Dharavi is home to more than a million people in Mumbai. These people live in slums concentrated in just one square mile of land. With significant government and market pressure to develop into a world-class city, and increasing population growth continuing to limit housing opportunities, the fate of Dharavi has become a highly contested and politicized issue (Boano, Lamarca & Hunter 2011). As King Solomon, I will ultimately have control over what becomes of Dharavi. Before deciding, however, I will examine several normative theories of ethics to help generate a long-term solution: Utilitarianism, Kantianism, and Ethics of Care.
Utilitarianism, which focuses on the consequences of actions, emphasizes that actions are right in proportion when …show more content…
The new city that will replace the slum won’t have sanitation issues/lack resources; the environment in that area will be one of wealth and prosperity. However, only 89,000 of the one million people that currently live in the slums will be guaranteed a home in the renovated city; that leaves 911,000 people without homes. Keep in mind that that’s about half the population of Mumbai. The displacement of all these people will lead them to spread throughout the city (lowering the quality of life throughout Mumbai instead of just one region which results in tourism being negatively affected). They will lose their homes, their jobs, and their sense of belonging. Moreover, destroying Dharavi means destroying the $1 billion economy that exists within. After digging beyond the surface, both Utilitarian and Kantian theorist would argue that demolishing Mumbai will not lead to the greatest good for everyone. Specifically, Kantians will argue that involuntary removing people from their homes and taking away all that they have built for monetary purposes is immoral and should not be done. However, ignoring the fact that those people live in such terrible conditions is also immoral. Clearly, something must be
Utilitarianism, which focuses on the consequences of actions, emphasizes that actions are right in proportion when …show more content…
The new city that will replace the slum won’t have sanitation issues/lack resources; the environment in that area will be one of wealth and prosperity. However, only 89,000 of the one million people that currently live in the slums will be guaranteed a home in the renovated city; that leaves 911,000 people without homes. Keep in mind that that’s about half the population of Mumbai. The displacement of all these people will lead them to spread throughout the city (lowering the quality of life throughout Mumbai instead of just one region which results in tourism being negatively affected). They will lose their homes, their jobs, and their sense of belonging. Moreover, destroying Dharavi means destroying the $1 billion economy that exists within. After digging beyond the surface, both Utilitarian and Kantian theorist would argue that demolishing Mumbai will not lead to the greatest good for everyone. Specifically, Kantians will argue that involuntary removing people from their homes and taking away all that they have built for monetary purposes is immoral and should not be done. However, ignoring the fact that those people live in such terrible conditions is also immoral. Clearly, something must be