Despite the measures taken to contain the spread of the virus, COVID-19 has become a pandemic that is affecting an increasingly large number of people. The lockdown seems to be the most sensible solution to the problem; however, with the restricted amount of resources that people can store at home, ordering delivery will be inevitable, hence a crucial moral dilemma. The use of delivery implies putting the lives of those providing the services in danger, the absence of an alternative solution makes the specified method the only available option as opposed to letting citizens purchase products and expose themselves to the threat. Therefore, it can be considered a reasonable and ethical compromise.
Step 1
So far, the information on COVID-19 and the instances of contagion has been quite ample, with accurate accounts of the number of victims of the coronavirus. As a result, most people have accepted the lockdown, ordering the required products online and having them delivered to their doorstep.
Step 2
Although the specified solution has helped to keep most of the population safe, it also represents a major threat to the citizens that work for the delivery services. Thus, the ethical issue of whether to use delivery services or to allow citizens to purchase products themselves arises. Since both methods imply a threat to a specific part of the population, an ethical dilemma arises.
Step 3
In the case under analysis, several stakeholders can be identified. On the one hand, there are members of delivery services, who are exposed to constant danger. On the other hand, the lives of those in lockdown are under threat unless products are delivered to them. Finally, the state authorities can be seen as the stakeholders in the specified issue since they need to undertake the measures that will lead to the best outcomes possible.
Step 4
The available alternatives to the current use of delivery services are very few. First, there is an option of neglecting the lockdown and going shopping offline, which will lead to numerous health threats. Second, technology (namely, drones) could be used to deliver products to citizens. Despite their transportation efficiency, drones and similar tools do not seem to be a viable solution due to the number of people that need to have their products delivered to them. In turn, making citizens go shopping on their own will increase the exposure to the coronavirus and, therefore, the number of diseases and subsequent deaths tremendously. Therefore, none of the alternatives can be considered an adequate replacement for the current strategy.
Step 5
The proposed solutions will affect the key stakeholders in a rather direct way. For instance, the first alternative option is expected to cause a rapid increase in the confirmed cases of COVID-19 due to the rise in the exposure of citizens to the dangerous environment. In turn, the costs spent on the purchase of drones or similar devices, the development of the infrastructure for their flights, and the associated concerns will imply that not only citizens and the government but also the companies producing the said technologies will become the essential stakeholders.
Step 6
In the context of the present-day environment, none of the substitutions for the services of delivery workers seems to provide a viable solution to the problem. Therefore, continuing the current line of delivery seems to be the most sensible step to take. However, it will be crucial to ensure that delivery workers are protected fully from the threat, which includes increased sanitation of the workplace premises and the transportation devices. In addition, providing the supply of the key healthcare materials, such as face masks, alcohol-based hand sanitizers, and the relevant products will also be required.