2010 EFC

you should base your discussion on the principles contained in the ethics triangle.
You are required to clearly identify the stakeholder/s that are affected.

The ethics triangle considers ethicality based on whether the decision is considered as good for the self and the other. (1)

The self is

The other is

Unvaccinated citizens of japan. (1)

The health system of Tokyo, Japan (1)

The japan economy (1)

The remaining population Tokyo, Japan (1)

Consequences

The self

The other

Positive consequences for "the self" if all athletes need to be vaccinated:

Negative consequences for "the self" if all athletes need to be vaccinated:

Positive consequences for "the other" if all athletes need to be vaccinated

Negative consequences for "the other" if all athletes needs to be vaccinated

If all athletes are vaccinated, then there's a lower transmission risk to unvaccinated

It lowers Covid mortalities

The losses made from an unsuccessful Olympic game might impact the Japanese economy

Lower impact on Japanese health system

Possible priority vaccination for athletes

Lower transmission risk between athletes with less complications

Some countries will not be able to compete in the Olympic Games due to limited access to vaccines in their country

Integrity of Games at risk if some countries excluded for this reason

Conclusion

The negative consequences seem to outweigh the positive consequences

Conclusion

The negative consequences seem to outweigh the positive consequences

I therefore believe that the decision to require all athletes to vaccinate is not ethical

Apply the steps of the Quick Test to determine if a decision of the Olympic Committee to require full vaccination from all athletes, no matter your country of origin or the access of that country to vaccines. Discuss from the perspective of the Olympic Committee whose core values are excellence, friendship and respect.

3.) Is it consistent with the organisation's values?

4.) Is it fair for all?

2.) Will it look good in the newspaper?

5.) If I do it, will it feel good?

1.) Is it legal?

The imposition of such a rule would not be illegal as the Olympic committee would have the power to create the rule

The Olympic committee could feel they acting in the best interest of the japanese population and other athletes but they would certainly receive harsh backlash for the exclusion due to economic status

The values of the Olympics are excellence, friendship and respect. Exclusion due to a country's access to vaccine does not seem aligned

Whilst the regulation was considered in the interest of general health, excluded athletes might feel unfairly treated. It might infringe on personal decisions and convictions

click to edit

Use the Utilitarian theory to discuss and conclude whether the Olympic Committee’s
actions

Application of scenario: The committee would have made the choice as they believed that it was in the interest of the athlete's and the country's health (1)

It is however interesting if you look at the broader impact on the decision, if it lead to the happiness of the majority

The focus is now on the quality of action and consequence (1)

Conclusion: I therefore believe that the decision to require that all athletes be vaccinated to compete is not ethical

Theory states that action is ethical when it leads to the greatest happiness for the majority (1)

Use the Virtue theory to discuss and conclude whether it is ethical for Dr Dlamini-Zuma
to ban the use of tobacco products.

So if the person is virtuous, then the act will most likely be virtuous

click to edit

The goal is to develop as an individual in specific ways as a person so that your actions are balanced/ethical

click to edit

Definition: The virtue theory

click to edit