Fahrenheit 98.6

I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with genetic enhancement. Of course we should be responsible as in all things. And we should do our best to understand something before taking action, as with all powerful novelties. That said, I think there are serious problems with genetic enhancement and designer babies. These issues are damning in our current society. I’ll make my argument based on the following beliefs that I will assume. This practice will be no different from general society in valuing normalcy as opposed to rebelliousness (how many queer/trans-babies do you think will be requested?). And this practice will be no different than society in general by privileging the wealthy, furthering an already disastrous inequality. 

            I guess I don’t really see much novelty or critical thinking in my diagnosis. It seems apparent that genetic enhancement will further inequality and equally apparent that inequality is detrimental to society. Maybe the real question here is what’re we doing with our lives? What has society come to that masses of people are scavenging for water and food while we’re discussing the ethics of making super-human babies and birthing sacrificial children? I guess there’s poetic irony to the sacrificial children debate. There’s little debate as to the acceptability of capitalism, never mind the millions of sacrificial children dying for our comfort— our luxury. I think if there’s an ethical lesson to be taken from genetic engineering it’s the spotlight it puts on already enormous ethical failures. And an omen that the longer we wait, the more technology advances and the more complex and dire our moral situation becomes.

Designer Babies

Leaving aside the situations where genetic modification is life-saving, the topic of designer babies brings up an interesting question. Does the consent of the baby actually being "designed" matter? Of course, it is impossible to ask a fetus for consent, it does not have the capacity to hold consent in the same way that young children or animals cannot give their consent to something. But if this is true, would that not make designer babies immoral? Or is it because they cannot give consent we are okay to genetically modify our children?

Suppose a scenario where a couple want to have a child with blue eyes. Of course, this is a recessive trait and therefore is usually harder to obtain. The couple decide to "design" their child. Then when the child is of age he/she remarks how they wish they had brown eyes instead. Here when the child was finally able to give consent, he or she would have not given it because the result is not to their preference. Because we cannot know of their actual desire beforehand it makes the question a difficult one and most likely we should not design our children for traits that we have a preference for. There are however, situations that we can more clearly guess the consent of the child.

In the case of a life threatening disease, the answer is clear cut. The consequence of such a situation is pain and suffering, so of course it would be safe to assume that the perceived desire would be to genetically modify the genome to save the child's life. Of course this may have its exceptions. The child who was modified may grow up and develop strong religious beliefs that prompts him or her to believe that the modification of humans must be left to some higher power. When this person realizes he or she was a designer baby, they may perhaps feel horrified. They may have preferred a life of suffering instead. This situation however, is a very small exception, and if the child had not been designed, he or she most likely would have never grown up to even be able to develop these opinions, so in the case of disease genetic modification should be okay.

Then there is a gray area where the trait may seem clear cut but its not as clear cut as the scenario of the life-threatening disease. Can we modify a baby's intelligence to a level that is preferable? In these types of instances, it seems  okay to assume consent would be given and therefore we would probably have the okay to continue.

Blog 13

The thought of genetically engineering your child seems quite far-fetched and unnatural; however with modern technology we are close to making this a new option in reproducing. Since this practice is becoming increasingly close to being a reality, it must be addressed among all people despite religion and views the integrity of an embryo. In Christian Response to Designer Babies, Sarah and Theol explain that the concept of designer babies is an “advanced reproductive technology that allows medical doctors to screen embryos for genetic disorders and select healthy embryos.” If used correctly, I believe this process is ethical and a huge stride in the medical industry. These screenings could be helpful to future generations and can essentially weed out detrimental and enviable genes that cause pain, suffering, and even death to millions of people.

However, I want to discuss the immorality of this technology that was lightly touched on in this article.  Fear of such technology stems in using it to select embryos that have cosmetic features or intellect that are deemed desirable and superior by society. This is an extremely possible outcome if such technology is approved and used in common practice that I believe if was discussed further in the articles would have strengthen the immorality of abusing such process. Although it is nice to have faith in humanity and believe that medical practitioners would not offer such an option, which is an irrational belief. Sorry to be cynical but everyone has a price tag, and with the right amount of money a doctor would practice such procedures. Since the families will have to fund the screening, only those with adequate amount of income will be able to design the child that they want. This creates unequal opportunities for the people to modify their children which overtime may create and immense divide in socioeconomic status between genetically chosen humans and those who were not genetically chosen. This gap would continually widen between the superior and inferior until there would be a great divide of opportunity in the populations. Also, regarding cosmetology, there is no one desirable phenotype trait among each culture in the world, therefore who can determine the most desirable traits. Cosmetology also has nothing to do with intellect, personality, or what type of person you truly are so it is illogical to say that one phenotype is better than the other. This can also create a rift and division among populations that can afford to genetically alter their children as viewing them as superior to those who can’t. Another serious and real issue is gendercide. We now live a world where in several countries mothers commonly practice infanticide on baby girls because a boy is more valuable, powerful, and desired. If mothers are ruthlessly murdering their children now, giving them access to screen for gender can create huge problems in gender distribution in these countries, which are already seeing noticeable differences. I believe abusing can truly stunt all the good that can come from it and harm it can prevent, however these real life scenarios are extremely possible if these screenings are passed and need to be investigated in further detail. Sarah and Theol could have used these examples to strengthen their positions on the immorality of the abuse of such technology.

