Hello everyone,

Today I will analyze the ethical issue of electronic waste, or e-waste, using Act Utilitarianism.

E-waste is one of the fastest-growing waste streams in the world. Millions of discarded smartphones, laptops, and electronics are thrown away every year, creating serious environmental and health risks.

The key ethical question is:

**Who should be responsible for proper e-waste disposal — consumers and IT professionals, or manufacturers?**

Using Act Utilitarianism, I argue manufacturers hold the primary responsibility because this maximizes overall benefit and minimizes harm.

Act Utilitarianism, associated with Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, states:

**An action is morally right if it produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number.**

It evaluates actions based on consequences — not intentions or rules — and asks which choice creates the most good.

So we must compare assigning responsibility to consumers versus manufacturers.

### 1. Scale of Impact

Manufacturers design products at a global scale. They decide:

* product lifespan

* repairability

* materials used

* recyclability

A single design choice affects millions of devices.

If manufacturers design durable, recyclable products, benefits include reduced pollution, less toxic exposure, and resource conservation.

Because their actions influence far more people and ecosystems, they generate greater total utility than individual recycling efforts.

### 2. Prevention of Harm

Act Utilitarianism favors preventing harm at its source.

Manufacturers have technical expertise, resources, and supply-chain control. Consumers do not.

If responsibility falls mainly on consumers, recycling becomes inconsistent and less effective.

But if manufacturers implement take-back programs and safer materials, harm is reduced systematically — producing greater overall happiness.

### 3. Long-Term Consequences

Planned obsolescence increases profit but causes long-lasting environmental damage.

If manufacturers must handle disposal, they gain incentives to:

* extend product lifespan

* improve repairability

* reduce toxins

This protects future generations and increases long-term utility.

Consumers do share some responsibility, since frequent upgrades contribute to waste.

However, Act Utilitarianism asks which assignment produces the most benefit.

Individual actions are limited in impact, while manufacturer decisions shape the entire system. Even responsible consumers cannot easily recycle poorly designed products.

Therefore, primary responsibility should rest with manufacturers.

### Conclusion

Applying Act Utilitarianism shows manufacturers should bear the main ethical responsibility for e-waste because of:

* their large-scale influence

* their ability to prevent harm

* their technical and financial capacity

The environmental impact of technology is not only technical — it is moral.

Thank you.