Chattopadhyay and colleagues basically present two lines of argument in regard to access to bioethics journals by those working in this field in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The first is a harm-based argument: poor access to bioethics literature in leading journals causes harm parallel to the harm that lack of poor access to medical and public health journals can have in LMICs for local medical practitioners or epidemiologists. Clearly, the type of harm is not the same in both cases. In the bioethics case, it is harm to the field of bioethics itself, in that poor access to information prevents the flourishing of a truly global bioethics. The second argument is a justice-based argument: poor access to bioethics literature is unfair to those in LMICs who want to pursue interests in this field, a form of inequality of opportunity relative to their counterparts in the global north. We mostly focus on this second line of argument, as do they. While we are largely in agreement with the views of Chattopadhyay and colleagues about the injustice of global inequalities in access to bioethics journals, we submit that the “moral ecology of bioethics,” as seen from a non-Western perspective, may be in even worse shape than they suggest…