Sweatshop Morality

A utilitarian would think that sweatshops are immoral because the consequential suffering and pain that the factory workers endure are greater than the resulting economic benefits (wages, products). This is definitely true when comparing the workers pain against the resulting money that consumers save by shopping at big box stores such as Walmart. The intended price differential that consumers benefit from is trivial compared to the suffering that is associated with sweatshops. I imagine that most people would agree that saving ten dollars on a television at Walmart is not worth Meem’s stolen childhood.  However, a grey area appears when comparing the workers suffering to the workers “benefits”. Regardless of how low the wage may be, they are still being paid. One could argue that although working conditions and wages are awful, it is better than the potential mass unemployment. Opponents of sweatshops suggest that wages and working conditions should be improved; however, that may not be plausible. Especially when sweatshops are “screening” potential employee to ensure that the injustices of the industry are concealed. Thus, boycotting companies that outsource to sweatshops takes jobs away from the poor, which is more harmful than it is helpful. If a sweatshop shuts down causing thousands of people to lose their jobs, their living conditions and suffering may be worse because they have no income whatsoever. Therefore, under those specific circumstances, sweatshops may be justifiable by utilitarian’s because poverty with no job is worse than poverty with a job that is physically and emotionally demanding. 

Natural?

The concept and processes of transgenesis, or genetic modification of humans has raised many controversies regarding the ethics of this practice. The main concern that seems to plague many individual’s thoughts on the topic is whether or not transgenesis is a “natural” thing for humans. Although many individuals are under the impression that the process of transgenesis is something that goes against human nature, it has been theorized that evolution itself is proof of transgenesis among many organisms, even humans (da Fonesca et al., 1).  Varieties of transgenesis have also been found to occur in prokaryotes such as bacteria and viruses, prokaryotes that many would deem natural, as well as common in human nature. For the individuals that would consider transgenesis to be an unnatural occurrence, it must also be understood that the risks associated with this process are not higher than other manipulations of people; education processes, surgical interventions, and cognitive therapy are all examples of human manipulation that pose risks to an individual’s well-being (da Fonesca et al., 1).

Although certain processes of transgenesis are looked upon as improving well-being, many of the authors agreed that the process of genetically engineering an embryo is one that is not viewed fondly. For example, it was discussed while antenatal screening has many benefits, including reduced risk to mothers and reduction of children born with burdensome conditions, it is ethically wrong when an individual terminates a pregnancy when a detected disease or disorder is not an untreatable, fatal disease of infancy (Zahedi, 2). If one were to terminate a pregnancy that did not pose a serious threat to herself or her child based on an antenatal screening, it would seem that the mother would be minimizing the actual benefits of the genetic screen and maximizing overall harm. Zahedi especially would be extremely opposed to this because he feels that we must use genetic screening and transgenesis to “maximize its benefits and minimize any harm” (Zahedi, 1). In order to truly increase one’s overall well-being, as well as maximize the benefits and minimize the harm of genetic screening and transgenesis, we must make sure that weary individuals are able to access the proper information about the issue itself and we must make sure these individuals properly understand the ways in which transgenesis can and ought to be used. To sum it up, “the problem does not lie in the tool itself, but in what use people will make of it” (da Fonesca et al., 10).

Not All Change is Created Equal

In the article “Human Transgenesis: Definitions, Technical Possibilities and Moral Challenges”, there is a small section titled “Human Nature is Transgenic”. In it the authors begin by refuting the claim that gene therapy for the purpose of human genetic enhancement would alter the essence of human nature; the idea that humans are a perfected species made in the image of God. This common definition of human nature is incorrect, so they claim, because of our current understanding of genetics and Darwinian evolution. Our genes are not unchangeable, but very fluid and mutational. Thus gene therapy and genetic enhancement would do nothing different than what our genes already do all the time; change. So to the people who fear genetic enhancement would cause unknown harm by changing a set code of human DNA, the authors would say there is nothing to fear because human DNA changes all the time. I don’t find their argument very convincing, though. The mechanisms by which natural selection changes the phenotype of an organism is completely different than that of purposeful genetic engineering. In natural and artificial selection, the genotype is left to change on its own (through natural mutation) and either we choose the most advantageous phenotype that corresponds with that genetic change (artificial), or that phenotype is deemed advantageous because it enables the organism to survive or reproduce (natural). In both cases, the actual genetic change is left up to natural processes. The resulting phenotype is the driving mechanism for change. Genetic enhancement turns that process upside down. Now we are the catalyst for genetic change in the hopes of getting a desired phenotype, which is hardly the same thing as natural genetic mutation. Natural evolution is a slow process, a culmination of many gradual changes over time and multiple generations. Genetic enhancement runs the risk of changing the genetic structure of an organism too drastically and/or too quickly. While I can conceive of genetic enhancements that do neither of these, the possibility still exists to the extent of being a significant concern. Therefore worry on the side of unknown consequences from genetic enhancements is still justified and not refuted as the authors suggest.

designer babies

There are multiple different views on designer babies and human enhancement. I will first start off about human enhancement. I believe that human enhancement is not morally permissible. I think even currently our society places too much emphasis on “perfect traits”. There are no such things as perfect traits. Allowing for human enhancement would other further progress this mindset and create more divisions within our society for things like race, height, weight, etc. We as a society do not have the right to decide what are “perfect traits”. Also, as a progressing society, what people view as perfect is continuously changing. Therefore, it would be nearly impossible to find universal perfect traits that last more than the typical trend.

In regards to transgenesis, I think future generations could present the benefits of it. However, I think right now there are currently so many “kinks” to get out that could be dangerous to a human life. I have a problem with research because I hate the idea of testing on humans for anything, let alone a new life. For example, when babies are created for the sake of saving a child’s life; if something goes wrong during a trial, that could potential put the sick child’s life in even more danger. I am still formulating an opinion about whether it is morally permissible or not to create a life for the sake of saving another.  Overall, I think there could be multiple benefits in the future for designer babies for the sake of health issues, but I never think it is permissible for the sake of appearance. 

Designer Babies

In “A Christian Response to the Issue of ‘Designer Babies’”, the piece states that designer babies have “the potential to disturb the integrity of creation” and that “it is the prime responsibility of the church to oppose the creation of designer babies”. I would agree that in many cases, the concept of designer babies should be opposed, though I for slightly different reasons.

