Brooke Dittmer

H.B. Fuller and the Street Children of Central America Analysis:

In this case study analysis paper, I shall argue that it is morally acceptable
for H. B. Fuller to produce and sell its Resistol products.
According to UTILITARIANISM, the relevant facts that support my moral
judgment are as follows. The utilitarianism theory sates that an action is
morally correct if the sum total of benefits produced by that action is greater
than the sum total of benefits produced by any other action that could have
been performed in its place. By ending production in the Latin American
counties, there will be far more harm than benefits. Both Honduras and
Guatemala, two counties where Fuller markets its glue products, are mired in
poverty. More than a third of the population of each country lives below the
poverty line. In these impoverished, insecure, and stressful conditions, family
life often became unstable: Husbands abandoned their wives, and both
abandoned the children that they were too poor or too sickly to care for
(Article). For over a decade, thousands of homeless children throughout Latin
America, but most visibly in Guatemala and Honduras, had become addicted
to inhaling the glue. Because the glue is widely used through Latin America
by shoe manufactures, leather workers, carpenters, furniture makers, and
small shoe repair shops, ending the production would put all those
manufactures and shops out of business. All the workers of these businesses
would become unemployed. They would face the risk of poverty and ending

up on the streets. Therefore, stopping production could put more people on

the streets, causing even more children to sniff the glue than with
production.
Another relevant fact that supports my moral judgment is as follows. For
several years, both countries have had large deficit budgets, forcing them to
take on an even larger debt burden and to sharply curtail all social services.
Ending the production and putting the previously mentioned manufacturers
and shops out of business, would only add to the deficit. The lack of social
services contributes to the homeless children problem. Instead, by
continuing production, the economy can be energized and the countries
would be able to fix the deficit problem and once again afford social services.
These social services can take children off the street and educate them on
the dangers of sniffing toluene. Through production, it is possible that we
find solutions to better the economy and have less children sniffing.
On the other hand, the relevant facts that support the opposite of my
moral judgment are as follows. How is it possible that any benefits produced
are greater than a human life? Toluene, the chemical used as a solvent for
the ingredients in adhesives, destroys the thin layers of fat that surround
nerves, causing them to die. The costs and injuries are: nosebleeds and
rashes with occasional inhalation, neurological dysfunction, brain atrophy,
loss of liver and kidney functions, loss of sight and hearing, leukemia, muscle
atrophy with habitual use and death with prolonged use (Article). By

continuing the produce the product, there is a constant supply of a product

that destroys human life.
Another relevant fact that supports opposite of my moral judgment is
H.B Fullers profits. In 1995, H.B fuller had total revenues of $1.243 billion,
but according to the company, it has profits of about $450,000 a year from
glue sales in Central America, which is less than 1% of total profits (Article).
By ending production, the loss of revenue wouldnt even put a dent into the
companys profit. Therefore, the benefit of taking the glue out of thousands
of homeless-childrens hands and potentially saving lives outweighs the
small decrease in profit that the company would experience.
In the final analysis, here is why the evidence which supports my moral
judgment outweighs the opposite conclusion. The struggling economy of
Honduras and Guatemala adds to the use of toluene. Producing the Resistol
product creates thousands of jobs, which means that thousands of families
are able to stay out of poverty and keep their children off the streets and
away from sniffing glue. Creating jobs also energizes the economy. By
stabilizing the economy, the government can afford services that keep
children off the streets and educate them about the dangers of glue sniffing.
By ending the production, however, children would begin to use one of the
toluene-based products of the other companies selling glues in the region. A
stronger economy and social services have a better chance at keeping
children away from the glue than ending production completely. Overall,
producing the product creates benefits that outweigh the harms.

According to RIGHTS THEORY, the relevant facts that support my moral

judgment are as follows. Eliminating the production of Resistol could
potentially go against more natural rights of human beings than the misuse
of the product. The production elimination would take away thousands of
jobs, and essentially human rights as well. Taking away jobs in the poor
economy leaves families impoverished. In these stressful conditions, family
life becomes insecure and stressful. Spouses leave each other and parents
leave their children that they are too poor to care for. When anyone ends up
on the street, they lack the right to work, housing, property, security, food,
clothing, and so on. Ending production would take away the right to work for
thousands of people. In Honduras and Guatemala, being without a job means
you are in poverty and you can no longer afford a house, which violates the
right to property, as well as the right of security. You can no longer afford
food, clothing, education, or health care. Without any of these rights, the
right to life is threatened because without a house, one faces extreme
dangers on the streets that threatens life, and cannot live long without food.
A job for anyone in these two countries means a right to the most intrinsic
rights.
On the other hand, the relevant facts that support the opposite of my
moral judgment are as follows. The production of adhesive products is not
consistent with the natural rights of those whom it affects. In the article, we
were introduced to a boy named Marvin. Marvin has been sniffing glue for
ten years, and now has lost feeling in his legs and can longer walk. Just like
Marvin, many children experience these, and other, side effects that go

