Bull fighting

background information

Bull fighting has been a long tradition of diversion in Spain since the middle ages. Today, many consider it an art, while others consider it an unrightfully massacre of animals. There is no public law in Spain which specifies that the act is illegal. But does this really mean that it is not morally wrong?

Many discuss that it is a positive duty of humans to give animals the freedom to life. Others consider this argument foolish since today, most of the world’s population (including animals themselves) feed of other animals and this is the cycle of life and these bulls live a great prairie life, in better conditions than most cattle around the world do. The problem here is that be bulls are not only killed, but put through high levels of stress at the moment of the show, and physical pain while the bull fighter sticks the swords in one by one. Not only this, but for the bull to reach the temperament with which he enters the ring, his testicles are pinched with needles. Is it morally right to put an animal through this suffering. This interferes with the rights to life
There are more spectators and workers in the bull industry than bulls being killed. So according to the Utilitarian principle it is good. So is it morally permissible for people in this industry to pursue their self interest (maximization of profits) at the cost of torturing bulls before their death. Also, many people have an emotional attachment to this long brought tradition, and consider they have a right to cultural preservation. So, as long as the government allows it, is it morally permissible?

s690159

Euthanasia

The Spanish movie “Mar adentro” (The Sea inside) brought me to think of the long discussed subject of Euthanasia. It is about a man (Ramón) who suffered an accident which left him living the rest of his life on his bed, at the care of his family members. He wants the person who truly loves him to help him terminate his life with dignity.
I think this is a morally hard case viewed from two perspectives. That from Ramon’s side, who is incapable of doing anything and wants to commit suicide, but even harder to look at from his friend’s side who shall help him do it. Then, you can also look at it from the perspective of the people who he leaves behind. What about their suffering? And whose is greater?
The first reason to describe this as morally wrong is because it would be breaking the law. Helping someone kill himself is considered murder in most places. This would mean she is breaking a public law, and obstructing negative rights. Viewed from his perspective, in some countries, like India for example, suicide is a punishable crime which you go to jail for. But what about this man’s desire to stop suffering and being a financial burden on his family. All he can do is lie in bed relying on people to take care of him, hence, only decreasing their welfare, but staying alive for the sake of morality. What about his basic rights to freedom of choice? Who should really be making this moral judgment? The government? Or the person who has been lying in a bed for over 30 years not being able to do anything.
The fact that the government makes it illegal would mean he would have to do something morally wrong (kill himself) to fulfill his need/and wants. This would be morally wrong. But if it were not illegal, would this be morally wrong? And is it morally wrong to just let this person suffer in bed?

s690159

Ryanair boss Michael O'Leary defiant over compensation rules of stranded passenger due to Volcano eruption Iceland

background information

The majority of the news headlines these days are about stranded passengers, flying restrictions and the enormous revenue losses of the airline companies. This is all caused by the ash cloud which was caused by the volcanic eruption on Iceland. The boss of Ryanair said that he is willing to reimburse travelers the original price of their air fare and no more. He questions "why exactly are the airlines expected to be reimbursing people's hotels, meals and everything else when the government are the ones who made a balls of this?"

For the boss of Ryanair this case is a dilemma. If Ryanair does not compensate their passengers extra expenses they will not act in accordance with the law, but more importantly their image will be damaged and the chance exists that they will loose quite some passengers in the future. On the other hand, if Ryanair completely compensates all his passengers, the company can get into financial trouble.

Morality is about helping others, so from this viewpoint Ryanair has to pay the customers for their extra expenses. According to the guidelines of the EU consumer rules they have to pay these costs. From a business point of view the argument for not fully compensating the passengers is understandable. Profit maximization is the main goal in this perspective and this is especially important for a budget airline like Ryanair.

A couple of weeks ago the company also made the headlines, because they dropped a whole family on the wrong Island due to bad weather. With this incident fresh in mind and this refusal to abide the EU consumer rules will probably cause the company some customers and damage of their brand/image. Ryanair just have to do their moral duty and fully compensate their passengers in this case.

s536273