I assume that it can somewhat be taken for granted in our society that favoring people over others based on genetic factors that they cannot control, such as race, sex, appearance, intelligence, etc. is morally reprehensible. It would also appear that for the same reason, favoring those specific genetic traits themselves would be wrong. Even if a child were given specific genetic traits in order to give them an advantage over their peers, or to minimize disadvantages, this would not be a good enough reasoning, because the society which makes those traits advantageous would still be at fault and performing a moral wrong, and using that society as an authority to base decisions on would merely be perpetuating that same wrong.

However, I think in cases of terminal illness, the wrongness of allowing one to die outweighs the value of any moral constraints on the concept of designer babies, and therefore makes the question of whether the process is “natural” irrelevant and morally permits the creation of a designer baby. The piece suggests that perhaps parents with a “savior sibling” would favor one child over another. The wrongness of this would lie in the act of favoring of one child over another, rather than in the creation of the child. The fact that one child was created to save another has no direct indication that one of them is less valuable. Furthermore, it is suggested that it may be psychologically damaging to the savior sibling to learn that they were created for a purpose. However, again this holds no direct connection, because if the child is valued less, and suffers emotionally because of it, the wrongness lies in the parents’ lesser valuing, rather than the creation itself. It seems that being told one was created for a purpose would intrinsically be no more damaging that one being told their birth was “unplanned”. 

last blog post

One issue that I have with transgenesis is that there are unknown future implications.  It is unknown how changing genes could affect us as a species evolutionary or even more immediately. Before this is addressed and discovered, transgenesis should not be done.

Full disclosure: I don't necessarily agree with this argument.  Another argument I have against transgenesis is its implications on the planet.  If transgenesis is being used to essentially keep people alive who shouldn't be, as awful as it sounds we are contributing to the overpopulation of this planet.  I do not mean that we should never be keeping people alive I am simply saying that transgenesis could be used to prolong the inevitable.  Even if transgenesis is allowing for people to live long lives, these people will be procreating and possibly passing on their original poor genetic makeup. People who are kept alive in this way are using this planet's resources, which are already depleting at an alarming rate.

An argument I have against genetic enhancement is that we, as people, should not be controlling evolution.  What we are changing now could not be beneficial to our children or grandchildren or could even be detrimental to them.  What we may now consider "positive traits" could be the future's "negative traits."  There could also be a problem with there being different "fads" in terms of genetics.  Obviously this is an exaggeration and it is even committing the slippery slope fallacy, but instead of this weeks new style it could be this weeks new gene.

Blog post 12

If you choose to post by Wednesday night by 11:00 PM, either (a) raise and develop an objection to some moral issue raised in the readings about designer babies and human enhancement, OR (b) offer and develop a supporting argument about some moral issue raised in the readings about designer babies and human enhancement.

Volunteer Tourism (Developing Caring Relationships)

At first I did not think of the many reasons as to how volunteering in a foreign land could be problematic. After reading Sin’s paper on volunteer tourism I believe caring relationships need to be developed in order for the success of the project at hand. There is a deep problem that exists if those volunteering do not get on to the level of the locals (Sin 986). Zakaria argued that volunteer tourism often times has a singular focus on providing the volunteer an experience instead of providing for the recipient (1). When a caring relationship is established it seems to me that there would be a change in focus towards catering to the needs of the recipient. I mentioned before volunteers have to “get on to the level” of the locals. This is best explained by Daily Muse emphasizing “’the need for the volunteer to adapt to the culture, to be flexible, relevant, and realistic’”(2). This simply means that when volunteering, one has a lot to learn about the area and really tap into what assistance he or she can provide. The idea of creating a caring relationship involves one to learn about the culture so that there is not a marginalization of those providing the aid and the recipient. Also, if one is not realistic with his or her expectations of the limited ways that the recipient can provide something in return, then the idea of volunteer tourism could create more problems. According to the Aristotelian theory of virtue ethics, I think that anything that would cause you to marginalize and demeanor the recipient would be an excessive way of fulfilling that virtue of generosity. This relationship captures the idea of respect toward another human being that possesses rational thought. With this in mind, I believe that with the recipient would overall benefit a lot more through a caring relationship.

I Volunteer As Tribute!

Some of the main objections to Voluntourism revolve around the idea that voluntourism is only a temporary solution that could potentially cause problems in the future, instead of make a difference.

Despite that, I don’t think it is right to say that voluntourism should be stopped altogether. I think that with proper improvement to the program (more frequent voluntourism groups visiting, continuous turnover), much more substantial differences could be made in whichever third world country. Having said that, I think it is a little unrealistic to put so much weight on a single organization to make a difference such that it is expected to do so every time. I think it takes a continuous effort to really turn things around, and with more investment to voluntourism programs this might be able to be done.

Even so, I think that even though the good effects of voluntourism are only temporary, it still opens up opportunities for people who face time constraints and cannot commit to a project for so long, to do their part in helping. At the same time, I think it also helps to promote the importance of helping those in need. If anything at all, I think that voluntourism serves as a stepping stone. I think to say voluntourism is wrong is to also say that any kind of short-term charity work is also wrong if it doesn't last long.

*edit* In terms of the inequality that was described in Sin’s piece, I think that the “misunderstanding” of culture can go both ways. The Cambodian respondent is failing to understand the difference in culture of the volunteers, the same way the volunteers do not understand how the Cambodians live. And while there is some inequality, I feel like that’s more of a problem with labeling. Perhaps I don’t quite understand the problem with the labels, but I feel like if you’re not so economically stable and need some help, it doesn’t mean you are inferior, neither should it have a negative connotation of any kind. I get that equality is important, but to base equality of economic status doesn’t quite make a lot of sense since it is almost arbitrary. Countries don’t get to decide where they are geographically located, neither do they get to decide their size. Therefore I think that not every single country can achieve economic prosperity at the same time.  

