Clean Water for Members Only

Back in May, the Portland Water Bureau issued a boil-water notice for the area because of a temporary bacteria scare. Many received word of the potential contamination while at work. The only clean water available at my workplace was from a water cooler, paid for by some — but not all — employees who contribute to an office “water club” each month. Shortly after the city issued the notice, a member of the club reminded others in the office that the water cooler was only for dues-paying members. Thirsty co-workers could buy bottled water from the lobby or a nearby store. My question: In such a situation, what is the ethical duty to share potable water when clean tap water is unavailable? C.B., PORTLAND, ORE.

            There are certain essential staples that must be shared in dire situations. Potable water is one of them. If a person without water desperately needs it (and has no way of getting it independently), any available surplus water should be distributed in her direction. But here’s the thing: The circumstance you describe does not remotely qualify as dire.

You were in Portland. You were not trapped in a post-apocalyptic dystopia. This wasn’t even an emergency. You were simply under instruction not to drink tap water, probably for about 24 hours. Bottled water was in the lobby, and — because you’re all gainfully employed members of an office — no one there was indigent. A handful of your co-workers already pay incrementally for water every day; those who don’t merely have to pay for water in bulk on those rare days when bacteria temporarily infest the local water supply.

This dilemma presented in this column of the Ethicist evokes several questions of what is the responsibility of a privileged individual and their moral concerns.  After reading the paragraph for the first time, I immediately thought that I would be unable to create a counterclaim. Why shouldn’t you share water in a moment of need? It shouldn’t even be necessary to state the importance of water to our survival. Yet, after reading the prompt a few more times and analyzing the response of author, I was able to find a counter-claim.

 First of all, it was an interesting choice for the author to include a time frame in his question. By examining the language, we can affirm that Portland in May would be extremely hot during the summer. Therefore, water demand could supposedly increase during that time, which would not be a problem because most restaurants give tap water. Is there any chance that we may take tap water for granted. If we were to strip down all the associations with water and simply analyze it by its nature, we would notice that this is absurd. Water, a basic necessity, has a price attached to it. Even if we accept this fact, we can’t help but notice that idea of some having access to more opportunities or resources is a microcosm for several global issues. If an individual has more resources than others, should he or she be obligated to share his possessions? I would argue that they should sure but most would not. Most groups, societies or families may not agree with the importance of sharing but it would be morally correct in some cases. Returning back to the prompt, the key difference that determines whether this is unethical or not is the context. It does not seem like a vital necessity at the time or like the author claims that it is not a “dire situation.” It is, on the other hand, inconvenient and not unethical. However, since the bacteria scare can be affecting everyone, it would not hurt the company if the water remained free for everyone for the next couple of days. This reminds us of another detail that was left out, how long did this situation last and how extreme was it? Even if the water fountain would be available for a short period of time, those that would not initially be able to drink from that water could certainly exploit this act of kindness by drinking from it once the bacteria crisis were solved.

            After reading the response from the Ethicist, it is a clear that a distinction between the environments needs to be settled. It would be ethical to share items that are essential during critical conditions; however, this does not categorize as serious condition. I can certainly agree with this point. However, the author later adds that no one in the office was indigent. Is this a fair claim? Is it coherent with our previous knowledge of the social status of officer workers? Yes, the great majority could be affording to buy bottled water but there could be a minority that could not. In order to affirm this conclusion, a key detail is missing from this story. How long would this bacteria infection last? This could significantly matter for all those working at the office. For example, an average water bottle at Sam’s club costs around $4.98. Suppose a worker buys three bottles per day and works five times a week. The weekly cost that he has to spend on water would be around $74.70. Could this significantly affect a worker? Maybe. Now, let’s suppose that this lasts for a month or maybe even two. The monthly cost of water bottle would be $298.80. Of course, this is could vary since it occurred during the summer and the government would have probably taken action before a month has gone by with this bacteria risk. Therefore, I reject the second claim by the author. The ethnical solution would be to continue to drink from your water fountain since you paid for it. However, if the situation lasts more than three weeks at most, the water fountain should be public. Moreover, it would be morally correct for me to share the water fountain.