Reference no: EM131474230

An issue with legal and moral ramifications arose out of the recent Haiti earthquake tragedy. Passengers who booked cruises with the Royal Caribbean cruise lines are now confronting a dilemma since the cruise line plans to continue to stop in its private island resort in Haiti. The problem is that many people feel it is not “quite right” for people to party on an island where about 100 miles away many thousands of people are still suffering from the aftershocks – literally and figuratively – from the earthquake. As one potential passenger was quoted in an CNN.com article, how could one order a drink and party when people are dying 100 miles away. Royal Caribbean, soon after the earthquake which killed almost 200,000 people in Haiti and devastated its capital of Port-au-Prince, resumed depositing its tourist cruise ship passengers on the very picturesque peninsula of Labadee, which was unaffected by the disaster, and where the company has spend millions in developing what it markets as its own “private paradise.” This “paradise” is heavily guarded, and the cruise ship passengers do not spend the night; but, according to the Royal Caribbean website, they do enjoy Labadee’s “pristine beaches, breathtaking scenery and spectacular water activities.”

However, CNN.com reported that the reaction of many people to the continued use of Labadee has been one of “disgust” and “outrage,” since the tourists are “frolicking in the sun while bodies pile up in Port-au-Prince and quake survivors struggle to stay alive.” CNN also reported that one person deemed the cruise ship company to be performing a “sickening act” by taking tourists to Haiti. Another said that no one would want to go on that particular cruise line while people are deal, dying, and suffering.

Yet other people say that there are benefits to tourism, to Haiti, and its people by the cruise line company continuing to visit Haiti. Money surely will come into the local economy by the cruise ships stopping in Haiti and the tourist spending their money there; and, as one commentator noted, this is the time that Haiti needs tourism and tourism dollars the most. Visitors can thus have a positive effect economically. CNN reported that the United Nations World Tourism Organization stated that tourism can be a “useful instrument for the necessary reconstruction of Haiti.” One commentator also stated that tourism can be particularly important to an area after a disaster, and used the examples of New York City after “9-11,” as well as New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, where both cities sought tourists to help to rebuild.

Royal Caribbean also stated that it would donate at least $1 million in humanitarian aid to Haiti, and also would contribute all of its net revenue from its Labadee operations to the relief effort. The cruise ships are also delivering supplies, including rice, beans, powdered milk, water, and canned goods – to the region. The company has been trying to reassure its passengers that it is appropriate to still stop Haiti, and that to stay on the ship or go to alternative destinations are not viable options. The company emphasizes that it substantially helps the local economy by generating economic activity for the local populace, for example the straw market vendors and the hair-braiders; and moreover, the company noted that while its ships are in port over 200 of its personnel are helping with earthquake relief. One commentator noted that Haiti’s plight would not improve if the cruise ships were diverted to another island. This commentator said the cruise ships are not hurting anyone, and they are doing some good by bringing help and generating money into the local economy. To the accusation that it is disrespectful to the Haitians for the tourists to come there and to have fun so close to a horrible disaster, one commentator countered by stating that the alternative of avoiding the area would not be more respectful. One said that the proximity to the disaster sets off a “gut reaction,” but should not make any difference morally. Another commentator noted that Haiti’s neighbor on the island of Hispaniola, the Dominican Republic, is very close to the disaster but is still functioning as usual. Yet another person contended that if a person does not feel at the least “a bit of awkwardness at the thought of playing beach volleyball” in Haiti right now does not have “normal moral intuitions.” However, another commentator said that business must send a “hopeful” message to Haiti, and not treat it as a “fenced-off” and quarantined place that one can never invest or do business in; but rather one should treat Haiti, especially now, as a place that is still, to some extent, “open for business.”

How would this action be decided pursuant to the doctrine of ethical emotism? Why?