Volunteer Tourism Response

The two most important questions about volunteer tourism seem to be whether people have the appropriate intentions and whether volunteer tourism is effective.  It is difficult to make a case for volunteer tourism when all three pieces critique at least one aspect of the practice, but I am going to try. 

Stupart operates under the assumption that no matter how you look at it, these organizations are unhelpful, or at least only trivially helpful.  I disagree.  I think there are ways to structurally improve programs to improve their usefulness.  Stupart tackles the first question, and provides an important critique of these selfish motivations.  Stupart claims that regardless of the individual’s motive, volunteer tourism displays ignorance about the ways they can help.  Unless it is truly counterproductive, I would say it is a leap to consider this an unethical practice simply because there are more effective and efficient ways to help.  I think it is possible to work with these programs to develop relationships and help individuals’ quality of life.  It is true that some of these programs need to be reworked, but I think it is not necessary to abandon them completely.

Stupart criticizes many aspects of volunteer tourism, one of them being the volunteer’s self-interest.  At the beginning of the semester, we discussed how much intent matters.  If someone does the right thing for the wrong reasons, is it still unethical?  Are we inherently self-motivated individuals? Is it possible to be selfless?  In this case, I do not find it unethical to attempt to improve people’s quality of life in a way that also serves some self-interest of the helper either.  If an individual would prefer to travel to another country to help, it may be slightly selfish, but these programs should be structured in a way that makes this desire feasible.  The sad reality is that people want credit for helping others, and less people will want to make a website than travel to a country they have never seen. 

Stupart seems to find it unethical to be uninformed about how to best serve the needs of individuals in countries that people are volunteering in.  To defend this argument, he explains that orphanages create their own agenda by presenting orphans with parents.  This does not reflect on the individual as much as it does on the structure of the organization.  It is important to be informed about the credibility of the volunteer organization they are working with. On the one hand, I agree with Stupart that individuals should be informed about these organizations so that they are enacting change.  On the other hand, I do not think it is implausible to have successful volunteer tourists as Stupart suggests.  Zakaria mentions the “white savior complex,” and the ethnography challenges the structure of the programs by pointing out that we are assuming an authoritative position, and perpetuate the idea that these individuals are “marginalized and disempowered.”

Stupart argues that the countries develop a dependency on volunteer tourists.  This is another thing that can be fixed.  Establishing programs that do not require that dependency will still help people abroad.  I think it is unfair to say that there are sufficient resources and volunteers abroad who will complete the tasks volunteer tourists complete.  That is an oversimplification.  These programs should be made in a way that doesn't simply throw money at people, but rather work towards improving quality of life or education.

I think that the ethnographic study highlights the complexity of volunteer tourism instead of aggressively contesting the plausibility of volunteer tourism.  In the ethnographic study it seems that positive interaction between people of different cultures is promoted through volunteer tourism.  The positive interaction and trust described in the study is valuable.  I think that it is important to refine these volunteer programs to focus on improving education and providing homes to those in need.

Helping or Hurting: Volunteer Tourism

          Because these usual volunteer tourism hot spots are so poor, the moral permissibility of the volunteer tourists that come in is supported on the grounds that these people are bringing in revenue. This revenue  only helps which is in the best interest the country. When revenue is brought in consistently it creates an industry and this industry opens up jobs for these poor people. An example of this is seen in the Zakaria article where orphan hugging by volunteer tourists becomes a lucrative attraction, and turns into an industry. The orphans are usually not really orphans but instead are really poor children whose parents are unable to send them to school. This information may seem to serve as evidence against volunteer tourism but because these children are able to receive money from acting as orphans, they are able to go to school and live better lives. The children are “working” to gain money in order to obtain an education, is that not what the volunteer tourist wanted? This is the same thing as applying for a scholarship and those that have the best package will win the scholarship money. Being an orphan helps strengthen these children’s packages which ultimately helps them receive the money they need to attend school. Someone may argue that the person giving the money is being lied to which is why this is morally impermissible. I would argue back that the person should do their research, just like the article by Stupart explained. If is in your intention to give money away abroad then do your research before making the trip. Homeless people lie all of the time to obtain money, and if you are gullible enough to believe everything people say then you deserve to be exploited for your money. In the end, the intentions and duty of volunteer tourist is morally permissible because these countries are so poor that turning away money is against their best interest.

Voluntourism - Soloff

The Zakaria and Stupart articles touch on a few reasons why volunteer tourism, while seemingly altruistic and good at first glance, can be flawed (sometimes inherently, and sometimes fixable). All arguments orbit around the idea that the volunteer tourism “industry” exists to “help” the volunteer by making them feel better rather than actually help the target, or otherwise use the selfish desires of the volunteers to fuel actual helping of the targets. One argument focuses on efficiency of helping those in need; an unskilled young college student may just be in the way and slow down work, and giving their money to local organizations may help more but the volunteer may not be as motivated to donate if they are not hands-on. Another addresses the fact that “orphan hugging” programs both create a market for orphans, duping voluntourists and screwing over the children involved, and also wouldn’t be a good thing to do regardless (due to a lack of background checks and not establishing long-term care for the orphans). A third argument states that many volunteer projects do something that sounds good, like building a library or painting a school, but that don’t actually contribute to the long-term welfare and success of the community as a whole.

Although all of the smaller individual arguments are complicated issues, I feel as though they can be addressed to some extent. The efficiency one is the hardest; similarly to the global aid issue, how can people be encouraged to give their support/money more without crossing similar ethical boundaries (and in this case, without physically going there and making things worse). I agree with the articles that the “orphan hugging” programs are inherently flawed, and do indeed create a market for orphans, and that ultimately real orphans are a problem that should not be addressed by foreign aid or volunteers but by a country/state itself. Finally, although many projects are short-sighted failures that don’t address long term concerns of a community, I think (and the authors seem to agree) that this is a problem that can be circumvented through proper education of circumstances as well as utilization of the local community’s tools, workers, and long-term needs. All of these issues aside, the core idea, that of volunteer tourism existing as a way for westerners to masturbate their egos, needs to be talked about because it plays a hand in every smaller argument as well. Do we have an obligation to (intelligently) help others, whether we like it or not, like Singer says? Is it wrong for someone to volunteer to feel good about themselves if they do just as much good as a selfless volunteer (intent vs. consequence)? These are versions of questions that we’ve tried to answer all year, but they are difficult to pin down and hopefully brought up during class.

