Analysis of “Lifeboat Ethics” “[W]e could take all into our boat, making a total of 150 in a boat designed for 60. The boat swamps, everyone drowns. Complete Justice, complete catastrophe”(Hardin). Garrett Hardin, a professor of human ecology at the University of California at Santa Barbara uses this hard hitting line in his essay entitled, “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping The Poor”. In his essay he argues that resource sharing from rich to poor nations is unrealistic and will even make matters worse because it stretches the few resources that are available to almost none. He argues this with imagery, metaphors, the use of logos, ethos, and pathos. Furthermore, in the essay he uses hypothetical situations and factual examples to further argue his position on resource sharing. In Hardin’s article he starts off with almost discrediting a metaphor that many environmentalists use to describe how we need to stop letting institutions waste the earth’s resources for all of us. The metaphor used is one that describes the earth as a spaceship, because it has a limited amount of resources onboard, like the earth. His trouble with the …show more content…
The lifeboats are all the rich nations of the word and the poor nations and those who are swimming to the almost full boats for help. Hardin then poses the questions; what should the passengers do? Who will they let in? How can they help them? He then uses logos, or logic, to point out that these lifeboats have a limited capacity, much like the nations of the world have limited resources and land. He does not completely explain the lifeboat metaphor yet but helps by using an example of how many nations have in a way exceed their limited capacity as the current energy crisis has shown us. This example Hardin uses helps explain the lifeboat theory but does not completely finish explaining
Peter Singer a philosopher and professor at Princeton University who wrote the essay titled “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, where he argues that wealthy people have a moral obligation to help provide to developing nation’s resources that would increase their standard of living and decrease death due to starvation, exposure, and preventable sicknesses. John Arthur’s essay argues that Singer says that all affluent people have a moral obligation to give their money to poor people to the extent that the wealthy person would be on the same level as the poor person, poor people have no positive right to our assistance, and wealthy people have a negative right to their property, which weighs against their obligation.
Later in the essay, Hardin writes about the differences in the population growth between rich and poor nations. Poor nations multiply much more quickly than richer nations. The essay then goes on to explain what the consequences would be of setting of a national food bank. It explains that only the rich nations would be able to contribute to the food bank and the poor nations would only draw. This would only add to the problem of the poor nations as they would have no desire to save of food for themselves since they know they will be taken care of anyways. Giving poor nations food would be bad a...
The only thing I had left was my laptop; it was to too old to be sold. I started looking for jobs in newspapers and magazines. As I was looking throught the magazine I passed by an article titled "Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor" by Garret Hardin, the title really grabbed me. In his article "Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor" Hardin describes the difference between the spaceship ethic, which is sharing resources because all needs and shares are equivalent, and the lifeboat ethic, where should not share our resources and applying this ethic we should not help the poor. Hardin argues that because of limited resources, we should guide our actions by the belief of the lifeboat. In the beginning I thought it was a joke but as I read deeply I recorded that article was full of reasons on why we shouldn't help the poor. As an induvial who passed through both phases; being rich and poor I wanted to clarify and correct some of the points that I found illogical this essay explores the network between poverty and population growth,in contrast to the background of Garret Hardin’s Lifeboat Ethics. It intents to disclose the inherited flaws of his argument against helping the
In the article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer argues that our conceptions on moral belief need to change. Specifically, He argues that giving to famine relief is not optional but a moral duty and failing to contribute money is immoral. As Singer puts it, “The way people in affluent countries react ... cannot be justified; indeed the whole way we look at moral issues-our moral conceptual scheme-needs to be altered and with it, the way of life that has come to be taken for granted in our society”(135). In other words Singer believes that unless you can find something wrong with the following argument you will have to drastically change your lifestyle and how you spend your money. Although some people might believe that his conclusion is too radical, Singer insists that it is the logical result of his argument. In sum, his view is that all affluent people should give much more to famine relief.
In this paper I will examine both Peter Singer’s and Onora O 'Neill 's positions on famine relief. I will argue that O’Neill’s position is more suitable than Singer’s extreme standpoint. First I will, present O’Neill’s argument. I will then present a possible counter-argument to one of my premises. Finally I will show how this counter-argument is fallacious and how O’Neill’s argument in fact goes through.
How much money is one morally obligated to give to relief overseas? Many In people would say that although it is a good thing to do, one is not obligated to give anything. Other people would say that if a person has more than he needs, then he should donate a portion of what he has. Peter Singer, however, proposes a radically different view. His essay, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” focuses on the Bengal crisis in 1971 and claims that one is morally obligated to give as much as possible. His thesis supports the idea that “We ought to give until we reach the level of marginal utility – that is, the level at which, by giving more, I would cause as much suffering to myself or my dependents as I would relieve by my gift” (399). He says that one's obligation to give to people in need half-way around the world is just as strong as the obligation to give to one's neighbor in need. Even more than that, he says that one should keep giving until, by giving more, you would be in a worse position than the people one means to help. Singer's claim is so different than people's typical idea of morality that is it is easy to quickly dismiss it as being absurd. Saying that one should provide monetary relief to the point that you are in as bad a position as those receiving your aid seems to go against common sense. However, when the evidence he presents is considered, it is impossible not to wonder if he might be right.
