Upvote:-2
If you are willing to disregard the economic effects (good or bad) of political policy:
Is it ethical? Yes. Why? Because, presumably, you had nothing to do with the situation there.
Your enjoyment of Angel Falls would be the same regardless of other economic conditions. You can pose the same question about North Korea or Myanmar.
If you connect the economic effects (good or bad) of political policy:
Then you have to decide yourself whether the result is good or bad. If you're OK with the result, yes, it's ethical. If you think the result is problematic, then no, it is not ethical because you are effectively supporting that result.
You can apply the same reasoning to otherwise prosperous countries depending on what metric you consider important.
Any other discussion of this, particularly Venezuela, will be hopelessly bogged down in political debate.
Upvote:6
It's this kind of thinking that got Venezuela into trouble in the first place.
A market exchange leaves both parties better off. If you go on a (successful) trip, you exchange money for an experience that you value more. The people at the hotel, restaurant, airline, exchange their time for your money. If it didn't make them better off, they wouldn't do it.
If your sole criterion for ethical is that all parties involved benefit, then any knowing and voluntary exchange is ethical.