Voluntourism

            I went to Haiti twice last year with a group of doctors and nurses from my church.  We were working with a missionary there who had been working in the community for over a decade, so I felt an assurance that our group would be helpful doing work that the missionary deemed necessary.  After we left though, it was clear that the type of work we did was more of a temporary Band-Aid that doesn’t actually do any long-term fixing.  As a result, one of the members in our group who had connections to New York Presbyterian continued sending medical equipment and materials and many members went multiple times to try to do some work that had a long-term effect.  Ultimately, I felt lucky enough to feel like we did more good than harm.

            However, I am not quite sure how I should feel about my going there.  Am I allowed to feel good about myself for volunteering?  When I read the articles, the sort of self-righteousness of the tourists who had not really done anything good, and in some cases did harm, seems especially bad.  In a way, the way the tourists and I feel after and the way we understand the voluntourism trip is almost the worst part of this issue.  Going there with the mentality of “I’m doing something good” or “I’m helping these poor people” seems to lead to a sense of superiority and the unequal relationships discussed in Sin’s paper.  Furthermore, believing that we did something good when the rippling effects of our actions, such as the orphanage markets created after tourists visited orphanages, are not always obvious also seems especially wrong.

            On the other hand, if voluntourism were framed as more of a learning experience for the tourists rather than a “saving the these poor people” experience, I feel that voluntourism would be beneficial even if the actual work the tourists did was neither helpful nor harmful.  The time tourists spend in a different country volunteering should be more of a humbling time for them to learn about the hardships faced in different countries and to learn about the culture of the local community, and perhaps to also learn about the complexity of the issues affecting a community.  Thus, even if the tourists do not do anything that is a net help to the community, they would at least have an understanding of the extent to which their work helped or harmed and would build a relationship or understanding with the community.

Blog post 12

If you choose to post by Monday night after Thanksgiving break by 11:00 PM, either (a) raise and develop an objection to some moral issue raised in the readings about volunteer tourism, OR (b) offer and develop a supporting argument about some moral issue raised in the readings about volunteer tourism.

global aid.

               Reading these articles about global aid made me think of an interesting analogy. Remember as a kid when you didn’t understand something in school, you would naturally get frustrated and left behind the rest of the class. For example, when I was in fourth grade I couldn’t do multiplication. My mom tried to teach me but I still couldn’t get it. Then more of my family members started to try and teach me as well and eventually with all their help, I finally understood and could do it. The point of that story was that from more people trying to help me learn something, it was a more efficient way to learn it faster. This can relate back to global aid because the more wealthy countries that contribute their help to poorer countries, the faster they will be able to get back on their feet.

               In the article, “China’s ODA diplomacy” it stated that China provided $14.4 billion towards mostly Africa and Asia. This is a substantial amount of money that doesn’t necessarily all have to be coming from China. Essentially all the wealthy countries need to work together and contribute at least .07% of their annual GNP to all the poorer countries. This would greatly help all of the poorer countries to progress financially. This plan would only work if everyone chips in. Right now, Canada only donates .34% of its GNP to foreign assistance. Overall, some countries give more than others and then sometimes it puts that country in unnecessary debt that could be avoided.

http://www.povertyeducation.org/the-foreign-aid-debate.html --> source that helped me with numbers 

intangible aids

            In the interview with James Shikwati he “says that aid to Africa does more harm than good.” Even though this may be true for some part of the aids provided to the poor countries, I disagree with his statement. I think that if aids are given in a proper manner, it can help poor countries. What have allowed aids to do harms to poor countries are inadequate research on what is needed and the intention to develop its own country through giving aids. As Shikwati says, providing with foods and clothes that are made in those countries that are providing these items do not help the poor countries to become independent and be self-sustainable because it makes poor countries to be more dependent and not grow its own economy. These kinds of tangible aids are more of a short-term solution that can be helpful for situations such as in unexpected natural disasters. However, when it comes to long-term aids in order to create a system that will allow poor countries to become independent, what is needed are intangible aids that will help establish good policies and an economic system. Since tangible aids have been provided to the poor countries by developed countries for a long time, if the aids are stopped completely all the sudden, the government of poor countries will not know how to become independent on their own. Therefore, countries giving aids should gradually decrease the tangible aids and increase the intangible aids to help the government change their system. Giving those kinds of aids does not mean invading the countries, ignoring their cultures and beliefs, but helping analyze what is not working and what kind of options they have to become more successful. When in negative spiral of being a poor country it is difficult to find the solution, and this is where developed countries can help with their experiences of becoming developed countries, knowing what have worked and what have not worked in past. 

Teach A Man to Fish

In the SPIEGEL, Shikwati argues we need to completely cut off aid though I think we cannot look at this claim too literally. I think Shikwati is particularly concerned with aid in the form of money and I agree that sending money to poverty stricken nations is the wrong solution, especially if it creates a dependence. It seems to me that a large part of the problem with sending money is that there are not the same economic structures in poverty stricken countries that there are in more economically developed (capitalist) countries. Even if the economic structures are there in image (i.e. they have a centralized government), there is certainly not the same level of popular representation, rule of law, power balancing, and recognition of natural human rights than there exists in more affluent countries (though one could argue that affluent countries haven't exactly perfected that formula either). By sending money we are essentially applying the capitalist idea of investing (or perhaps "throwing money at the problem") to a situation and country where the economic structures and institutions simply are not present or if they are, they are not present on the same level as affluent countries. Just because we are becoming an increasingly globalized and connected world does not mean that all countries are operating in the same capitalist framework where money is the quickest and easiest problem solver.

