More handpicked essays just for you.
Lifeboat ethics summed up
Arguments against hardin lifeboats ethics
Arguments against hardin lifeboats ethics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In Garrett Hardin’s “Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor,” Hardin raises the question of whether richer nations should aid the suffering poorer nations. He begins the article by making the claim that the earth is more like a lifeboat rather than a spaceship, and this lifeboat has a limited capacity that can only hold a certain amount of people. Throughout the article Hardin also address issues such as overpopulation, resource conservation, and immigration. Hardin’s argument is effective in many ways. Hardin skillfully covers many issues in regard to the distribution of the earth’s resources. His argument primarily consists of cause and effect, facts, examples, and statistics. His argument is strong; however, it is not likely to persuade every reader because he downplays the ethical problems that bring about the issue. Hardin accurately uses metaphor heavily throughout his essay. He begins by stating that the comparison of the earth to a spaceship is inaccurate, and that the earth is more like a lifeboat. “Metaphorically, each rich nation can be seen as a lifeboat full of comparatively rich people. In …show more content…
As he discusses data like “the U.S. had a population of 210 million people, who were increasing by 0.8 percent per year” (2), “taxpayers spending 7.9 billion dollars on welfare programs in the US” (4), and “88 percent of today's children are born poor, and only 12 percent rich” (5), his readers obtain a very strong sense of authority. Along with his use of quantitative evidence, Hardin also makes many appeals to the emotions of his audience. He addresses their posterity and argues that living by the metaphor of the spaceship “would guarantee that our grandchildren, and everyone else’s grandchildren, would have only a ruined world to inhabit” (8-9). Hardin also uses emotionally powerful words such as “suicidal” and “complete catastrophe” in order to provoke fear in the
In “Theories of Time and Space,” Natasha Trethewey details the evolution of maturity in humans and how that process occurs using a journey to Gulfport, Mississippi. Trethewey begins her work by establishing a destination and starting point that are a metaphors for the progression of innocence to maturity, and she concludes by explaining the significance of that change. All of these components work together to develop an allegory about the human condition. An allegory, as defined in Rapaport’s “The Literary Toolkit,” is “the extension of an analogy into an isomorphic set of correspondences,” that transform the literal meaning (Rapaport, 110). Trethewey uses the literal meaning of a physical journey to Ship Island to create an allegory about
This article does two things successfully; it raises awareness of an important problem and communicates exactly how the problem will affect the world. Barlow’s argument uses pathos and logos to push her ideals on her audience. However, while her use of appeals stimulates, it fails to finish with a final solution to solve the previously posed problem.
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
This paper explores Peter Singer’s argument, in Famine, Affluence, and Morality, that we have morally required obligations to those in need. The explanation of his argument and conclusion, if accepted, would dictate changes to our lifestyle as well as our conceptions of duty and charity, and would be particularly demanding of the affluent. In response to the central case presented by Singer, John Kekes offers his version, which he labels the and points out some objections. Revisions of the principle provide some response to the objections, but raise additional problems. Yet, in the end, the revisions provide support for Singer’s basic argument that, in some way, we ought to help those in need.
The Australian philosopher Peter Singer, believes that when we refuse to help end world hunger, we become murderers. He believes that it is a moral obligation as Americans who live comfortable lives, to help “the worlds poor” (Singer 1). It is wrong to continue to live a luxurious life, when we know that others are fighting for the mere chance to survive. In Peter Singer’s “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” he compares us Americans to two fictitious characters Dora and Bob, due to the fact that we as Dora and Bob chose luxuries over the chance to help people suffering from life-threatening poverty. Peter Singer compares us to a fictitious character from a Brazilian film called “Central Stations.”
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.
The world is divided into two sections: the rich and the poor, “two thirds of them are desperately poor, and only one third are comparatively rich…” (290) Garrett Hardin uses the “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor” to illustrate whether the poor should be saved by the
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.
Theories of global distributive justice address the following sorts of questions. Should we feel morally concerned about the large gap between the developing countries and the developed countries? What duty do us citizens have to provide assistance to the global poor? And what scale should we take the duties to?
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
Hardin presents “lifeboat ethics” which is a metaphor for the gaps between the rich and the poor. Imagine a lifeboat: only a fifty people can fit inside. The people in the boat are the rich while the surrounding sea represents the poor people. The poor being placed in the sea represents them drowning in poverty. About ten more people could possibly fit into the lifeboat, making the maximum capacity of the boat sixty, ignoring the safety factor
Once the author made his view clear, he goes on to display possible scenarios of how human existence can change within the next millennium. He proposed four possible scenarios. The first scenario that Nash discusses, the “wasteland scenario” depicts
McClellan, Jock. “Metaphors, Words, and Models of a Wiser World.” The Swaraj Foundation. Web. 28 Oct. 2014.
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
ABSTRACT: I discuss the nature and genesis of international development ethics as well as its current areas of consensus, controversies, challenges, and agenda. A relatively new field of applied ethics, international development ethics is ethical reflection on the ends and means of socioeconomic change in poor countries and regions. It has several sources: criticism of colonialism and post-World War II developmental strategies; Denis Goulet's writings; Anglo-American philosophical debates about the ethics of famine relief; and Paul Streeten's and Amartya Sen's approaches to development. Development ethicists agree that the moral dimension of development theory and practice is just as important as the scientific and policy components. What is often called "development" (e.g., economic growth) may be bad for people, communities, and the environment. Hence, the process of development should be reconceived as beneficial change, usually specified as alleviating human misery and environmental degradation in poor countries.