Sex Tourism As A Large Ethical Dilemma

The tourism and hospitality industry consists of complex ethical dilemmas, due to different motivations and understandings of ethical and unethical pursuits. Human decisions are driven by a multitude of ethical principles and understandings of right or wrong that drive moral values. This is specifically evident in the hospitality and tourism sector through exploring the social, economic and environmental sectors affected by sex tourism, child labour in hospitality and animal exploitation for tourism. Thus, the tourism and hospitality industry consists of a range of ethical dilemmas in the social, economic and environmental sectors due to the complexity of the moral values that drive the decision making of individuals.

Sex tourism creates a large ethical dilemma due to both psychological hedonism and rights theories. Sex tourism can be defined as “someone (either foreign or a resident) that travels to a destination with a view to engage in sex with prostitutes as the main or as one of the main goals of his/her trip.”[Julio Aramberri] The rise of sex tourism would originate from an individual desire to procure the service abroad where it is acceptable and has an exotic and thrilling element caused by procurement of the service from foreign individuals. Tourism, being a leading sector that allows people to experience new and exotic experiences, is thus susceptible to moral dilemmas as such. This can be observed in Kenya, where rise in sex tourism resulted in the development of sex trade in Africa, especially Kenya [Hope, Kempe, (2013), Kibicho, (2009)]. Statistically, the Kenyan Coast caters for 66% of Kenya’s tourism activities and is one of the main activities at the Coast [Hope Kempe, Omondi (2003)]. Psychological Hedonism suggests that an individual’s actions are motivated by the pursuit of pleasure. Sex tourism would fall under the category of inferential hedonism as an individual’s belief that through engaging in sex tourism they will satisfy their pleasures. Inferential hedonism dictates that the driving force behind fulfilling one’s desire is the belief that the fulfilment of the desire will bring the individual pleasure [Justin Garson (2016)]. This can be observed in sex tourism as the core goal of sex tourism is to seek pleasure achieved from the fulfilment of desire by engaging in sexual acts with prostitutes. This creates an ethical dilemma concerning whether or not sex tourism should be legalised and adopted by society as an ethical form of tourism. According to psychological hedonism, individual’s derive pleasure from participating in sex tourism. Therefore, it is justifiable as the main goal, which is pleasure, is achieved. However, reinforcement hedonism dictates that the long term lust to fulfil one’s desire brings the individual pleasure [Justin Garson (2016)]. Consequently, making sex tourism an accepted form of tourism by society could result in the loss of pleasure for individuals as the fulfilment of the desire will not bring individuals as much pleasure as the long term lust for the desire. Contradictory to psychological hedonism, the ethical argument of rights theories suggests that everybody is entitled to basic human rights. Sex tourism often leads to the rise of sex trafficking “Sex tourism and sex trafficking are also interwoven as the former supplies the demands presented by the latter” [Hope, Kempe (2013)]. Hereby, the high demands for sex tourism and the inability of supply to meet demands, lead to large portions of sex tourism being sex trafficking. Despite the fact that sex tourism may bring the pursuer pleasure, it violates the rights of the other party through compromising their bodily integrity, dignity, freedom and often health [Hope, Kempe(2013)]. Conveying the deep and harmful effects on individuals caused by sex tourism whereas their basic human rights are violated in the process of ones pursuit to happiness. However, the rights theories in itself is flawed as in sex tourism, many prostitutes their bodies willingly and as it is consensual, individuals rights such as freedom are not compromised. Rather than that, individuals practice their rights of freedom in choosing to do with their bodies, whatever they choose, which in this case is soliciting their bodies. Since basic human rights supersede one’s quest for pleasure, this makes sex tourism unjustifiable using rights theories. Thus, rights theories are in direct contradiction to hedonism regarding sex tourism.

Child labour in the Indian hospitality sector creates a moral dilemma caused by ethical egoism and the justice theory. India introduced the Child labour prohibition and Regulation Act in 1986, hence making child labour against the law [Singh, Amit & das, Shima. (2014)]. This is due to the fact that children are often exploited and have fewer or no opportunities to attend school if they are working. However, child labour is usually not enforced in industries such as Hospitality where most hotels are not regulated by the government [Singh, Amit & das, Shima. (2014)]. Thus, the Indian Hospitality industry is prone to this ethical dilemma due to the lack of regulation of hotels. Statistically, “[Indian] Hotel and Restaurant sector percentage of child labour to the workforce is approximately four percent” this suggests child labour is quite predominant in India [Agarwal (2013), Singh, Amit & das, Shima. (2014)]. This creates the moral dilemma of Ethical Egoism, whether child labour is justifiable as individuals should act in their own best interest in order to achieve a productive society. According to philosopher Baruch Spinoza, individual’s are “determined by nature to seek out things that will aid in this striving for perseverance and to avoid things that hinder it.”[Baruch Spinoza, Johan Dahlbeck (2017)]. Subsequently as can be observed in child labour in India, the employer will maximise production and minimise costs in order to reach optimal efficiency as this is most beneficial for him/her. As employee salaries are the largest costs to a business, while child labour is significantly cheaper, it is in the employers best interest to use child labour. In accordance with Spinoza, human beings will act in ways that benefit them the most, hence child labour is acceptable as it allows one to persevere, acting in their best interest. Furthermore, Spinoza says “we neither strive for, […] nor desire anything because we judge it to be good; […]we judge something to be good because we strive for it,[…] and desire it” [Spinoza, Johan Dahlbeck (2017)]. From this, we can deduce that the ethics of child labour is determined by the individual and their needs, hence they desire child labour as it is the most profitable solution and therefore judged acceptably. In accordance with Ethical Egoism, one should act in their own best interest, which in this case, is Indian child labour as it minimises costs. On the other hand, this is challenged by the ethical Theory of Justice, specifically the Veil of Ignorance, which allows one to remove their personal self-interest to develop a more just and fair society by being placed behind a metaphorical veil. This, therefore, assumes everybody would choose laws that would provide equal opportunities to education, health, and safety [Rawls, John 2013]. The justice theory is thus helpful in creating morally just decisions as it “removes morally irrelevant considerations from our moral decision-making” [Rawls, John 1971, Muldoon, R., Lisciandra, C., Colyvan]. As can be observed in the case of child labour in India, in accordance with the Justice Theory, individual’s would not choose to employ child labour viewing it as unethical, not wishing to be subject to it themselves, if placed in the original position behind the metaphorical veil of ignorance. By removing their own personal interest from the decision-making process they would choose a society where everybody would have equal opportunities, such as education and fair working hours. However the Justice Theory is flawed as well because the main motivation that drives society to grow and develop is personal interests, thus it is unwise to remove individuals personal interests as it can result in the demotivation of society. Furthermore, it can be observed as naive to assume that equality is always positive, as often equality comes at the expense of other individuals opportunities. Henceforth, child labour creates an ethical dilemma of Ethical Egoism; wanting to maximise profits to feed self-perseverance makes their action’s ethical. On the contrary, The Justice Theory forces one to forgo their self-interest and act in ways just and beneficial to society. This is due to feeling the potential risk of being deprived of opportunities themselves, hence viewing child labour as unethical and undermining Ethical Egoism’s support of child labour.