That being said, I think aid is still an important idea; we should not cease all foreign aid just because aid in the form of money does not really help. I think Shikwati's point is better interpreted as we should focus on a form of aid closer to the "Teach a man to fish..." aphorism. The Millennium Villages Project from the Singer piece represents a good example of what I believe to be this type of aid. It is important that we apply our aid directly to the impoverished that empowers them as independent people--an idea Shikwati clearly believes in--and that we give them the resources to actually empower them and allow them to grow. I think the two most empowering resources are education and technology. Education promotes independence, equality, and is a form of intellectual empowerment (an especially important step in the realization of natural human rights, though I'm sure it's clear at this point that I have a particularly strong belief in those) while technology (clean water, electricity, vaccination against disease) gives them the means to live fuller lives and at the very least fulfills the basic needs of life for those in affluent countries.

It is important to note that in the event of ecological disasters aid in the form of money and food might be more acceptable though I think it is important that the money gets applied responsibly to rebuild homes and repair infrastructure damages. It also seems to me that problems like the ones experienced after the earthquakes in Bam, Iran could be solved by a little more regulation and consideration in this type of aid, though for the scope of this blog post I think the focus is on foreign aid for impoverished and structurally growing countries like those in Africa.

Profuse Assistance

Prior to reading the interview between Spiegel and Shikwati, I did not think that sending aid to underdeveloped countries could have disadvantageous consequences. However, considering the fact that aid cripples the market for product and diminishes the need for workers, global aid may not be the best answer to eradicating poverty from Africa and other underdeveloped nations. The problem here is not assistance, however, but the quantity of it; this follows the maxim “Too much of a good thing is bad for you.”

    Giving too much help is akin to a parent bird giving food to the young and never encouraging the young bird to leave the nest and find its way. If aid is consistently sent to underdeveloped nations, those nations will learn to look to their caregivers whenever a problem arises, rather than trying to work it out themselves. If you always receive assistance for every problem you come across, you will never adequately learn how to take care of yourself. This can be explained through Aristotelian thought.

    First, there is the balance between dependence, which would be asking for assistance, and independence, which would be taking matters into your own hands and solving your own problems. The healthy balance between these two vices would be to receive minimal aid (if you ask for any at all) – just enough assistance that you have the tools you need to manage your problem. This may be, for instance, seeds and animals for farming. Using these tools, a nation may be better suited to work for itself, to develop a functional and independent market, and to work its way out of the poverty cycle. Too little help and you are left up a creek without a paddle – that is to say without any means to help yourself out. Too much help and you are unable to learn to take care of yourself, or you are too smothered by the aid that you cannot even begin to fix yourself.

    Second, too much assistance prevents the rational, social animal from flourishing, as it cripples rationality, such as problem-solving and critical thinking, through the deliverance of a solution. For instance, a math tutor who “assists” the tutee by giving him/her all the answers or by doing the tutee’s work for him/her prevents the tutee (the underdeveloped nation) from learning how to do math (keep the nation afloat economically). If underdeveloped nations were given only aid in the form of managerial insight or help in growing business, both of which go a longer way than either money or food or clothes, then they would be able to stand up for themselves and flourish as they are meant to.

Global Aid

I completely agree with Shikwati in his interview.  We should stop sending aid to these African countries or any country for that matter.  Like Shikwati said the aid we send to these countries weakens then even more because they do not know how to help themselves.  The aid we send does also take away jobs for those within these countries.  “In 1997, 137,000 workers were employed in Nigeria's textile industry. By 2003, the figure had dropped to 57,000.”  We are just making it so the people of these countries we send aid to do not have to take care of themselves because they can just cry for help and we will come running instead of making them try to figure it out for themselves.  Children have to learn to live on their own and be independent and so do these countries or they will never grow and be successful.  They cannot always rely on someone else to solve all their problems.  I think instead of sending them the aid we should tell them how to help themselves to become more successful and how to grow as a county.  This way they will learn and maybe eventually they will not be so poor and not have so many starving people.  All of their companies and farms will be able to actually make money because they will not have to compete with the cheap products that are brought over because of the aid we send to their country.  I feel we are doing more harm than help just like Shikwati thinks.     

Global Aid and where its most appropriate

No matter what, aid should be given simply because people do need the help. I thought this way before getting deeper into this ethics class. There are many variables that must be taken into account when judging a situation as I have learned over the course of this semester. So, with that said, aid should seriously depend on the kind of help that is needed in the suffering country. Some examples that come to mind are: Infrastructural and Economic.


