https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2006/dec/20/cruises.green
Not at all. This article is 17 years old and planes have only gotten more efficient whilst the same old cruise ships continue to so the seas.
Plus a more recent article
https://www.treehugger.com/what-is-greener-boat-vs-plane-emissions-5185547
The presenter focuses on argument 1 because he says the other points are “obviously correct” and therefore moral. Imo that’s flawed.
Hunger disease etc are part of a natural cycle which controls population and ecosystem balance.
Luxuries are of no significance is not obviously true. Our economic system means that purchasing items of “no moral significance” feeds into a system which supports livelihoods and, in a functional government, provides welfare and health care to populations.
There are multiple areas where money could be focused instead of Oxfam etc which could be seen as moral- R&D, luxuries as per 3
(It might just be that I don’t like philosophy)
We have “Visit Rwanda” advertised at premier league matches so guessing it’s pretty safe. Not saying the plan isn’t abhorrent or anything