Civet coffee tourism further poses an ethical dilemma between Act Utilitarianism and Virtue Ethics. There has been a growth in tourism in Bali in association with the increase in demand for civet coffee. Civet coffee is produced by civets’ digesting coffee cherries and then extracted from their feces [Muldoon, R., Lisciandra, C., Colyvan,]. However, there has been a concern for the welfare of the civets, as they are being caged and kept in small captive conditions with restricted movement. Additionally, their dietary supplements are not met and they often, have no or very limited access to clean water. These conditions often cause stress and high susceptibility to disease [Muldoon, R., Lisciandra, C., Colyvan,]. Considering this, the welfare of the civets is in danger; nonetheless, tourists travel to Bali in order to experience and observe the unusual production of civet coffee desiring a unique experience. However, in accordance with Act Utilitarianism, this would be ethical as the means play no role, only the end result matters. Act Utilitarianism argues “[…] rightness is made a function of goodness, and goodness is understood as referring to human welfare” [Hugh LaFollette, and Ingmar Persson]. From this, it can be observed that as civet coffee encourages tourism helping the economy of Bali and brings enjoyment to the tourists, it can be judged as good as it pertains to humans due to its positive impact on human welfare. Furthermore, “ The view is consequentialist, in that it holds that acts are right or wrong solely in virtue of the goodness or badness of their actual consequences” [Hugh LaFollette, and Ingmar Persson]. Seeing as the consequences of civet tourism have no negative implications for humans, but rather only benefits, it can therefore be judged that civet tourism is justifiable according to Act Utilitarianism. This is due to the final consequences, disregarding the procurement of the civet coffee, having positive consequences on the humans involved. Juxtaposing this, the Virtue Theory places ethics on the inner character of an individual as “Virtue Ethics treats neither consequences nor general principles as central to its and our understanding of morality. The emphasis, rather, is on inner character and motivation.”[Hugh LaFollette, and Ingmar Persson,] Hence, it can be observed that in the acquisition of civet coffee, it can be argued that the results do not justify the cruelty in accordance to Act Utilitarianism, but rather one inner principle that one must compromise to acquire the coffee. By endangering animal welfare, their motivations, monetary profit, corrupts an individual’s ethics, despite the final result. However, virtue ethics can be controversial as individuals determine themselves what is moral and immoral, therefore might act in ways they perceive moral but deemed immoral by others. Morality is therefore made vague and susceptible to manipulation and contortion making it a dangerous guiding force behind one’s social conduct. As can be seen, while Act Utilitarianism argues that the means play no role, Virtue Ethics incorporates the means, if the motivation behind the means comprises one’s character. Thus, if one has corrupt motives in the procurement of civet coffee going against their inner character and inner virtues, this judges the lack of ethics of the individual decision. Hence, due to the differences between the theories, Virtue Ethics clearly criticises Act Utilitarianism’s stance on the procurement of civet coffee while itself also being limited.

To conclude subjectively, I believe sex tourism, child labour in hospitality and civet tourism should adopt strategies that are most sustainable for society. As in the case of sex tourism, weighing short term happiness dictated by inferential hedonism (whilst considering the violation of rights) against the long term happiness in accordance with reinforcement hedonism, I would judge long term happiness more sustainable and thus beneficial for society. Furthermore, in the case of child labour in hospitality, I believe it is unethical as in accordance with the veil of ignorance, individuals should have equal opportunities especially to things such as education. This in turn would allow for a more educated, productive, society making long term contributions to the hospitality industry more meaningful. Furthermore, if one disregards the cruel process of procurement of the coffee beans, they disregard the animals potential to die, becoming extinct creating only short term sustainable rewards of civet tourism. Hence, making virtue ethics a more sustainable solution for long term civet tourism. In my opinion, the tourism and hospitality sectors should seek to adhere to options that are most sustainable for society.