There are several thought processes on the responsibility of the individual in relation to his station in society. One might advocate survival of the fittest while another takes the yoke of burden his brother carries as his own weighted responsibility. This timeless debate has been the focus of essays, books and heated arguments. Two authors, Garret Hardin and Nobel prize winner Muhammed Yunus, show juxtapositions on the subject and merit the examination of their opposing view points. Hardin makes a strong case against helping the poor in his essay entitled “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor.” Yunus has a completely different viewpoint in his writings and shows the merits of reaching out to the poor and providing the necessities to improve their station in life. While there is never a clear-cut solution to any problem that mankind faces, there are still strongly weighted, favored outcomes for either philosophy. Despite Hardin’s argument against
He states that the world has limited space and resources, and he finds that ethics do not dictate sharing these limited resources. He also complains that poorer nations reproduce more often causing the ratio of poor to rich people to increase each year and expending even more natural resources of the Earth each year. This is a very limited argument for selfish self-preservation. It lacks vision in finding creative solutions. The first, most obvious counter to his position is to simply build more lifeboats. The poor do not want in another’s lifeboat; they want a lifeboat of their own. While Hardin can justify limiting immigration of poor into the United States in order to preserve our own resources, his argument does not examine the fact that third world nations have resources of their
Singer presents his argument specifically in terms of famine relief and, although it has broader applicability, the discussion mostly falls under this specific topic. Thus, he conforms his argument around aspects relevant to famine and/or poverty when laying out his three core premises.
Garrett Hardin presents several ideals on whether the poor should be saved or not through his article of “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor”. Hardin was an ecologist who wrote several articles on overpopulation. Throughout the article Hardin talked about how the poor could be saved by the rich by using the different ethnics of life. Although he tells the possible ways to saving the poor, he fails to give his stance on how he would save them.
Singer, Peter. “Famine, Affluence, and Morality.” Current Issues and Enduring Questions. 8th ed. Eds. Sylvan Barnet and Hugo Bedau. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2008. 7-15. Print.
Portrays a non- utilitarianism approach to justifying his point about the state of society and to an extent humanity.
In The Cause Against Helping the Poor, Garrett Hardin argues that each nation must protect their own resources and leave others to fend for themselves. Perhaps the strongest argument that Hardin gives for this claim relies on the belief that helping the poor will only ruin our environment and hurt the future generation. Furthermore, we are justified in protecting ourselves, which makes no moral difference in protecting those who are closer to us. In this paper, I will argue that we have a general obligation to help those in need, but the obligation is stronger for those closest to us.
The world naturally corrects the over-population problems with famine and disease and Americans make any effort they can to stop the suffering. The “guilt factor” represented in scenario four of the lifeboat ethics directly relates to this. We feel bad the poor and homeless can’t protect themselves from these disasters so Americans do anything to save them. We save those who would’ve otherwise died in the crisis. We increase the population of an environment without expanding, causing more crisis. Inevitably, more people end up dying due to starvation or malnutrition. Thus, the never-ending cycle of the rich saving the poor continues. If other countries keep intervening by delivering food and aid to nations when they are in trouble, they end up making the next crisis even more
A person only needs to fulfill what the Principle of Sympathy demands to be moral. Works Cited Pogge, Thomas Winfried Menko, and Keith Horton. "Famine, Affluence and Poverty." Global ethics: seminal essays. St. Paul, MN:
Hunger and poverty will always exist. Needy nations are stuck in a black hole, in which, there is no light at the end of the tunnel. This situation could be fixed, if the poor nations had assistance from those who could spare a few goods. Is it morally good for the better off nations to help or support those who are in need? Who benefits from this sponsorship in the long run? Poverty-stricken nations could seek relief, if the silk-stocking nations aid in supplying goods. Many of the moneyed nations are torn between helping or not, those who are less fortunate. Jonathan Swift and Garrett Hardin have two very different opinions on whether to aid those who were not born into riches. Swift uses a satire for the
Hardin appeals to Pathos suggests our survival depends on the states of mind of guarding our assets. In spite of it is true there is only so much room in a lifeboat I don't concur with Dr. Hardin's proposals. I do not believe the world has come to this point. With research and countries working together to find solutions we would be able to help many in need. Hardin appeals to the readers’ beliefs again when he refers to the idea of standing back when a nation is in a crisis and giving the nation a chance to take in the hardest way possible.
Since the poor contribute nothing, they are draining the resources needed by everyone else. “Since the worlds resources are dwindling, the difference in the prosperity of the rich and poor can only increase,” Hardin writes (Lifeboat Ethics, 170). On the other hand Swift believes that everyone needs help and mercy at some point in their life. If the poor had jobs they would be able to contribute in order to replenish the resources they use. He indicates that, if the affluent were more conservative with the use of their money and resources by buying local goods, there would jobs for the poor and paying taxes in emergency situations would not be so
This paper shows that altruism is a very complex issue and much more information could be introduced, following this would allow a greater look at the complexity of other views such as the religious or the philosophical side. Garrett Hardin’s ‘lifeboat ethics’ is a perfect example and proof of this paper, showing that we would rather let others gets killed instead of trying to help a
Skinner, author of “Big Mac and the Tropical Forests,” also exposes Hardin’s all or nothing rhetoric. According to Skinner, “tropical forests in South America are being destroyed in order to raise cattle to produce beef for companies such as McDonald’s and Swift-Armor Meat Company (413).” Skinner’s argument supports Durning’s argument because Skinner states that the amount of beef imported was a “concomitant with this increase in consumption (415).” When North Americans import the beef from Central and South American countries they are making it where “Central Americans cannot afford their own beef” (415). From Joseph K. Skinner’s perspective we are actually the people on the outside of the lifeboat. Skinner states that, “the United States began to import beef, so that by 1981 some 800,000 tons were coming in from abroad, seventeen percent of it from Latin America and three fourths of that from Central America (415).” From the way Skinner looks at things, we are basically the people on the outside of the lifeboat. While Hardin states that the poor have pirate-like tendencies, Skinner believes that the Americans are the actual pirates because we are taking things from others for our own benefit. It is visible that Garrett Hardin is using his rhetoric to make the poor out to be the issue. After reading Joseph K. Skinner’s article and Alan Durning’s argument, one would believe that Garrett Hardin’s perspective is no longer
Peter Singer practices utilitarianism, he believes the consequence of an action matters more than the reason behind the action. Singer is trying to convince his audience to donate their money to end world poverty. He believes it is moral to give as much money as the person can give, allowing them to purchase just enough for them to live on, and this will be the right action to take. Singer is aiming toward the United States to contribute more to charity. Singer does not consider specific aspects that do not support his argument and causes his argument to not list specific aspects of his belief. Singer’s argument is not a good argument because he does not consider the ramifications of people donating their surplus of money would do to the economy; is it our duty to feed the poor; and that our moral intuitions are not consequentialist at all when it concerns what our rescue duties entail.
Poverty, also known as the silent killer, exists in every corner of the world. In fact, almost half of the world’s population lives in poverty. According to the United States Census Bureau, there were 46.7 million people living in poverty the year of 2014 (1). Unfortunately, thousands of people die each year due to this world-wide problem. Some people view poverty as individuals or families not being able to afford an occupational meal or having to skip a meal to save money. However, this is not the true definition of poverty. According to the author of The Position of Poverty, John Kenneth Galbraith, “people are poverty-stricken when their income, even if adequate for survival, falls radically behind that of the community”, which means people
In conclusion, sometimes actions take place that changes a person’s outlook on life and as you can see poverty is one that can have a huge effect on not only one person, but also the people around him/ her.