against the natural rights of human. One of these would be the right to the
freedom of movement, both internally and externally. As previously stated,
the use of these glue products destroys the thin layers of fat that surround
nerves, causing them to die, which effects internal movement. Without
functioning nerve cells in a body, the ability to function becomes very
limited. Misuse of the products traps the user inside motionless body with
the inability to move. The use of the products also eliminates the ability to
move external parts of the body. The inability to move leads to the right to
life. While most users are on their own out on the streets, mobility is their
number one tool of survival in search for finding food and shelter. The
absence of food and shelter can quickly lead to death.
In the final analysis, here is why the evidence which supports my moral
judgment outweighs the opposite conclusion. By eliminating production,
many intrinsic human rights are violated and threatened. On the other hand,
continuing to produce this product gives thousands the right to work,
housing, food, clothing, and so on. These rights are already an issue with the
current economy, and ending production would only make it worse. By
keeping thousands employed, keeps thousands away from threatening their
right to movement and life. The company is not directly violating or
threatening, but instead those who sniff are violating and threatening the
rights themselves.

According to JUSTICE THEORY, the relevant facts that support my moral

judgment are as follows. An action is morally correct if it involves treating
dissimilarly individuals who are dissimilar in relevant respects, in proportion
to their dissimilarity. The production of Resitol treats dissimilar individuals
dissimilarly. Americans are dissimilar in terms of our luxurious life, in
comparison to those who live in Central America. Average living conditions in
America usually consist of a home with 2-4 bedrooms, a couple cars, a job,
food to eat, clothes on their back, and education for their children. On the
other hand, more than a third of the population in Honduras and Guatemala
dream to have even the bare minimum of what most Americans have. Life in
America also consists of a government who serves its people through
regulations and social services that are strictly enforced, but Central America
cannot afford this. Because the two countries are dissimilar, one cannot look
at the production in Central America with the beliefs of an American. Many
would look at this situation and make the argument of what should happen
based off if it was a company producing in America. Continuing production is
treating dissimilarly individuals who are dissimilar in relevant respects, in
proportion to their dissimilarity.
On the other hand, the relevant facts that support the opposite of my
moral judgment are as follows. All humans are equally valued, making all
human lives similar. The lives, however, are being treated dissimilarly.
America has many federal regulations in businesses that protect its
consumers lives, while there are no regulations being enforced in Central

America to protect consumer lives. For example, The Consumer Product

Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) regulates and enforces the standards that
manufactured products must meet (Commission, 2013). Through this,
American lives are protected from harmful products that damage their
health. On the other hand, Central America has very little, if any, regulations
that protect its lives from harmful products. A human life is valued the same
no matter what age, gender, or country one lives in. When any life is in
danger, action needs to be taken on what is causing that danger. Because
lives are being protected in America, but not Central America, the production
of Resistol treats similar individuals dissimilarly.
In the final analysis, here is why the evidence which supports my moral
judgment outweighs the opposite conclusion. America and Central America
are two completely different parts of the world with extremely different ways
of life. What is regulated in America is not regulated in Central America. The
difference of what is regulated, how it is regulated, and how effectively it is
regulated makes situations between the countries incomparable. One needs
to separate himself from his homes way of regulating and realize that it is
different all over the world. Because he is used to or believes in certain ways,
doesnt mean that what is opposite is morally wrong. America and Central
America are dissimilar in relevant respects and are being treated differently,
in proportion to their dissimilarity.
According to CARE THEORY, the relevant facts that support my moral
judgment are as follows. H.P. fuller does not have a direct relationship with

the children who are misusing its product, instead the parents do. There is an
initial concrete relationship at birth between a parent and a child, who is
vulnerable and dependent on his care. From then on, it is their responsibility
of how the child grows up and what happens to them. Although the company
is not responsible for the homeless children and their acts and use of its
product, it took action to reduce the availability of the glue to children. The
company discontinued selling the glue in small jars and began paying for the
support of several social workers to work with street children. The company
tried protecting the children from their nonexistent parents. Because the
business and children do not have a concrete relationship, however, H.P.
Fuller is not morally responsible for the children and can continue production.
Another argument as to why the company is not responsible for the
actions of the children is because a companys closet relationship is its
customers. Merriam-Webster defines customer as someone who buys a
commodity or service. The customers of the product are the shoe
manufacturers, leather workers, carpenters, furniture makers, and small
show repair shops. Honduran law prohibits sale of toluene-based products to
children. Because the children cannot purchase the product, they are not
customers. Because the companys closest relationship is the customer,
they need to take into account the manufactures, shops, and workers who
buy its product. Discontinuing production, would put all customers out of
business.