In the case of Africa

It is no secret that Africa is in shambles because of poverty, hunger, corruption, chaos, you name it. It is in a state of perpetual economic turmoil it would seem. I'll accept what was in the readings is true to an extent. So if information from the readings are legitimate, then Africa should be a decent 3rd world nation probably. For the sake of argument,  Instead, I think it'd be an insult to 3rd world countries to even group Africa in that category. They have received a lot of aid and nothing has been done with it because of corruption. They are depending on aid to help themselves and it would seem like that because billions of dollars are being pumped into the country and no good is coming from it. It is unwise to pump money into a country to get them economically running and to give them aid like clothes and such to help them receive some basic human needs. IF they at least tried to get an economy going, they could be successful in probably a century. Jobs are being ignored, like making clothes, producing food, things of the such, because of aid (not mainly). There are torn down buildings probably everywhere that could be rebuilt, but the amount of corruption that is present is preventing reconstruction and is too high to just mindlessly ignore. You have to give something like Africa a limit, 3 chances or what have you. Do something, or lose the aid. "But what if we receive slack for not aiding Africa?" I think everyone else will realize it soon enough. As much as I want them to have help, they haven't done a lot over the decades of assistance being given and there is a certain point where we have to just realize that we cannot change them with mindlessly pumping in money. Anyone helping or receiving the help is far from actualizing good. Aristotle would be upset with the whole situation. Anyone who has aided Africa over the past many decades is acting so prodigal, obsequious, as well as being cowards. This is because they've given them aid for well over 50 years and NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE, I hope it has been truly realized that the aid given is not being used to its fullest extent and is being wasted. All the countries are helping Africa to help themselves by looking good in the eyes of others, in other words being pressured into the situation and thus acting obsequious. Lastly, the corruption has not been fully stopped and so it is a failure on everyone who act like cowards to go into Africa and fix it. I don't want fixing as in "Let's go in and shove democracy down their gullets." Fixing as in, just stop the corruption and let them handle themselves finally. As for Africa, they too are being cowards, probably the most cowardice place in the world. They aren't getting a successful, stable, and not corrupt government established. They are not ending the corruption. They aren't producing many of their own goods or exporting all the expensive good they contain. "Its because they cannot stand up for themselves! They are a very weak country, why would you expect them to do any of this?" They have billions of dollars in aid spread throughout the continent, they have become dependent on aid it would seem and this contributes to their feebleness, and is the world's largest source of naturally produced trait of quarrelsomeness. We are essentially appeasing the world by giving them money so we can look good. We take up a cause and we follow through because we are just those kind of people unwillingly (All for self-interest because that's how Humans are). There's only so much you should do until you realize your efforts are being stepped on purposely and all you are receiving is disrespect. Their land shouldn't be as much of an issue to get them progressing economically as one would think. Take the middle east for example, that area has somewhat geographic similarities and perform fine with bazaars, crops, clothes, and many other things. It is not impossible to start a system of trade in Africa, just create a few settlements with the aid they still have or do it themselves and they can start from scratch and slowly progress.

"[Anyone who gives us aid] pays for everything in our country. We ask [them] for money. We get it, and then we waste it" ~ (Thank God) The Former Central African Republic Leader.

However, if given the opportunity when the corrupt has nearly ceased to exist in Africa, then I suspect progress can be made with global aid internally, but not economically. They have to fix themselves economically with getting markets created, having control of trade, and becoming industrially advanced. But to do that first, a government that is not insanely corrupt needs to be in charge so there are dependable eyes defending and wisely spending money to progress the country so the people don't suffer from hunger, mistreatment of rights... instead of doing a list. Basic human rights. A government can give you that, if it is not corrupt.

Countries of infrastructural disaster

Someone had the smart idea to give literally all the wrong supplies to Iran's city of Bam. Research. It isn't too hard, especially in a country that is heavily religious in a way that should be blatantly obvious what is and isn't acceptable. Africa has major infrastructural issues, but in areas that are hit with natural disasters or war and things of the such and DO have a functioning economy which makes them ideal to help because they can help themselves as well. If you feel like it, take up a good cause and actually get something accomplished. Haiti would be a great place to help, Bam in the past would've been, anywhere you can think that had a natural disaster. At least some form of government is present in most of the places hit with these disasters so the money that is sent there is put to good use I would imagine, and it would seem. Africa is just a mess economically and internally. Before help can come internally, they have to get economically fixed so at the very least they can help themselves. It should be obvious now that mindlessly shoving money into Africa is not going to get themselves a functioning economy, stop aids (whatever the numbers maybe), end poverty and hunger, etc. They have to help themselves before anyone should help them.



Help me, help you Africa. You've had 50 years of money being lain on your grounds, shoved miles into your throat, watering holes... Do something with what you have left and show the world some progression instead of being in a perpetual state of neediness. Until something can be officially labeled as eternally poor, you can get better. Easier said than done, like always. There is no true obligation to assist Africa. We help them possibly because of improving our image or to help those who are desperately in need. In any case, they need to get themselves on their feet and not just wait for aid to come. You don't create an economy by giving Africa loads of aid (money, clothes, etc.) Only Africa create their economy just like every other country in the world. Once they have an economy (Which they should work for and create themselves by creating jobs and such), then maybe they can work themselves out of the gutter and use the aid they received for infrastructural improvements which can lead to a thriving economy over years of building. An Economy is created with jobs, the infrastructure is created based off of culture, progression, wealth, and stability. We are seemingly trying to maximize the good, and minimize the bad with this aid (and not wanting to stop because if we do they could implode), but actualizing the good is what is required here and this needs to be achieved by going through hardships, growing pains, and with hard work and dedication. The aid should not be cut off completely, but allocated to be used effectively instead of just blindly giving aid.

Blog post 12

If you choose to post by Monday night by 11:00 PM, either (a) raise and develop an objection to some moral issue raised in the readings about global aid, OR (b) offer and develop a supporting argument about some moral issue raised in the readings about global aid.

Thoughts on Sweatshops

“Justice isn’t just for those who got dough”. This a quote I recently heard from a spoken word piece by Boonaa Mohammed. This really applies to children who are forced into child labor with extreme conditions and are being oppressed through taking away rights to a future. I think everyone would agree the industry feels like it has a right to the future and thus thinks that it should be able to grow and expand. In a similar way, since the value of a human being is should simply not be based on the monetary wealth a person holds, a child has a right to a future. Industries can improve on their way of dealing with child labor by respecting this idea by simply respecting the child’s future. This does not necessarily cause a detrimental harm to their future. One way to do that would be to allow an opportunity for education and really valuing the work that children may do for the industry. The value can be given holding respect for the child’s current state and future. In the case of many industries that have child labor “children are nameless, faceless, voiceless non-entities. They have no education or health care” (Satyarthi 2). According to utilitarian ideology, arguments could be against sweatshops because you take away justice from those who are poor (and in the case of Bangladesh, this population is supersedes those who are affluent), and are causing a suffering that is beyond comparable. If you would want to quantify things, the quantity of suffering the industry will have to face if work hours were decreased and children were given education is only a monetary suffering.  The suffering of the children who go through work that causes physical, emotional, and psychological pain has more weight. In this way the industry ought to change its practices in order to decrease that suffering. The solution to this problem is multidimensional, and cannot be changed in drastic ways which why I say that the first step should be to better the conditions of the labor.

