Part 1: Slumming It
Development is important in any region to contribute to economic growth and better living standards for people. However, development often involves some compromises that may affect the less fortunate or those who are unable to voice out their concerns. Making informed decisions that benefit all involved parties is difficult and may be confusing for leaders who would want both development and to make people contented. The S lumming it documentary reports that leaders have to decide on whether to put up housing towers and destroy the slums or keep the slums but make improvements within it ( AUH, 2010) . If the slums are maintained, there would be an unhappy investor and certain expenses required to make the necessary improvements. On the other hand, if the slums are destroyed, the development would be done but the people dwelling in the place would have to be relocated.
From the consequentialist theory of utilitarianism, the outcomes are what determines the morality of an action or choice. If an action will produce the higher number of good than negatives, it is then considered to be right and ethically good. However, if an action results in a few good outcomes where negatives outweigh the benefits, a deed would then be regarded as being wrong and undesirable for a particular situation ( Fryer, 2016). Therefore, making the decision on whether to set up the housing towers by destroying the slum would require a good measure of the outcomes. In this case, it is morally right to keep the slums and find ways of improving it. Keeping the slums would save the costs of relocating people from their homes and from their businesses.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Instead of focusing on the results of an action, deontological ethics argues that some acts are morally wrong even if they contribute to good outcomes. Kant argues that moral ethics is derived from the moral reasoning of humans. Human rationality has already established certain rules that guide whether actions are right or wrong ( Fryer, 2016) . For example, stealing in order to eat is ethically wrong as it goes against the maxims of human living that include no lying, no stealing, and no destroying among others. Therefore, destroying slums and displacing people is in itself an immoral act since leaders are bound by duty to protect the less fortunate in society. After all, keeping the slums and improving the conditions is morally right as it caters for the needs of the poor instead of pleasing a few investors. It would have been right if the developers had the pure intention of improving the lives of the slum dwellers without having to disrupt their daily life.
In a similar approach, the rights theory defends the privileges of human beings that cannot be frustrated. There are certain things that cannot be done against individuals since they would be recognized as morally wrong deeds. Irrespective of circumstances, there are rights that should not be violated ( Fryer, 2016) . For instance, stealing or taking away something from others that belongs to them is completely wrong. In this case, taking away the homes of hundreds or perhaps thousands of slum dwellers in Dharavi is ethically wrong. The development would take away the basic right of people to have a place called home. Meeting the selfish interests of the developer is wrong since it would be done at the expense of the rights of other people.
In this case, it is preferable and morally right to allow people to live in the slums while seeking ways of improving the conditions in the region. Development or improvement might be slower, but the less fortunate would not have to be displaced. This means that displacing the slum dwellers and setting up housing towers is not ethically correct based on the utilitarian, deontological, and the rights theories.
Part 2: Case Study on Female on Female Genital Cutting
While civilization is eliminating some of the primitive cultures that were detrimental to human beings, others still practice barbaric beliefs that harm their lives and well-being. While people are taught to appreciate the nature of our bodies, Female Genital Cutting defies the principle. FGC is identified as any non-medical procedure done on the female genital that distorts its natural outlook and causes harm particularly to underage girls ( Efferson, Vogt, Elhadi, Ahmed, & Fehr, 2015). In this case, finding common ground on normative ethics that are against FGC practices would help to create a further understanding of how the practices are not good.
Unlike deontological and utilitarian ethical theories, virtue ethics looks at the morality of actions and whether a person would want the same kind of deed to be done to them. In this regard, mutilating the body is morally wrong since no one would want the same thing to be done to them. Unnecessary mutilations of the body cause harm and pain to victims while making I difficult for them to recover. Virtue ethics is founded on merits and vices to determine whether an act is morally right or wrong ( Vaughn, 2015) . Virtues or merits are the actions and principles considered to be right such as being respectful and caring to others. On the other hand, vices are the immoral deeds such as stealing, injuring people, or even killing among others. Depending on society, religion, and laws of the land, both virtues and vices may differ. For instance, once community may view homosexuality as being a vice while the other recognizes it as right and an acceptable virtue. Nonetheless, majority of the virtues such as being obedient and vices like causing harm are universally accepted. FGC is, therefore, morally wrong as it is not right to inflict harm and pain to a person who cannot make the decision by themselves and put their health at further risk and danger.
On the other hand, ethics of care becomes suitable in defending feminism from unfavorable beliefs by revising or rethinking traditional practices that depreciate women in society. Since FGC is founded on the devaluation of women, it is morally wrong to practice it. Ethics of care theory supports principles that respect and promote justice and caring relationship with others. Benevolence should also be observed since it ensures that the best type of care is given to someone for their own benefit despite them rejecting help ( Vaughn, 2015) . In this regard, FGC does not promote care ethics and does not practice benevolence since it does not consider the best suitable practices that promote the well-being of people.
Similarly, the theory of natural ethics states that human actions are defined by morality and not by what laws or an authority dictate to people. It means that FGC is immoral since it follows age-old traditions that are unhealthy and harmful to women. Instead of following what is right, adhering to rituals that are evidently harmful to women is ethically wrong ( Vaughn, 2015) . Inflicting pain to women with the risks of exposing them to other health complications as a means of adhering to traditions is completely wrong and acceptable.
In the age of information and technological advancements, people across the world are aware of how dangerous FGC can be. At the same time, inflicting pain on women with no reasonable justification does not make any sense. Instead, it creates a sense that devalues and fails to appreciate women who have been marginalized for a very long time. Based on the principles of virtue ethics, natural law, and ethics of care, FGC is unacceptable and morally wrong to be practice in any community. It defies the laws of nature, legal rules, as well as hinders the individual capacity of women to appreciate how they were created.
References
AUH, N. (2010). Kevin McCloud Slumming it (2010) – Ep 2. YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-yjpvzGKZQ
Efferson, C., Vogt, S., Elhadi, A., Ahmed, H. E. F., & Fehr, E. (2015). Female genital cutting is not a social coordination norm. Science , 349 (6255), 1446-1447.
Fryer, M. (2016). A role for ethics theory in speculative business ethics teaching. Journal of business ethics , 138 (1), 79-90.
Vaughn, L. (2015). Doing ethics: Moral reasoning and contemporary issues . WW Norton & Company.
