Good Essay About Ethics and Hurricane Katrina

Based on the response political leaders had to Hurricane Katrina, it appears there is a link between inefficiency and ethical behavior. For example, it is ethical to be equally prepared for any natural disaster, regardless of the location or population that the natural disaster might impact. However, Hurricane Katrine primarily impacted African American individuals who were impoverished. Moreover, it was cited many times that most of the deaths and struggles occurring during Hurricane Katrina could have been avoided had dams been repaired when city council members requested government stipends, and recommended it be done. Though this would not have been a direct response to the hurricane, it would have been more ethical than denying government funds when it was well known if a hurricane and subsequent flood occurred, many lives would inevitably be lost. Not fixing the dams effectively signed an entire population’s death certificate. In addition, acting more swiftly and with less of a racial bias would have made the reaction more ethical. It was clear when compared to the reaction political leaders had to natural disasters in primarily white areas, that a racial bias was present. The tornadoes in Missouri, for instance, took the homes and lives of many. However, the victims received immediate government aid and resources. The majority of residents were white. In comparison, five days to gather supplies for survivors in New Orleans, or reroute water to the Superdome is too long. It is likely it would not have taken this long if the survivors had been rich, or possibly white. Recovery and rescue efforts could have also taken place sooner, and lasted longer. Citizens of New Orleans rescued their own neighbors; political leaders flew over the scene and did nothing. This response was deplorable and unethical. Spending money on rescue efforts, rather than a helicopter ride would have been more ethical.
In considering the BP oil spill, there are few circumstances that would ethically justify a government or private company restricting information made available to the public during a disaster. It immediately makes the company or government look at fault, for instance. Ethically permissible circumstances may include if an employee has died and their family has yet to be notified. In this situation, the employee’s name may be withheld. Similarly, if a minor has been killed in an accident, their name may be withheld. Should a part have malfunctioned, the information about the part may be withheld temporarily until the manufacturers or a third-party engineer can establish exactly what happened in order to avoid misinforming consumers. There are few, if any circumstances, however, wherein a company has the ethical right to permanently withhold information when a disaster the magnitude of the BP spill occurs. When a company damages the planet, ruins lives, and kills animals, all information should be released eventually. In a case such as this, other companies have an ethical right to intervene immediately. When lives are at risk concerning environmental disasters, we are all ethically bound to the safety of one another. The BP spill, for example, put people, animals, and plant life in danger. It upset entire ecosystems. Other companies had the ethical right to intervene immediately because of this. Whether they are able to stop the event from happening, they are able to help stop the damage, or create a situation that involves less damage, anybody who can help is expected to get involved as soon as possible, from an ethical perspective.