Sweatshops

I struggled a lot as I read these pieces regarding Sweatshops. I thought I would find myself completely against sweatshops but I found myself thinking otherwise after reading the articles. Sweatshops are a terrible thing in regards to how the workers are treated and what the conditions in the factory are. It is not right to have people especially children working such long hours in horrible conditions and to be abused in such ways. These inhumane working conditions need to be changed and I think that there needs to be some kind of regulations put into place in these factories. It may not be possible financially for some sweatshops to put up better conditions but then that shows that those shops should be shut down. I am not asking for pristine conditions, but anything is better than what these people work in currently.
However, I was so torn between the moral standing of sweatshops after the articles that I did a little more research and found two quotes that really made me think. The first  was a quote from Jeffrey Sachs: "My concern is not that there are too many sweatshops but that there are too few." This really just agrees with my first argument that we need to change the organization of sweatshops. Sweatshops and small factories cannot be taken out of these Eastern countries because of how poor their economy is doing. They may not have any other options for work that are available for them. This may be their only option to work and I cant argue against them working if this is their only choice.
The other quote is by Paul Krugman: "Why does the image of an Indonesian sewing sneakers for 60 cents an hour evoke so much more feeling than the image of another Indonesian earning the equivalent of 30 cents an hour trying to feed his family on a tiny plot of land?" In this we find another option for workers trying to supply for their family, but we have  no problem with it even though he is working in tough conditions and earning less. I think it might have to do with who the product of the labor is. In the sweatshop example the product is going to the Western countries and for the farmer the produce is going to stay with him and his family and his immediate community. But then this begs the question, is it really the sweatshops we have a problem with if they were supplying to themselves or is it the fact that they are sending their products to the wealthy Western countries?

Sweatshops Response

I found Bhagwati’s argument to be interesting, but not compelling enough.  I cannot pretend to fully understand the economic implications of sweatshop boycotting.  Regardless of the economic implications, I think Bhagwati thinks he is covering more ground in his argument than he actually is.  He assumes that those morally opposed to sweatshops will immediately demonstrate this through a boycott.  I think that Bhagwati commits the fallacy of bifurcation, and assumes that there are only two options: wanting to keep sweatshops or making demands through a boycott.  Though many have attempted to morally condemn sweatshops and show this through boycotting them, I agree with neither of these claims, and I believe there is a third possibility.

I think it is justified for Bhagwati to discuss the relevant economic factors involved in keeping sweatshops, but I also think Aulakh’s description of the conditions cannot be overlooked.  The workers are screamed at for mistakes, are crammed into a small space, are provided access to only poor bathroom facilities, work long hours, receive no kind of benefits (for example days off with pay), sometimes are beaten, and are institutionalized into believing there will never be a better option.  I believe there must be a way to ensure that the conditions improve and children are allowed more freedom.  Their childhood should not be spent working 12 hours a day. 

Wages should be higher, even if it means clothing and other products cost more.  Some of the burden of responsibility is on the consumer.  I find myself starting to sound like Singer, but simply accepting these conditions as Bhagwati suggests is too dismissive.  Bhagwati assumes too much.  By demanding a shift in conditions, we do not need to completely restructure our economic system.  I understand that we cannot simply wish away free trade, but simply accepting the conditions because the alternatives are worse and because there are economic factors involved is not a strong moral argument, and is not as limiting as Bhagwati suggests.

The Sweat of Nations

Sweatshops should be understood as a symptom of systemic economic problems. This is mentioned several times in the article analyzing media coverage of sweatshops. I’ll come back to this systemic nature. I’d like to address several of the arguments from Bhagwati’s piece. I intend to point out the flaws in these arguments and the way that they have been used throughout history and in the present day to justify oppression— like sweatshops.

            One of the things proposed by Bhagwati is that conditions for sweatshop workers are improving and can be improved more. I see this as analogous to slave owners who demonstrated that slaves are in a better condition now than 50 years ago, therefore slavery must be a good thing. Of course we know that it isn’t and it wouldn’t matter how good the conditions are getting until there is radical and revolutionary change in the system— in this case simply stop owning people. Another argument from Bhagwati is that things would get even worse for the sweatshop workers if we boycott and thus take away the incentive for sweatshops in the first place. I once again see an analogy to slavery, in which slave owners gave sophisticated arguments against freeing slaves. This included pointing out their homelessness, their lack of modern education and the notion that a slave gets better treatment than a worker (especially a black worker) because people take better care of their property than a rental. This has the same problem as the previous argument, trying to justify heinous human circumstances with ideas of inevitability and hopelessness.

My final problem with Bhagwati is the blatant neo-liberalism. “The most powerful policy instrument for removing poverty is growth” (Bhagwati). That is Bull Shit. Bhagwati’s faith in the market and modern economics has sunken him to disturbing depths. While the World Trade Organization would like us to believe that growth removes poverty, one need only look at the plethora of examples e.g. mexico, brazil, Latin America as a whole really and more. Economic growth may lead to some people reaching a higher living standard. Hell, for the sake of argument I’ll pretend that economic growth will definitely give everyone a higher standard of living, but that would not fix the exploitation involved in sweatshops or the failures of the market at large. To reiterate— even if economic growth made everyone’s lives better it would not fix the inequality, the exploitation and the depraved morality of sweatshops and wage-slavery. Interestingly enough I agree with Bhagwati, raising the wage for these workers won’t fix their problems, but I disagree because it is not going far enough to bring them economic equality and freedom. This is as opposed to Bhagwati who seems to think raising the wage is going to far, and would be hurtful. If we want to help sweatshop workers we need to look at how the economy works as a whole and find practical and radical evolution.