Sixty miles from Haiti's devastated earthquake zone, luxury liners dock at private beaches where passengers enjoy jet ski rides, parasailing and rum cocktails delivered to their hammocks. Cruise lines have been under fire for continuing to bring tourists to Haiti so soon after the earthquake. Reactions from tourists who booked the cruise before knowing what would come their way are very diverse. Some say "Having a beach party while people are dead, dying and suffering minutes away hardly makes me want to cruise that particular line,". "The cruise ships aren't hurting anyone, in fact they're doing some good” another commented.
Is it morally correct for a company as Royal Caribbean to continue with these cruises?
It is important to note that Royal Caribbean is donating 1 million dollars to the relief effort. When its ship docked in Haiti for passengers to enjoy the beach, it also dropped off Forty pallets of rice, beans, milk, water, and canned foods. It could be stated that the cruise company is doing a lot of good, both by contributing to the Haitian economy (by bringing tourists who spend money) and by making contributions in immediate care (as in food). Of course someone could state that in itself that doesn't automatically make it right to continue bringing tourists to Haiti during the crisis. However, maybe the contrast between wealthy vacationers and desperate Haitians is just too revolting to be overcome by money alone. Then it's worth keeping in mind that Haiti itself is a terribly poor and deeply troubled place at the best of times. So, if it's unethical for cruise ships to dock Haiti's ports the week after. It is also morally wrong to do so the week after that, the next month and next year. They could relocate the cruise vacation on a island a couple of miles the away for example to Cuba, but that would have no positive influence at all for the disaster area. Why would those few miles cause less moral discourse? Haiti is still devastated. In my opinion it is not morally incorrect for a company as Royal Caribbean to continue, they contribute positively.
Background article
6 comments:
It is hard for me to see the problem in this case and I therefore agree with 892525.
First, when the tourists of the cruise line are near the suffering Haitians, they will not party or laugh, but they will be overwhelmed by the sight. They will not offend the Haitians but they will be discreet. Also, considering the Haitians are used to tourists, they will not pay special attention to them.
Second, when the tourists are enjoying their jet ski rides, parasailing and rum cocktails they will be on private beaches. These beaches are thus private, so Haitians will not notice them and will not be offended. If the tourist will be comfortable is a whole different story, but not relevant for this ethical question.
Third, tourism is important for the economy of Haiti. When cruises will not dock Haiti's ports the next months, or the next years this will only hurt Haiti more.
So, my conclusion is that it is not unethical to dock the ports of Haiti. However, I would not want to drink my cocktail there.
s879057
I agree with 892525. The tourist can’t help what was happened and Royal Caribbean neither. Life is going on, no matter what happened earlier. If we look to the case in the point of view that, people is enjoying their holiday one hundred meter further. You have to keep in mind that this is relative, there are dying people every where in the world, should we all stop enjoying life, because the rest in the world suffers? Even if we would do this, doesn’t this mean that, we are not able to be free in our will to enjoy life?
Royal Caribbean is donating 1 million dollars to Haiti, pay attention to the fact that is only possible because the tourist are booking a holiday by them. Royal Caribbean obeys the moral duty to help others, without harming anyone else. So they are acting morally right at any point.
People who are cruising to Haiti, will of course be faced with the results of the earthquakes. I believe it is not a good moral reason to say that “Having a beach party while people are dead, dying and suffering minutes away hardly makes me want to cruise that particular line”. When tourist go on such a cruise to Haiti after an eathquake, they can imagine in which situation they will arrive. Tourist will not go party all the time, when they see all the damage that is caused. These people are not in the mood to party 24/7, but it is morally required to help other people in such a bad situation. Therefore, I think this argument is not valid to determine whether Royal Caribbean acted morally wrong, since people have the obligation to help others, who might not even have a house or food due to the earthquake.
s289233
This is a real moral problem, I think.
It is good that tourists keep on coming to Haiti, especially short after the earthquake. There are good sides on this: 1. Thanks to tourists more and more people will face the problems the Haitians have and will spread the message about how much help they need in Haiti. 2. Donating money, they could have put in their own pockets but used it for helping locals and the economy of Haiti. 3. Cruise company combines tourist vacations with dropping medical equipment and food in Haiti.
But we can also draw the conclusion that the cruise company is only using this situation to 1. show how involved they are by helping the victims of the earthquake. 2. By donating a large amount of money they will gain a better reputation. 3. By keeping on providing vacations to Haiti they will not loose investments.
In my opinion I do not really see the moral problems in this example. I agree the contrast between fighting for food and shelter on the one hand and taking a holiday on the other is large. Especially because the distance between the events is small. However, for me it does not matter wheter you take a holiday nearby Haiti or somewere else in the world, it is just a distance.
Also, the cruise company is simply doing their business, just as the local carpenter in Haiti is doing at this moment. I also do not see any moral problems with this.
s888110
One could argue that these cruises bring a lot of good to Haiti's economy, or one might argue that the cruise agents merely act along moral lines in order to increase their own image. In the latter situation, the societal worth of these 'morally right' acts would be lost, since these acts would then solely be conducted for self-interest (I can imagine, for example, that docking at this moment is immensely cheap in Haiti since the island might try to keep tourism going in such an unattractive destination).
The question is, however: would it be morally right to quit business in Haiti in such difficult times? I think this would be even less ethical. In times of poverty and damaged well-being, I think it is more important for the Haitian victims to secure their means of financial income, rather than comparing the own to the Western (tourist) standards of living.
Remy Schoenzetter (ANR 887823)
Post a Comment