Descriptive paragraph
January 18, 2022
Economic Report
January 18, 2022
Case 1: Corneas in the Congo
It is usually hard for leaders to choose between their personal morality and their personal ethical duty to an organization. This is because what may appear to be a good act of helping people may end up being the wrong thing. For example in my case as the head of a small agency in Congo, choosing between taking or not taking corneas from Chinese prisoners would be a very challenging task. However, I would consider this a wrong act and I would not take the corneas. I would put into consideration the fact that executing criminals and taking out their body parts is unethical since the rights of the criminals are violated. It is good to help the blind refugees but the source of help is ethically wrong.
As a leader in this situation, my duties will be finding durable solutions for the ailing refugees in the camp. The immediate stakeholders, in this case, are the Doctors Without Borders, the Chinese aid agency as well as the refugees. The long-term ramifications of my decision would be that the execution of Chinese criminals would seize since there could be no more purchases of the corneas and the corrupt prison officials would no longer benefit as they wanted to.
My “gut feeling” about this case does not differ from what I feel is right. My guide would therefore be finding corneas that have been voluntarily donated and no corrupt individual was going to benefit from the same.
Case 2: Those who walk away from the Omelas
Compromising my morals to live in paradise would lower my ethical standards. I believe that our ethical paradigms are not superior to those of other cultures since every culture or society is guided by different ethical and moral guidelines. It is according to this reason that I strongly believe that the ethics I have been taught all my life are not wrong.
According to the article “Those Who Walk Away From Omelas,” I would obviously help the child to walk away. The situation under which the child is living is too harsh as the child is complaining and pleading by saying that it will be good if let out. The health of the child still is seen to be poor as entailed in the story. The child has no calves on its legs as well as its belly is seen to protrude (Le Guin 2017). I would therefore consider the people from Omelas who knew as to why the child was there as the most unethical in the story since they offered no assistance to help it.
The implied criticism of our own society which I recognize in the story is that if the child had been brought up into sunshine out of that place, fed, cleaned and comforted, then that could have been a good thing but it was not the case in Omelas. In conclusion, I, therefore, find the life of humans as absolutely not a fair price for utopia. Humans do not live or even work in perfect harmony as it is seen in the story whereby the child is neglected by society.
Reference
Le Guin, U. K. (2017). The ones who walk away from Omelas. HarperCollins.
