An ethical dilemma from the real world
The social problems of the Australian Aborigines.
I thought I'd turn my attention to an ethical dilemma from the real-world. It's been reported in The Guardian (Aboriginal abuse plan denounced as racist) that the Australian government is trying to do something about alcoholism and child abuse in Aboriginal communities. The proposal is to ban alcohol and porn.
The Australian PM, John Howard, is being accused of using this as a political opportunity since such measures are being taken ahead of a general election. The viability of the scheme has also been called into question.
From what I've read in the past, the lives of Aborigines are pretty dreadful. I know that they have a low tolerance for alcohol. I didn't know about the child abuse part until I read the article from The Guardian. Regardless of the political circumstances, isn't it better that some effort should be made to alleviate the lot of Aborigines than that they should be left to pass their lives in such dire conditions?
Racist? Well, if the aim is to improve the lot of the Aborigines, the Australian government won't be investigating other ethnic groups. I assume that "racist" is really being used emotively in an attempt to blacken the government's plans.
The Aborigines might prefer to help themselves, but they don't seem capable of it. They know there's a problem, but the question seems to be who's going to try and answer it. The Australian government seems to be the obvious choice because it seems a greater violation of ethical conduct to do nothing.
I thought I'd turn my attention to an ethical dilemma from the real-world. It's been reported in The Guardian (Aboriginal abuse plan denounced as racist) that the Australian government is trying to do something about alcoholism and child abuse in Aboriginal communities. The proposal is to ban alcohol and porn.
The Australian PM, John Howard, is being accused of using this as a political opportunity since such measures are being taken ahead of a general election. The viability of the scheme has also been called into question.
From what I've read in the past, the lives of Aborigines are pretty dreadful. I know that they have a low tolerance for alcohol. I didn't know about the child abuse part until I read the article from The Guardian. Regardless of the political circumstances, isn't it better that some effort should be made to alleviate the lot of Aborigines than that they should be left to pass their lives in such dire conditions?
There are serious questions about some of the measures. The Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance - Northern Territory said compulsory medical checks on indigenous children were racist and were causing anguish to parents.
Racist? Well, if the aim is to improve the lot of the Aborigines, the Australian government won't be investigating other ethnic groups. I assume that "racist" is really being used emotively in an attempt to blacken the government's plans.
The Aborigines might prefer to help themselves, but they don't seem capable of it. They know there's a problem, but the question seems to be who's going to try and answer it. The Australian government seems to be the obvious choice because it seems a greater violation of ethical conduct to do nothing.
Comments