The first question that arises is whether it is morally acceptable to offer a vacation experiences as close as sixty miles from Haiti’s earthquake zone just after the disaster took place. First thoughts will probably be that it lacks respect of the earthquake victims and that it can possibly disrupt the recovery and reconstruction process.
Looking to the case through the perspective of the company, we have to change the question into whether is morally acceptable to stop offering vacation experiences as close as sixty miles from Haiti’s earthquake zone just after the disaster took place. This perspective is the hardest one because it has to deal with moral and business reasons.
We have to look to the case on a more detailed level to understand the company’s decision to keep going to Haiti. The places where the ships are docking are private beaches where visitors do not see the disaster directly. These beaches are not destroyed by the earthquake and therefore it is possible to keep going to this place with the cruise ships.
Presumably, the company decided that it was in nobody’s interest to stop going to Haiti with the cruise ships because it will hurt the tourist industry of Haiti and it will hurt the company. The company decided together with the authorities to continue the cruises.
When continuing the cruises, I think it is the moral duty of the company to help Haiti by bringing food and handing over substantial part of the profit made with the trips to Haiti. This because I think morality is more important than business (profit) right after this earthquake has occurred. Of course, the company must survive, but they can donate a sum of the money earned in Haiti. This way both Haiti and the company hold each other up.
It stays a subject of discussion whether the company should have stopped their cruises to Haiti or not. If you look to the decision of the company economically, this decision is defensible of both parties’ perspectives.
Now the travelers have to decide…
s702653
1 comment:
As the ultimate goal for the company is profit maximization to ensure its survival they have to go looking at things from a business perspective. They may even claim to have moral grounds to do so because, if they go bankrupt, many employees could also get into trouble due to a loss of income. The point you raised about the company donating a part of the profit of this journey (if any) to Haiti seems fair as they do have the positive duty to help a country which also helps them to make a profit.
Additionally, you might argue that it is immoral not to go to Haiti because the tourists allow the Haitians to earn money that they may need to rebuild their lives. In conclusion, not going could result in a loss for the tourists, the Haitians and the company.
U1236311 / ANR169300
Post a Comment