Critical ThinkingscenarioStudents will be assigned one ethical scenario concerningUnocal in Burma.Create a 850-1050 words, analyze your chosen scenario from a criticalthinking perspective:-What is the moral responsibility of all major stakeholders?-What are the stakeholders’ moral failings?-What ideals or obligations are in conflict?-What is the best outcome, given the consequences? -In your conclusion, include a brief reflection of your analysis by describingthe relationship between critical thinking and ethics. Note: Remember that this analysis should be based on critical thinking, noton your personal opinionProperly format the assignment in APA with appropriate references.Reference web site:Unocal in Burma March 28, 200THE PEASANTS VS UNOCALThe military junta that runs Burma has long been a pariah to globaladvocates for human rights. United Nations has condemned the regime annually for most of this decadefor its human rights records. And so have Human Rights Watch, AmnestyInternational, other organizations.After seizing power in a bloody coup in 1988 the generals further ruinedtheir reputations by aborting the clear cut 1990 election victory of Burma’spro-democracy party. And keeping under house arrest its Nobel Peace Prizewinning leader Aung San Suu Kyi.The goal is this one; we want a democratic government elected by thepeople.Among Burma’s most consistent critics has been the U.S. State Department.Year after year the Department’s annual human rights reports have detailed thesame crimes including, “…rape, forced labor, and extra-judicial killing.Disappearances continue.” And year after year these abuses have been quietlydocumented and are reflected annually in judgments like this, “The people ofBurma continue to live under a highly repressive authoritarian military regimewidely condemned for its serious human rights abuses.” When Unocal is making the decision, do we want to go in here, first offwhat kind of credence, what kind of role in your consideration, your corporateconsideration do things like the State Department human rights reports play? Doyou dismiss them?No we don’t dismiss any information about a country where we’re thinkingabout investing but as I said earlier the main things we look for are economicopportunity which must be accompanied by a climate which we can perform ourbusiness as an island of integrity, no matter what’s going on around us, to ourown standards.On Unocal’s legal map of Burma there is an island of integrity. Thestripe its pipeline cuts across southern Burma. there’s a lot going on in that area that we’re very proud of. Unocal has a ready list and a ready supply of videotape evidence of thecompany’s good deeds on behalf of 40,000 people living in the pipeline region. First—direct employment which is important. Because employment andeconomic opportunity is a human right. I say after that medical facilities. 12full time doctors in an area that had no doctors.No one disputes the pipeline company’s good deeds, often put on displayfor visiting congress people, journalists, and even a pair of human rightsprofessionals. But the plaintiffs assert in their lawsuit that Unocal’s islandof integrity is sustained by a surrounding sea of human rights abuses. The company works with the Burmese army, the army uses people’s labor tobuild roads to get to the pipeline. The army brought us to the pipeline area towork. We had to build the helipad, we had to carry the rations.We’ve concealed the identity of this man and of all the other Burmeseplaintiffs in the Unocal case in observance of a protection order issued byJudge Paez. We have to go work for the railroad. We have to go work in the battalioncompound and we had to work as porters. In one year I think I had to go morethan ten times. When you worked were you always paid? No I never got paid. I am sure that the military uses conscripted labor for porterage and Iknow that in the early days of the execution of this project, military units inthe area of this project were using conscripted labor.But, says Imle, not anymore. A claim disputed by one of the plaintiffs,John Doe number 11. That’s not true. They continued to force people to work for them. After Ileft, people from my village still had to work. They told us about it.We cannot and I cannot personally take responsibility for the conduct ofthe government of Burma any more than I can take responsibility for the conductof the Los Angeles Police Department. I can take responsibility for what goeson in our pipeline area. That move is a little bit of a shell game.To plaintiffs attorney Jenny Green that argument is red meat.  You, my business partner, you’re going to take responsibility for makingsure that the military barracks are built, that the helipad is built, that enoughsoldiers are in the area to guard this pipeline and you can do whatever youwant but I’m not responsible because it’s this other person. And U.S. law isparticularly designed to say you can’t have two people in the same businessoperation, one of them being clean and the other one playing dirty without themboth being held responsible.