Ethnocentrism And The Ebola Crisis

In the article “Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor”, the author Garrett Hardin raised the question that whether the rich countries should help people suffer from poverty. He claimed that the supporting strategies for the developing countries, including the World Food Bank could result in more severe recourse inadequate issue and other disasters. In addition, a large number of immigrants flood in the US could ruin the natural environment and social balance. In that case, the author argued that regardless of the current situation, privileged nations should not provide aid to people trapped within difficulties of the underdeveloped nations. Even though, his

In Peter Singer’s article, Famine, Affluence, and Morality, he proposes the question: “What are the moral implications of a situation like the one in Bengal (230)?” In order to answer this question Singer presents at least two arguments which involve what one ought to do and the moral consequences of not acting or pursuing our moral obligations. His first and central conclusion is that we “ought” to behave in such a way as to decrease suffering and death as a result of lack of food, shelter and medical care. Assuming that the aforementioned events are “bad” Peter singer argues that we are morally obligated to help “relieve great suffering of the sort that occurs as a result of famine or other disasters” as long as “we can without sacrificing something else of comparable moral importance” (238). In fact, he goes so far as to present an additional conclusion that not acting or pursuing our moral obligation to help is unjustifiable and wrong and we must then change our moral schema about the obligations we have to others.

John Arthur presented a moderate view, more in line with our current behavior, that recognizes an individual’s entitlement to resources as an excuse against any moral requirement to give them away. I will briefly present these entitlements, and explain why they can’t justify our refusal to help and aid in famine relief.

We live in a country where all children go to school to gain an education and 25% of them will go onto receive some type of college degree. Compare this to low-income countries, in which children are 16 times as likely to die prior to their fifth birthday (Nickitas, Middaugh & Aries, 2016). Beyond the lens of our smartphones, Facebook friends and Nike sneakers is a world full of desperate people wishing to have enough food to eat for today. Many parts of the world lack sanitation, safe housing, sparse medical care and no medication. The global health issue are everyone’s problems not only for the sake of altruism but, with the increase in global travel for routine business and pleasure, dangerous pathogen are no longer confine by boarders. The Ebola outbreak four years ago, proved the necessity of a global solution to global health issues. The collaborative practice of several world health agencies and economically developed countries along with the use of volunteers, statistical updates, the latest literature and practices kept this outbreak mostly contained to its region of origin and the death toll to approximately 11,000 people (mainly in West Africa) (WHO,

Group obligation is a topic that has given rise to many differing opinions and philosophies to emerge, even to this day. The question is whether or not certain groups have the duty or the burden of helping out another group, and any answer only leads to more questions. If yes, how much help? What is the best way to go about it? If no, then there is the looming question of morality and doing what is right. When faced with a question like this, answers can be looked for from many different facets. Religion, economics, or science can be used to guide one’s opinion on this topic.

In “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer claims that “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.” Additionally, Singer believes that distance is no excuse for allowing something bad to happen; thus, we ought to help people on the other side of the world the same way we would help a neighbor – even though we may feel further inclined to help our neighbors. Moreover, Singer states that people should help as much as possible, without putting themselves or their dependents at risk of suffering. Peter Singer is correct in stating that people with the capacity to prevent something bad from occurring should do so; however,

The concept of compassion and generosity through resource sharing in essence establish themselves onto many of the world’s major religions, political systems, and moral foundations. Most would agree with the Golden Rule, “Do to others what you want them to do to you.” (Matthew 7:12) as a common moral adage suggests, or that “Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter-when you see the naked, to clothe them, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?” (Isaiah 58:7). Although many would agree that compassion and generosity through resource sharing is just, is it realistic? Garrett Hardin in his essay “Lifeboat Ethics” argues that not only is resource sharing is unrealistic, but that it is also unfavorable since it stretches the few limited resources available to the point of ruin. He does this through rhetoric, or the use of logos, ethos, and pathos. In this essay, we will define logos, ethos, and pathos, analyze how Hardin’s uses these rhetorical appeals in his essay, and conclude how effective he was using these appeals to persuade his audience.

