IntroductionThe film, Erin Brockovich, is a 2000 trailer based on a true story. It features Erin Brockovich, one of the protagonists and an environmentalist who successfully fights for the rights of Hinkley residents after the PG&E Corporation, the region's largest employer, polluted the environment by contaminating groundwater with chromium VI. Although she is highly determined and passionately pursues an honorable path to ensure that the residents of Hinkley get justice from the PG&E Corporation for the harm it has caused them, some of Erin's actions are questionable and unethical when examined through an ethical lens. He constantly uses foul language and demeans and disrespects other people in the film. Numerous ethical issues also characterize the PG&E Corporation, but the most profound is polluting the environment and lying to Hinkley residents by saying that chromium VI has no health effects on their bodies when taken in water, and despite existing evidence proving otherwise . This article borrows extensively from deontological, virtue ethics, and consequentialism theories to explore some of the ethical issues of the film. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Erin's actions, as portrayed in the film, are honorable, but some of her practices are questionable and not morally upright. Erin is depicted in the film as someone whose character is questionable because she is rude or insolent. Throughout the film, she is depicted using vulgar language and demeans and disrespects other people who are shocked beyond words. From an ethical or moral point of view, people are expected to be polite and treat others with respect and should avoid using language that may irritate, humiliate or embarrass them. In other words, an ethical person is supposed to possess ideal character traits, values, or virtues that arise from natural internal tendencies, but which should be cultivated. In relation to the film, there are numerous instances where Erin uses language that is vulgar, obscene, and does not reflect ideal character traits. For example, when lawyers for the PG&E Corporation ask her how she got 634 plaintiffs to sign the document so they could file a lawsuit against the company for groundwater pollution by chromium 634 blowjobs in five days to convince them. On top of that, she also humiliates PG&E supporters by telling her she has the wrong feet and ugly shoes. Finally, when her boss asks her to wear two decently at work, she states that 'as long as I have one ass, instead of two, I'll wear something like that if that's okay with you'. Therefore, Erin's practices regarding the use of offensive language are unethical because they deviate from socially accepted moral standards. The primary ethical concern in the PG&E Corporation case is the pollution of groundwater by chromium VI. The company was aware of the possible repercussions, but decided not to discuss the matter with Hinkley residents. Borrowing from deontological and consequential theories, PG&E Corporation's act was unethical. According to the theory of consequentialism, an act is considered morally right if it produces positive outcomes or results. PG&E's decision to use chromium VI to prevent corrosion or rust in its pipes had a significant impact on the health of Hinkley residents. It has caused numerous illnesses ranging from nosebleeds, stomach problems, tumors, hysterectomies and spinal problemsvertebral. The water even paralyzed the chickens so that they could no longer move. The company's action has not only had serious consequences on the current generation but also on the future generation. Since the impacts resulting from the use of chromium VI were severe, it can therefore be concluded that the PG&E laws were highly unethical because it exposed the residents of Hinkley to the health problem. The issue can also be analyzed from a deontological perspective according to which an act is considered morally right if one acts according to established rules and not the consequences. PG&E Corporation is expected to comply with EPA, federal and state laws and regulations that prohibit corporations from polluting the environment. Erin was able to obtain a document that revealed that PG&E Corporation had been issued an abatement order in 1966 requiring it to clean up the groundwater it had polluted. From an ethical point of view, the company violated environmental laws by causing pollution and, therefore, acted unethically. The 700 Hinkley victims affected by PG&E Corporation's unethical acts involving groundwater pollution have not achieved justice through class action. Although residents were compensated $320 million for the company's decision, they did not get justice because the company continued to pollute the environment. The PG&E Corporation and representatives of Hinkley residents (Erin and Masley, among others) agreed to resolve the matter out of court through a class action, and one of the conditions was that the final decision to be reached was final and could not be contested. . The PG&E Corporation merely paid compensation to the plaintiff, but did not force the organization to stop groundwater pollution, which was a significant concern in the case. The victims, therefore, did not achieve justice. Collective action is characterized by many ethical advantages, such as the fact that it takes much less time than would have been the case if the case had been resolved through a judicial process and the victims, therefore, have a chance to achieve justice. Judicial processes take a long time to be resolved completely and victims may fail to get justice as some of them may not die before the court passes a sentence, and there is a possibility that appeals will be filed, which also results more time be spent. Additionally, litigation costs also tend to be lower and plaintiffs tend to pool resources and those who may not have filed charges due to lack of resources have the opportunity to do so. For Hinkley residents, the plaintiffs received $320 million in compensation, which was split evenly among them. However, the collective settlement is also disadvantageous because it is not the input of the claimants that is taken into account, but that of their representatives and the final decision may, therefore, not best serve the interests of the claimants. In the case of the Hinkley residents, denial was made between supporters of the PG&E Corporation and Erin and Councilman E. Masley who supported the class action, yet the plaintiffs preferred the trial in court. Furthermore, class action is also considered disadvantageous because the final decision that is reached is binding on both parties, and seeking other compensation is problematic. The PG&E Corporation and the residents of Hinkley have agreed to resolve the case through a class action lawsuit, and both parties have agreed that the decision reached will be final. The responsibility of companies regarding the natural environment and local communities can be defined.