Humans have the right to live. In order to live, we need water. To purposely prevent someone from acquiring it, in any way, is highly unethical, as you are derailing that persons plan to live. Corporations should continue to make bottled water, it takes better than regular water. But when they take the water resources of certain villages or even countries there is a deep social and justice issues that affects everyone in that community. There should never be a case where you take from one to provide for the other, without somehow benefitting the lesser one. The problem is that many times, the water is not even affordable for the people that is being taken away from.
Company should never own a body of water in the first place. Water is a communal resource, it should be protected by everyone. When we allowed them to own a stream or a spring, it gives companies the illusion that they can do whatever they want with it because it’s there. Even if something unethical happens, the rest don’t have a say about it. Water is not like land, stationary. Water flows throughout the entire world, hundreds of ecosystem, and individual organism can be damaged or disrupted by the mechanized production
…show more content…
Yet, not everyone in the world is fortunate enough to say this. If it’s safe, drink, if it’s not, let’s make it so. Governments exist for a reasons, and if a simple, necessary resource is not properly being distribute to its people, then they really need to revalue what they spend their effort doing. To this people filters need to be distribute, weather is by WHO, or the governments themselves. Next stablish simple systems that can deliver water, then use this filters if necessary. Regions need to build upon their system until their tap water is safe to drink. It’s not any other countries duty to take the burden of another countries fail system, however that doesn’t mean that the Good Samaritan should not