An epidemic broke out in a country's densely populated city.

This city is accessible to

almost all regions in the country and masses of people flock into it for business and
trade. The disease is caused by a novel virus and is highly contagious, with a high
possibility of ending lives of people in different ages. If the entire city were not to be
isolated, the epidemic would spread to the whole population and kill many. But doing so
would entail death to the city's entire population in a span of weeks since the possibility
of procuring the vaccine, however, is only at 0.99% at this point. Government officials
are now faced with a dilemma.

QUESTIONS:
1. From the standpoint of natural law theory, would it be morally right for the
government to isolate the entire city given the consequences? Justify your
answer.
ANSWER:
For me yes, because even though they know the consequences if they isolate the entire
city. They can stop the spread of virus from other occurring cities that might help them.
Even though the odds of having a chance that the vaccine might work is not feasible,
that 0.99% is still a chance to fight back the virus, because that 0.99% will gradually
increase from 1% to 50%. So, there is still a chance to cure the entire city because
having a 0.99% chance is still better than having a 0% chance.

2. From the standpoint of utilitarianism, would it be morally right for the government
to isolate the entire city given the consequences? Justify your answer.
ANSWER:
For me yes, because even though the government isolate the city. They can prevent the
spread of virus of other neighboring cities. Even though this seems quite selfish from
the government that they isolate their own citizens this is still a good idea to control the
virus. It is better that the virus will just stay in one city than spreading it from all cities.
Because the government might have a plan to seek aid from neighboring cities that
could help to stop the virus.