How You Can Help Bring Sight to the Congo

From the case study of Corneas in the Congo, corneas are needed in order to restore sight to the affected ten people in the camp with half of the affected being children. The required corneas are scarce. It is impossible to get the corneas transplants from Africa. As a leader, it is my duty to ensure that the aid agency I am leading does its best to cause happiness for common good. As a result, in this case, collaboration with other organizations is required in order to ensure a good environment, wellbeing and restoration of health of the refugees. 

In order to decide on the course of action, all the stakeholders involved are determined. They include all the fifty refugees in the camp and the aid agency. The cornea are derived from executed prisoners. Due to the fact that corrupt warden prisoners want to make big profits from the practice, they execute the prisoners in a liberal way. From a costs and benefits analysis, the cost of accepting the corneas outweighs the benefits. If the corneas for the ten people who need them are accepted, more prisoners would be executed so that the prison wardens make more money and this would rampant execution of prisoners. 

From a utilitarian perspective, it is morally wrong to accept the corneas because accepting them does not cause good to the majority. In addition, people should not be treated as a means but as an end (Bonhoeffer et.al, 2015). The prisoners were seen and used as a means by the prisoners due to the fact that the corneas were taken from the executed prisoners without their consent. They were being used as means to make money which is morally wrong. From a Kantian perspective, human beings should be treated as an end and not a means (Bonhoeffer et.al, 2015). Therefore, I would not accept the corneas and I would be comfortable if my decision and name were published on the front page of the newspaper. 

Reference 

Bonhoeffer, D., Krauss, R., West, C. C., & Green, C. J. (2015).  Ethics . Minneapolis: Fortress Press.