On the other hand, the relevant facts that support the opposite of my
moral judgment are as follows. Some believe that a companys closet
relationship is not the customer, but instead the consumer. The difference
between the two is that a customer buys the product, but a consumer is a
user of the product, no matter how he ends up with it. Because the children
use the product, despite it being misused, they are consumers and therefore,
H.B Fuller should take into account its relationship with them. By taking into
account the children who are vulnerable and dependent on his care and
many affects the toluene-based product has on the children, the company
should discontinue production.
One may argue that the toluene-based consumer could just begin to use
the same type of toluene-based product of the other companies selling glues
in the region instead. Through this, they may argue that there is no point in
discontinuing production because it wont stop the children from using the
products. If H.B Fuller discontinued the product, however, the children are no
longer its consumer, nor a concrete relationship, and the moral responsibility
is off the company.
In the final analysis, here is why the evidence which supports my moral
judgment outweighs the opposite conclusion. Out of three relationships, the
company may only be responsible for one. At birth, a child initially has a
concrete relationship with its parents. Therefore, the childs life and care is
the parents responsibility and not the companys. The second relationship is
between a business and a customer. Because the children do not have the
right to buy the companys product, the company does not have to take into

account the childrens actions. The only relationship that could be argued is
between a company and its consumers. Because the children are users of
the product, there is a concrete relationship. This relationship means that the
business must take into account the care of the children. The combination of
the evidence behind the parent-child relationship and the business-customer
relationship outweighs the broad business-consumer relationship.
According to CATHOLIC SOCIAL TEACHING, the relevant facts that
support my moral judgment are as follows. An action is morally correct if it is
respectful of, and guided by, the fact that human beings have certain natural
rights. As previously stated, the production elimination would take away
thousands of jobs, and essentially the human rights of work, housing,
property, security, food, and clothing. Ending production takes away jobs,
which in the struggling economy leaves families impoverished. Families in
poverty struggle to afford a house, which is property and security, food, and
clothing. Continuing production provides thousands of people with jobs and
their natural human rights. Because of this, H.B Fuller is morally correct to
continue production.
Continuing production is also respectful of, and guided by, the fact that
human beings must work to achieve the common good. This is backed by the
idea that the sum total of conditions of social living, whereby persons are
enabled more fully and readily to achieve their own perfection. With the
current state of economy, ending production would disable thousands to
achieve the common good and their own perfection. Perfection of a human
being is a humans end, goal, or purpose. It is the full completion of the

human being as human beings, as well as identifying potential then actualize

on it. A human needs a job in order to achieve this. How can man actualize
his potential without a job? Through a job he can reach his highest potential
as a provider. His potential as a father, spouse, and citizen is also maximized.
A job will allow him to protect his children and wife by keeping a rooftop over
their head and keeping them off the dangerous streets. He would also be
able to provide food and clothing, as well as education and health care. A job
allows man to support not only his family, but common good as well. Most
children have been abandoned by their families, but a good number were
runaways from what they felt was an intolerable home life. A job provides a
family with a stable home life, which results in less families abandoning
children, and less children feeling the need to escape. This adds to the
common good because less children on the street means less danger,
corruption, drug use in the community. The article said that, Living on the
edge of survival they are often swept in an undertow of beatings, illegal
detention, torture, sexual abuse, rape, and murder. The more we can reduce
or avoid these issues, the better the common good will be. Therefore,
continuing production is morally acceptable because it is guided by the fact
that humans must work to achieve the common good and achieve their own
perfection.
On the other hand, the relevant facts that support the opposite of my
moral judgment are as follows. Humans have a fundamental dignity and
worth as creatures made in Gods image. Merriam-Webster dictionary defines
dignity as the quality of being worthy of respect. Not only are the children

disrespecting themselves by harming their bodies, but the company is also

disrespecting the children. The company is well aware of what is happening
to the children, but by continuing production it shows that they dont care
enough to do anything they can to end what is happening. The view that the
company is too big, almighty, powerful, and profitable to stop production
for children who misuse its products shows that it doesnt respect the
childrens lives. The company would be seen as out of touch with reality and
disconnecting itself from Gods creatures. This disconnection may be due to
the fact that the company believes it is more worthy of succeeding than poor
and homeless children who dont stand much of a chance at survival
anyways. The company is shifting worth away from lives and onto revenues.
The reputation that the company takes on by many by continuing production
disrespects the fact that human beings have a fundamental dignity and
worth as creatures made in Gods image.
In the final analysis, here is why the evidence which supports my moral
judgment outweighs the opposite conclusion. Through the company
producing, it provides thousands of people with a job, who is then able to
provide for his family, which benefits the common good. A job allows both
individuals and families to maintain the basic human rights. It also allows
man to achieve his own perfection. Whether man is reaching his perfection,
or simply maintaining basic rights, the total sum of conditions are improved
to achieve the common good. Man needs rights to achieve perfection. These
rights are the right to work, housing, property, security, food, clothing, etc.
Obtaining this would also give man a sense of dignity and worth. The rights

also keep a stable house and children off the streets. By keeping the children
off the streets, the common good is achieved by reducing the danger, drug
use, abuse, and murder.