In 2014 the United States was hit with a force far more deadly and dangerous than many threats received. The ebola virus took the world by storm after it was carried to the United States and spread by people who had visited West Africa. This virus was all the more deadly as it often took hours for any symptoms to occur. In this time the Center for Disease Control spent much time and many resources looking for answers to the many questions they had. Under the time constraint and scrutinizing public, they had to determine what ebola was, what it did and its effects on the general public.

As a human, I felt obligated to be supportive and help those who need it, if it doesn’t take much to help that person or their benefits aren’t detrimental to me. But after reading On the Supposed Obligation to Relieve Famine, I realized that I should re-evaluate the situation and determine if the individual deserves the assistance. Although I will not settle completely on one side or the other, I have reconsidered my viewpoints, in terms of should I be compelled to help if the person is a good candidate for the assistance. Singer has exposed me to the idea of taking more action in helping those in need, while Kekes has directly convinced me to analyze the situation, the background, the reason for help, and determine if my efforts will be

Nowadays, the process of globalization strengthens the connections between numerous countries across the world, and enables people living in developed countries to help those who are experiencing famine, deaths and diseases in poor countries. However, the moral necessity of doing so has been controversial in human’s society for years. One philosopher named Peter Singer gives his opinion in the article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, and presents a powerful argument supporting his claim. In this essay, I will explain his conclusion and main argument, propose one objection to his argument, and evaluate the validity of my objection by considering possible response that Peter Singer would make to my objection.

The Ebola Virus is an extremely deadly virus found in Africa. There have been multiple outbreaks across Africa and one in the United States. The Ebola virus basically causes uncontrollable bleeding externally and internally. Then your organs become liquefied. This usually results in death(www.encyclopedia.com). The following report contains info on the characteristics and history of the Ebola Virus.

SECOND POINT: Although an outbreak in America is highly unlikely, the fact that Ebola has been diagnosed on American soil brings fear to all. Because of its infectiousness and long incubation period, and the banality of early symptoms, it can be difficult to track and contain. We also do not have a cure for this disease, sure we have experimental drugs, but nothing official. The spread has been much quicker in this outbreak than others, affecting both urban and rural areas. Usual protective measures to prevent the spread appear to be less effective in this epidemic. What ebola does to the human body defies reason and is something like out of a horror movie, not a text book. Americans feel hopeless and vulnerable because Ebola is here. The victim who flew from Liberia to Dallas, Texas on September 30th of this year did expose others and there is a risk of it spreading. The Ebola virus is the most terrifying and least-understood virus known to man. We are witnessing the onset of a deadly mutation anticipated and feared for almost four decades. Americans have watched fully informed and trained health care workers contract Ebola.

This illustrates that as long as we are not in calamitous jeopardy of being harmed or threatened, we have a moral obligation to help out others. The essay question contains the word “morality”; defined by the Black’s Law Dictionary as “pertaining or relating to the conscience or moral sense or to the general principles of right conduct”. Morals may be based on each perspective and their conscience, thus one may argue that their state of mind and their moral upbringing does not conform to those of others thus they see it as no moral obligation to assist other human beings; whether in the same country or not. But it should be realized that we live in a world that contains so many life threatening circumstances and other events that require assistance from others; therefore as human beings, we cannot sit back and watch as these negative circumstances continue to rapidly unfold.

Relevance Statements: All of us need help at some point in our lives. Today we might have the ability to help others but tomorrow we might need someone else’s voluntary efforts. We should not think of helping out the victims as a favor but instead as an exchange that will surely benefit us at some point in our lives. As residents of the United States, we should strengthen our bonds with other residents by offering voluntary help.

Normally infecting fruit bats, the Ebola virus found a mutation allowing it to spread to humans. This virus is an acute and often fatal illness. This virus first erupted in two outbreaks in 1976 (one occurring in Nzara and Sudan, while the other occurred in a village near the Ebola river, where the virus takes its name.) The current outbreak, starting in West Africa with the potential to spread throughout the world,  is  larger and more complex than previous outbreaks. This virus has caused more deaths than all other past Ebola outbreaks combined. With approximately five people infected with the virus every hour in Sierra Leone alone, how far – and how fast – will the Ebola virus go?