvantaged” Angolan population creates equity for any. If anything, their inconveniences only work to the advantage of the Expatriates. Therefore, the utilitarian approach in this instance is only to the advantage of those already in beneficial positions, violating a prime requisite of distributive justice assenting advantages only be bestowed upon those in the system who have been distressed. Perhaps oversimplifying the issue, there are opportunities onboard Explorer IV that, to many, are simply inaccessible.

One pivotal tenant of distributive justice is the idea that every person in a population is afforded any and all opportunities made available by that particular system. The living conditions onboard Explorer IV represent anything but such equitable distribution of amenities. That even the meals prepared for Angolan workers are so considerably less appealing than those served to the American Expatriates signal a ghastly imbalance of equity appropriation. Furthermore, that meals for the American population are substantially more inviting indicates that while there are certain dining privileges on board—rather than a situation where all food onboard the oil rig is equally bland or impressive—these opportunities are in fact not available to the entire population but reserved only for a select few. Since “each person engaged in an institution or affected by it has an equal right to the most extensive liberty compatible with a like liberty for all” (Donaldson 225), lack of adherence is quite clear. Such advantages accosted to American Expatriates are difficult to comprehend when considering there is no clear indication that such advantages have been situated in a manner intent on benefitting the least fortunate of all those in the system. Such a structure is fundamental to the difference principle in systems of distributive justice, but still there is a gravitation towards a utilitarian approach.

There are many who argue that, in theory, an overwhelmingly Utilitarian form of justice is a suitable one to pursue as advantages and social injustices within the system are seemingly cancelled out to the betterment of society as a whole. As noted by John Rawls, this, in theory, works out quite well, as the argument that the greater good of many is a tenet for which the lesser injustices of a few is one that can be reasonably justified of rational thought (Donaldson 223). Unfortunately, there are few individuals, quite understandably so, who can sacrifice the desire to further their own ends at the expense of making a better, more equitably distributed society for those in a system that are the embodiment of social and financial disadvantage. Much like communism, such a division of equity has merit on paper but fails to hold up in a world where each individual is driven to further his socioeconomic status by the means available for such progress. Even absent such restraints, it is important to note that different degrees of justice—“perfectly just”, or simply “just”—are experienced in different systems.

Even in light of a system where distributive justice, in terms of its basic structure, holds as neither perfectly just nor erroneously just, but rather simply “just”, there is difficulty in assigning such a classification to the conditions onboard the Explorer IV. In a system of distributive justice, the basic structure can be deemed just when the advantages of the more fortunate promote the well being of the least fortunate (Donaldson 226). However, that living quarters for one hundred twenty men of Angolan descent are equal in size, and with even fewer amenities, as those that house only one quarter as many American Expatriates represents no clear effort for such a structure to benefit the least fortunate in that particular system—Angolan locals. To illustrate what would constitute an equitable distribution in regards to the difference principle of distributive justice, consider the following scenario. In taking the numbers already present onboard the Explorer IV, but altering the physical layout of the existing rig, a more equitable and just distribution of amenities and space might be a division such that the thirty Expatriates occupy roughly 30% of the living space absent private baths, while the Angolan population maintain residence in the remaining 70% of allotted living space. In this scenario, while the Americans are afforded slightly more space for a minor enhancement to privacy, their Angolan counterparts remain still slightly crowded but with more adequate bath quarters. As such, advantages of the most fortunate, the Americans, work toward the well being of the least fortunate group. Conceding the improvements to living quarters, however, there is still a multinational corporation that seemingly exploits its workforce through numerous inadequacies.

This case also necessitates an overview of justice as it pertains to oil conglomerates that operate such drilling rigs. Another fundamental pillar of distributive justice expounded on by John Rawls is whether or not the advantages of some can truly be geared to benefit those who are the least advantaged in society (Donaldson 225). In the case of Explorer IV, the question arises as to whether the gains from such operations equitably correlate to the gains of those who enable such profits. In other words, distributive justice dictates the advantages gained by the exploratory rig run parallel only to the advantages gained by the workers on board. Ideally, such advantages, those as bestowed upon the corporation, are seen as just since, according to theoretical framework of Rawls, they provide opportunity—jobs onboard the drilling rig that otherwise would have been non-existent (Donaldson 227). Still, to assert that gains on behalf of employees equate to those that are distributed to management positions in such enterprises is a fallacious conclusion indeed. The billions of dollars in annual revenue that contrast the median salary of individuals employed by such corporations is clear evidence that there is a system in place that disproportionately bestows advantage on some while withholding it from others. In further investigating the precedent justice of such systems, a view of the industry as a whole

A more in-depth approach concerning the difference principle of distributive justice highlights some of the inherent injustices of not only the corporation that built Explorer IV but of similar organizations with related operations. A cornerstone of the difference principle as purported by Rawls suggests that in order to achieve an unbiased division of benefits, the advantaged, or favored, should experience no gain as a result of their good fortune except that such gain be structured so as to more thoroughly improve the quality of life of the individuals who became disadvantaged as a result of such good fortune (Donaldson 227). The translation of such a concept to the business of exploratory oil drilling and the individuals that comprise such endeavors may not be as clear-cut as a more equitable division of living quarters, however. One might even postulate that true compensation equity is nothing short of divvying amongst all employees the sum of the year’s profits, granted this is a rather radical view of equality seeing as how most employees contribute little, if anything, to the equipment purchases and infrastructure of such large organizations. As such, since workers generally do not put up any of their own resources towards the actual creation of a corporation, it seems rather unjust to ask those who incurred the majority of expenses of such undertakings to claim any less than that proportional to their initial investment. All things considered it appears that there is still considerable inequity concerning workers situated aboard the Explorer IV.

The nature of justice as it pertains to capitalism, and the presence of ambition in individuals such that abandoning the pursuit of furthering their own aims is wholly unrealistic, constitutes a complex issue. Since individuals neither wish to forgo their own success that others might instead partake, nor appear to possess the capacity to adhere to a system where gains of the fortunate are only to the extent that the least fortunate of all are benefited, society is confronted with quite the social conundrum. Nevertheless, it appears that a certain adaptation of the principles of distributive justice, namely the concepts that relate to the availability and accessibility of benefits and the notion that material gain refrains from hindering those of less fortune, may hold the key to this issue's resolution.

Work Cited

Donaldson, Thomas, and Patricia H. Werhane. Ethical Issues in Business: A Philosophical Approach. 8th ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice-Hall, 2008. 221-232. Print.