IntroductionThe film Erin Brockovich is a 2000 film trailer based on a true story. It stars Erin Brockovich, one of the protagonists and an environmentalist who successfully fights for the rights of Hinkley residents after PG&E Corporation, the area's largest employer, pollutes the environment by contaminating the groundwater with chromium VI. Although she is very determined and passionately following an honorable path to ensure that the residents of Hinkley get justice from the PG&E Corporation for the damage it has caused them, some of Erin's actions are questionable and contrary to ethics if they are examined from an ethical angle. She constantly uses vulgar language, humiliates and disrespects other people in the film. Many ethical problems also characterize PG&E Corporation, but the most serious is environmental pollution and lying to the residents of Hinkley that chromium VI has no effect on the health of their body if it is taken in water, and despite existing evidence to the contrary. The current article borrows extensively from theories of deontology, virtue ethics, and consequentialism to explore some of the ethical issues in the film. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Erin's actions, as depicted in the film, are honorable, but some of her practices are questionable and morally unethical. Erin is portrayed in the film as someone whose character is questionable due to her rudeness or insolence. Throughout the film, she is depicted in vulgar language, and she humiliates and disrespects other people who are shocked beyond words. From an ethical or moral perspective, 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 believed to possess ideal character traits, values, or virtues that arise from natural internal tendencies, but must be nurtured. When it comes to the movie, there are many instances where Erin uses vulgar, obscene language and does not reflect ideal character traits. For example, when asked by lawyers for PG&E Corporation how she was able to convince 634 plaintiffs to sign the document so that they could file charges against the company for chromium had to give 634 blowjobs in five days to convince them. Additionally, she also humiliates PG&E defenders by telling her she has two bad feet and ugly shoes. Finally, when her boss asks her to wear them decently to work, she declares that "as long as I have one ass, instead of two, I'll wear anything if it suits you." Therefore, Erin's practices related to the use of abusive language are unethical because they deviate from socially accepted moral standards. The primary ethical concern in the PG&E Corporation case is chromium VI pollution of groundwater. The company was aware of the possible repercussions, but decided not to discuss the issue with Hinkley residents. Borrowing from deontological and consequential theories, PG&E Corporation's law was unethical. According to the theory of consequentialism, an act is considered morally right if it produces good results. PG&E's decision to use chromium VI to prevent corrosion or rust in its pipes has hadsignificant effects on the health of Hinkley residents. This has caused many illnesses ranging from nosebleeds, stomach problems, cancers, hysterectomies, and spinal problems. The water even paralyzed the chickens to the point where they could no longer move. The company's act has had serious consequences not only on the current generation but also on the future generation. Since the impacts of the use of chromium VI were severe, it can therefore be concluded that the PG&E laws were highly unethical as it exposed the residents of Hinkley to the health problem. The issue can also be analyzed from a deontological perspective whereby an act is considered morally right if one acts on the basis of established rules rather than consequences. PG&E Corporation is expected to comply with EPA, federal and state laws and regulations that prohibit companies from polluting the environment. Erin managed to obtain a document revealing that PG&E Corporation had received an abatement order in 1966 requiring it to clean up groundwater it had polluted. From an ethical perspective, the company violated environmental laws by causing pollution and therefore acted unethically. The 700 Hinkley victims who were affected by PG&E's unethical actions involving groundwater pollution have not received justice through a class action lawsuit. Although residents were compensated $320 million for the company's decision, they did not get justice as the company continued to pollute the environment. PG&E Corporation and representatives of Hinkley residents (Erin and Masley, among others) agreed to settle the matter amicably through a class action, and one of the conditions was that the final decision to be made was final and could not be appealed. . PG&E Corporation only paid compensation to the plaintiff, but it did not require the organization to stop polluting the environment with groundwater, which was a significant concern of the case. The victims therefore did not obtain justice. Class action is characterized by many ethical advantages, including the fact that it takes much less time than would have been the case if the case had been resolved through legal proceedings and therefore victims have a chance to achieve justice. Court proceedings take a long time to be fully resolved, and victims may not get justice, as some of them may not die before the court makes a decision, and it is possible that appeals will be filed, which which results in even more time. being spent. Additionally, court costs also tend to be lower and plaintiffs tend to pool their resources, and those who might not have filed suit due to a lack of resources have the opportunity to do it. For Hinkley residents, the plaintiffs received $320 million in compensation, which was distributed evenly among them. However, the class action settlement is also disadvantageous because the comments of the plaintiffs are not taken into account, but those of their representatives and a final decision may therefore not serve the best interests of the plaintiffs. In the case of the Hinkley residents, the denial was reached between lawyers for PG&E Corporation and Erin and Councilman E. Masley who argued for a class action, and yet the plaintiffs preferred the court process. Furthermore, class action is also considered disadvantageous because the final decision that is reached binds both..