Hardin, G. (1974, September ). Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor. Retrieved fromhttp://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_lifeboat_ethics_case_against_helping_poor.html
He gives an example of a college student that found a red spider. This student, ironically, passes the Endangered Species Act and becomes powerful. This student rose from the bottom because of his “conservationists” beliefs. The example allows the writer to move into a mocking conclusion. He states that these power hungry men and women do not actually know best for the environment as much as property owners do. Just because they state that they are “ all for the environment”, it doesn’t mean that they know
Hardin uses the example of a farmer never letting too many cattle into his pasture. The farmer knows the maximum capacity of his pasture and if he exceeds that amount tragedies can occur such as erosion and weeds. This farmer does not suffer as much as a farmer who uses his pasture as a commons, letting it overload. Hardin is saying the United States should be more like the selfish farmer in regards to immigration. Some everyday commons Hardin uses as examples are air, water, and land. As our population increases our air is becoming more polluted, oceans are becoming unlivable environments, and resources are becoming scarce. We give these commons to everyone, not considering the consequences of doing
Stephen Crane’s short story “The Open Boat” is a story of conflict with nature and the human will and fight to survive. Four men find themselves clinging to life on a small boat amidst a raging sea after being shipwrecked. The four men, the oiler (Billie), the injured captain, the cook, and the correspondent are each in their own way battling the sea as each wave crest threatens to topple the dinghy. “The Open Boat” reflects human nature’s incredible ability to persevere under life-and-death situations, but it also shares a story of tragedy with the death of the oiler. It is human nature to form a brotherhood with fellow sufferers in times of life threatening situations to aid in survival. Weak from hunger and fatigue, the stranded men work together as a community against nature to survive their plight and the merciless waves threatening to overtake the boat. The brotherhood bond shared between the men in “The Open Boat” is evident through the narrator’s perspective, “It would be difficult to describe the subtle brotherhood of men that was here established on the seas. No one said that it was so. No one mentioned it. But it dwelt in the boat, and each man felt it warm him” (Crane 993). Crane understood first-hand the struggle and the reliance on others having survived the real life shipwreck of the S.S. Commodore off the coast of Florida in 1897. “The Open Boat” is an intriguing read due to Crane’s personal experience and though it is a fictional piece it shares insight into the human mind. Crain did not simply retell a story, but by sharing the struggles with each character he sought to portray the theme of an inner struggle with nature by using the literary devices of personification of nature, symbolism of the boat, and iron...
In Narveson’s “Feeding the Hungry”, Narveson argues against Singer’s utilitarianism’s perspective on how people should give any surplus money received to those less fortunate. Narveson discusses when it is an obligation to give, and when it is virtuous to give to those starving. First, Narveson’s only condition for helping hungry people is if you are the reason for them being hungry in the first place. For instance, if a mother takes away her son’s dinner as punishment, it would be the mother’s duty to feed him because she was the cause of his hunger.
The human voyage into life is basically feeble, vulnerable, uncontrollable. Since the crew on a dangerous sea without hope are depicted as "the babes of the sea", it can be inferred that we are likely to be ignorant strangers in the universe. In addition to the danger we face, we have to also overcome the new challenges of the waves in the daily life. These waves are "most wrongfully and barbarously abrupt and tall", requiring "a new leap, and a leap." Therefore, the incessant troubles arising from human conditions often bring about unpredictable crises as "shipwrecks are apropos of nothing." The tiny "open boat", which characters desperately cling to, signifies the weak, helpless, and vulnerable conditions of human life since it is deprived of other protection due to the shipwreck. The "open boat" also accentuates the "open suggestion of hopelessness" amid the wild waves of life. The crew of the boat perceive their precarious fate as "preposterous" and "absurd" so much so that they can feel the "tragic" aspect and "coldness of the water." At this point, the question of why they are forced to be "dragged away" and to "nibble the sacred cheese of life" raises a meaningful issue over life itself. This pessimistic view of life reflects the helpless human condition as well as the limitation of human life.
No Bricks and No Temples: Coping with Crisis in “The Open Boat” Stephen Crane’s story “The Open Boat” concerns four people who are trying to reach land after surviving a shipwreck off the Florida coast. During the course of the story, they face dangers that are real physical threats, but they also have to deal with trying to make sense of their situation. The characters in this story cope with their struggles in two ways: individually, they each imagine that Nature, or Fate, or God, is behind their experiences, which allows them to blame some outside force for their struggle, and together, they form a bond of friendship that helps them keep their spirits up. . In “Becoming Interpreters: The Importance of Tone in ‘The Open Boat,’” Gregory Schirmer states that “‘The Open Boat has at its center two quite different views of man: as a helpless and insignificant being adrift in a universe that is wholly indifferent to him and his ambitions, and on the other hand, as part of a brotherhood that binds man to man in the face of that indifferent universe” (222).
This statement leads me to my next point of Singer’s argument that being one of many to assist does not take away the responsibility that you have as an individual. He supports his viewpoint with a progressive scale of every person donating at least one percent of their income and taxpayers giving five percent of their income. If everyone in affluent countries donated with Singer’s proposed scale, they would raise $1.5 trillion dollars a year –which is eight times more than what poor countries aim for in hopes of improving health care, schooling, reducing death rates, living standards, and more. Even though Singer proposes the progressive scale for giving money to aid extreme poverty, he does not introduce any alternative methods to giving aid. Singer presented this point in the argument accurately, but is not strong enough to support the child-drowning example. In comparison to the child drowning, Singer’s proposal is weak because you cannot hold people accountable for not donating a percentage of their income; however, you can hold a person or group of people accountable for watching and not saving the child from
In Garrett Hardin’s “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor, Hardin argues that you should not help the poor because there are limited resources and if the poor continue to seek help they will continue to overpopulate, disrespecting all of limits. Hardin supports his argument by using the lifeboat metaphor while trying to convince the rich not to lend a helping hand to the poor. In the lifeboat metaphor Garrett Hardin uses the upper class and the lower class people to give us a visual of how the lifeboat scenario actually works. Along with the lifeboat metaphor, Hardin uses the tragedy of commons, population growth, and the Joseph and Pharaoh biblical story to persuade the readers.When reading “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against