Kantian theory seems a bit different from a utilitarian approach as he states that an activity could only be ethical if the initial intention were morally motivated. Goodwill is the basis for Kantian business ethics implying that the morality of any activity can only be tested using a person’s initial intentions. For instance, a seller who does his or her dealings in an honest manner cannot be termed as moral if his or her aim is to achieve a good name.

In Seiagustus LTD’s case, it is evident that the intentions of its employees, executives and the board were ill-advised. The intention behind their acts is to amass a huge profit at the expense of other citizens. Kant theory suggests that such acts can only be considered immoral and unethical because these people acted out of lack of goodwill for the other people affected by the damping. The examination of this case needs one to universalize the act according to Kant. This implies asking questions such as “if every company is allowed to dump the waste as Seiagustus LTD did, would it be ethical?” If the response is no, then the act is immoral because there is no goodwill. Therefore, Kantian theory suggests that the act of Seiagustus LTD of dumping toxic wastes in an inhabited land was immoral and unethical.