An article was recently published in China, entitled simply “China building dam on Brahmputra River” the problem outlined in the article however is far from simple. In this particular case, the issue has many ethical implications that need to be considered. This case involves the damning of a water system in Tibet by the Chinese government. This particular water system (known as the Brahmputra River – or as the Tsangpo River by the people of Tibet) is extremely important to India and Bangladesh due to the fact the river flows into these countries “[the] Brahmaputra River basin is in India…accounts for nearly 30% of the total water resources and about 40% of the total hydropower potential of the country” (The Morung Express, 2009). While the dam is a great resolution to using non renewable sources of energy production for China, the restriction of the water would greatly affect the amount of water India and Bangladesh receive, as well as overrun the area of Tibet where the proposed dam will be built. The Chinese government claims that “could provide cheap electricity for India, Nepal and Bangladesh, and that the dam could facilitate flood control in the Brahmaputra-Ganges basin” and also help to “refill the dying Yellow River, which now runs dry for much of the year” (The Morung Express, 2009). However what China fails to take into consideration is that during the dry season, India and Bangladesh may receive very little to no water run off from the damn controlled waterway. The building of the dam could also cause many problems, such as flooding for the villages and the people who live along the river banks.
In this situation, there are two methods to examine the ethical problem at hand; the consequentialist view and the non- consequentialist view. The consequentialist view entails that the outcomes of an action will determine if set action is morally correct, and an example of this would be utilitarianism which states that “the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its contribution to overall utility: that is, its contribution to happiness”(Business Dictionary, 2009). In this particular example, it can be assessed that the action of building the dam would not be morally correct due to the fact that the results from damning water would not make the vast majority of those it affects ‘happy’. The dam could hinder India and Bangladesh’s water supply during the dry months which is a major issue seeing as the river provides approximately 30% of India’s water resources. This issue could also bring up further tension between the countries concerning water resources.
The other method to examine the issue in this case is the non-consequential view, which involves taking into consideration the method which was used to reach the end result of a problem. An example of this method would be deontology which is an “approach to ethics that determines goodness or rightness from examining acts, rather than the consequences of the act” (Your Dictionary, 2005). In the article, it is mentioned that China has secretly gone about building this dam in neighbouring Tibet “…there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the Zangmu hydroelectric project was inaugurated on March 16 this year and the first concrete was poured on April 2” (The Morung Express, 2009). Therefore the method used is immoral due to the fact that India and Bangladesh were unaware of this dam being proposed and built, and the possible problems it would create for all those living in the immediate areas of the river and those who rely on water from the Brahmputra River.
From examining these two views (consequentialism and non- consequentialism) it can be determined that in this case that this possible solution to creating clean energy is riddled with ethical problems involving several different parties; the people of India, Bangladesh & Tibet. There are two many ethical implications involved in the building of a dam on the Brahmputra River to make up for the positive outcomes that the dam would provide.
Resources
The Morung Express, 2009, “China building dam on Brahmputra River”
October 15th 2009, accessed November 3rd 2009
http://www.morungexpress.com/regional/35424.html
Buissness Dictionary
Accessed November 3rd 2009
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/utilitarianism.html
Your Dictionary
Accessed November 3rd 2009
http://www.yourdictionary.com/deontology
Emily Hartwig
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Great blog post! You provided good background information, which really helped understand the issue at hand. I believe you gave just enough explanation on what the consequentialist and non-consequentialist points of vue were, and you gave very detailed proof of how these ethical ways of thought were not well respected. Your conclusion also sums it up very nicely. One thing that could have possibly improved your blog would have been to include the positive side of building the dam in the paragraphs that spoke about the consequentialist and non-consequentialist ways of thought. Otherwise, great work.
ReplyDeleteYou presented a well written blog post. The evidence you presented was very relevant and helped me comprehend the issue more easily. Your use of quotations from the article was very well and obviously carefully chosen. I respect your opinion about how the dam has negative effects but you told very little about any possitive effects if at all. Just a helpful tip maybe next time take a look in more depth on both sides of the issue. But regardless your blog was very informative and very appropriate.
ReplyDeleteKendra Bester
The negative aspects of the dam were covered quite well from both the consequentialist and non-consequentialist points of view. China certainly doesn't seem to have looked at the big picture. If they did, they weren't very considerate of the other parties involved. You made a very good argument against the dam, but what about all of the positive aspects? There are the people who get jobs, electricity and a better way of life. Another group to consider is all of the ecosystems and their inhabitants that are destroyed or displaced. Overall this was a well written blog, but it might have been a bit too focussed on only one side of the issue.
ReplyDelete