Airlines have a problem

background information

When you buy a plane ticket you do not expect to have to pay for checking in your baggage or for requesting a particular seat. However, this is what is happening at the moment. More and more airlines are charging passengers for “the extras”. They are doing this in response to passenger’s resistance to higher ticket prices and as a means to become more profitable. Cutting back on extras has been happening for more than two decades, the difference is that in the past it was done gradually and the reductions were minor things that the flyers would not notice.

So the question is whether it is fair for airlines to take advantage of their costumers for some extra profit.

Obviously airlines should focus more on taking care of their passengers. Costumers are in the difficult position of not having much choice when it comes to travelling. Air travel remains the fastest mean of transportation and most the time costumers just have to accept what airlines throw at them. If they do not they have to find another mode that may not be as convenient or decide to not travel at all. It is not right for airlines to take advantage of this situation by trying to charge different sorts of fees and knowing that in the majority of cases costumers just have to accept it. In my opinion companies have an obligation to take care of their costumers and their relationship with them. Airlines are not fulfilling this obligation.

s960385

Haiti - international responsibility?

background information

Currently Haiti encountered an immense earthquake that left many people on the island homeless, and over 100.000 thousands people dead. Neither does Haiti have an appropriate infrastructure nor the resources to handle such a destructive event. Therefore, being prepared for such a catastrophe is hardly possible. At the moment many charities are supporting this country with food, medicine and other first aid supplies.

But is it a moral obligation or an optional conduct, why people feel motivated to help others who are in need? To what extent is the international community obligated to donate first aid supplies to Haitians?

From a moral standpoint, if one of the foreign nations has the resources to help, they should do so, since the Haitians cannot prevent the disaster from happening. Moreover no one can prevent such a catastrophe. Nowadays such an event can occur in every country and someone should take responsibility to help out in such desperate times.

Since we are living in a free society, everyone has to decide for him or herself, e.g. which amount to spend in such a situation. However it remains a moral obligation for the governments of other nations to support the weaker ones. There should not be given an option to help or not, since a life is at stake and you should not be indifferent if people are dying. Furthermore, if you take a look at Haiti’s history, you will learn that it was a country which was colonized (first by the Spanish, then the French, then in 1915 till 1956 it was occupied by the US for safety reasons). A country that is overshadowed by a history of cruelty and slavery, a country still struggling to recover from foreign power, is a weak nation that deserves the help from the international community. For that reason, when it comes to saving lives, the moral obligation overrides the morally optional (or our free will). The action here which is undertaken from different countries is therefore obligatory, since if someone is in need of help, the person who is able to provide this aid, should take action.

s567411

Pieter Lakeman Vs. Dirk Scheringa Bank

background information

The Dirk Scheringa Bank (DSB) is a commercial bank in the Netherlands that received bad publicity, because of selling expensive and unnecessary life insurance policies as a compulsory part of mortgage loans. Many customers have found themselves in financial difficulties as a result. To help those victims, Pieter Lakeman established a foundation with the aim to collectively help those people.

On the first of October 2009 chairman Pieter Lakeman was invited in a Television show to tell his story about the damage that is caused by the DSB. According to Lakeman the best thing for all customers of the DSB to do, is to withdraw their money on their saving accounts. So, he incited account holders of the DSB to withdraw all their money in order to cause bankruptcy for the DSB. Shortly after this message, a run on the DSB was happening. After a few days, this finally caused a declaration of bankruptcy.

The question rises whether Pieter Lakeman (representing only a small group of people) is allowed to purposely cause a bankruptcy of a firm that represents thousands of people taken into account that DSB claims to be on the good way and trying to arrange financial support for people that faced financial difficulties caused by selling expensive financial products.

It seems to be morally permissible that Lakeman acted this way, since most people will benefit from it. Furthermore as a general principle, DSB should not sell products with such a significant financial risk for the customers. On the other side, DSB was acting within the boundaries of the law and received a banking permit by the Dutch Central Bank. Customers that became ‘victim’ of DSB didn’t read the conditions of the loan well. Therefore, it can be also be stated that those persons where the victims of their own unawareness and dragging DSB into a bankruptcy is therefore wrong.

s100815

The Dutch Dilemma

background information

On December 21st of 2009 the Dutch government began the killing of more than 40000 pregnant goats in the Netherlands. It is the latest measure taken to put a halt to the recent rise of the so-called ‘Q-fever’, a disease caused by the bacteria Coxiella burnetii. The primary carriers of the bacteria are cattle, sheep, and goats. Before 2007 about 15 humans were infected each year in the Netherlands. However, from mid-2007 onwards there was a strong increase in infections and by 2009 the yearly infections had risen to 2300, 6 of which were lethal. It was this rise of the Q-fever in the Netherlands that spurred the Dutch government to take the drastic decision of killing these goats.

In this case one can clearly recognize a moral hard case for the Dutch government. On the one hand the government needs to consider the public health: if no action is undertaken, even more people will surely get infected, and some of them will die. On the other hand, it also needs to consider both the economic (and perhaps also personal) loss of the farmers, as they will lose their primary source of income for the coming time, and the harm done to the goats. What should the Dutch government decide to do in this case?

In my opinion, the morally right thing to do is to protect the public health and kill the (potentially) infected goats. In the choice between human life and that of animals, I agree with the position of the Dutch government: we value human life above that of animals, how painful and sad that decision may be. Lastly, I do believe that the government should compensate the farmers economically in some way for their loss.

s799614