Across the world, there are a multitude of non-profit organizations and charities that believe in giving back, specifically targeting those who are barely surviving on their own. Most people will agree that providing resources for the poor is the humane thing to do. However, in his article, “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor,” Garrett Hardin conflicts with public opinion and uses a metaphor to argue that there is no just way to assist those drowning in poverty without sinking those afloat in the process. He compares wealthy nations, such as the United States, to a lifeboat with a limited carrying capacity and poor nations to those drowning in the ocean, claiming that if rich countries allow the poor to board the lifeboat of …show more content…
wealth, they will all eventually collapse (290-291). While his metaphor is creative and may seem logical at first, Hardin only approaches morality from one perspective and is statistically flawed in many of his points, therefore reducing the validity of his argument. In this article, Hardin attempts to make an argument about a moral issue, aiding the poor, but he is flawed in the fact that he only argues from the perspective of one moral theory.
According to Ronald F. White, there are three moral theories that attempt to clear the gray area between good and bad behavior, and truth varies among individuals based on their beliefs (279). Hardin argues based on the teleological ethical theory, claiming that an action is immoral if the negative consequences outweigh the positive consequences (White 280). According to Hardin, rich nations should not assist poor nations because the financial disaster that it will impose upon the wealthy will outweigh the justice and help given to the poor (291). However, there is another moral theory that serves as a counterargument to Hardin’s approach. Deontological theorists could argue that aiding the poor is a moral law that should never be broken, no matter the consequences (White 281). Because Hardin’s argument is based solely on his beliefs and one moral theory, it loses practical validity as it can be argued against from many …show more content…
perspectives. In addition to only arguing based on one moral theory, Hardin makes points only in one stage of morality. William Crain explains that individuals can be placed into one of Kohlberg’s six stages of moral development based on their response to moral dilemmas (283). Hardin shows characteristics from the fifth stage, wanting to keep the world running smoothly although it may not be the most moral option (Crain 286). Although poor people may struggle and need help, Hardin argues that society would collapse if the wealthy attempted to assist them all (291). However, Hardin’s argument is not valid because it is only a reflection of his personal moral development. There are people in other stages of Kohlberg’s moral development, and ethical dilemmas such as aiding the poor cannot be argued definitively as right or wrong. Beyond the other moral theories and stages that could argue against Hardin, he is also flawed statistically in the points that he makes. His first flaw is in the idea that helping all the poor nations in the world will cause economically stable countries to rapidly decline. He begins his argument by creating a story in which 50 wealthy people are in a 60-person maximum capacity lifeboat, surrounded by 100 unfortunate people struggling to stay afloat in the water (290). Letting all the poor people in the boat will only overflow the boat, causing trauma for all those at sea, the entire world (291). Data combats against Hardin’s point. According to Ricardo Michel, the United States benefits tremendously by providing foreign aid to poor nations. The United States economy grows as it forms relationships with new trade partners through monetary assistance. In fact, the United States once gave resources to 11 out of its top 15 trading partners today (Michel). Hardin failed to think about the possibility of a theoretically growing lifeboat. By putting in a little effort and making connections with the poor, the wealthier nations can expand the lifeboat, the security of wealth, for their own good as well as the good of the poorer countries. Hardin’s second point, that wealthy nations must leave a few extra seats in the lifeboat, or a few extra bucks in the savings account, is logical in the case that those nations must be prepared for emergency situations, yet he fails to realize that there is a balance between providing foreign aid and saving money.
For example, the United States gives less than one percent of its annual budget to other nations, leaving at least 99 percent of it for domestic concerns (Michel). Nonetheless, that one percent is a major contribution to countries drowning in poverty. Wealthier nations, such as the United States, provide for “wiggle room” in the lifeboat while also giving up a few extra seats. Hardin creates a metaphorical scenario in which 50 rich people are crowding a lifeboat with only 10 extra seats (290). A more realistic and rational scenario would suggest that there are 50 rich people in a lifeboat with 500 extra seats, plenty to spare. Although Hardin’s story seems reasonable, statistics show that his point is
invalid. Hardin continues to underestimate the immense economic stability of wealthy nations in his final claim, suggesting that wealthier nations can only help poorer nations by giving up their seat on the lifeboat or their financial security (291). As mentioned earlier, rich nations can make a difference without giving up everything they have. Only one percent of the United States’ budget is contributed towards other countries, yet the global poverty levels have fallen since 1990 because of those minimal contributions (Michel). Once again, Hardin is statistically proven wrong; wealthier nations aid nations in poverty without having to sacrifice their own economic stability. Despite his creativity, Hardin’s metaphor of the lifeboat in water cannot accurately be compared to rich and poor nations, and his moral approach can be argued by many others. There are many theories and stages of morality that provide for different responses to moral dilemmas, none of which can be proven right or wrong as they are based on the beliefs of the individual. Hardin also did not account for statistical evidence that proves societies of wealthier nations run efficiently while also providing assistance to those nations underwater. Hardin’s metaphor may work when compared to other societal issues, but the data for foreign affairs between wealthy and poor nations, as well as the moral nature of the issue, disputes the accuracy of his argument, declaring it to be invalid. Hence, in Hardin’s “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor,” he fails to make the case.
Peter Singer’s article “What Should a Billionaire Give- and What Should You?” focuses on how the wealthy could do more to relieve global poverty. Singer uses obvious examples of pathos by showing the example walking by a shallow pond and observing a small child drowning. Singer explains that everyone would save the child at minimal inconvenience, he also says ruining a pair of shoes at the expense of the child is not acceptable for a child to drown. This metaphor shows Singers heavy use of pathos within the article. Singer also exposes the nature of human nature when he our inclination to collect all the things we want with ignoring global poverty and us being responsible for the deaths of the children. Singer argues that wealthy people should
People are starving all over the world. They lack food, water, and basic medication. Some suggest that the wealthy should donate and do their part to help. Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics, wrote an article called “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” in The New York Times Magazine, in which he suggests that the prosperous people should donate all money not needed for the basic requirements of life.
In the paper “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” Peter Singer defends the idea that is our moral duty to help others in need. Since there are other people in the world that are suffering and we our in a position to give, we are obligated to help create change in the world . In this paper I will explain Peter Singer’s view about how it is our moral duty to help those who are suffering in the world. Then I will present an implication of Peter Singer claim that implies how we are obligated to give upon to others that are suffering. I will then explain an argurment to provide a reason of why someone should support Peter Singer principle. Carried to a logical conclusion, Peter Singer aruement that his principle is clearly obligatory than superagory. I will consider the two actions that Peter Singer gives to distinguish duty versues chariy and argue that his principle should e consider a superagoty action. Since his
Often times, the middle and upper classes underestimate the amount of poverty left in our society. In “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” Peter Singer reaches out to the lucrative to help the misfortune. Although Singer believes that, the wealthy has a responsibility in providing help to the less fortunate, Singer conducts theories in which he explains how we as Americans spend more on luxuries rather than necessities. If the wealthy are fortunate enough to go out to fancy meals, they should be able to provide food for a poor family or medicine for the children. The negative attributes outweigh the positive due to the lack of supporting detail from the positive in which helps us better understand that helping people is the right thing to do rather than sitting back and doing nothing but demands that Americans donate every cent of their extra money to help the poor. According to Singer, if we provide a foundation for the misfortune we will not only make the world a better place but we will feel a relief inside that world poverty will soon end. The argument singer gives has no supporting details in which he tries and persuade the wealthy to donate money to the poor without clear thoughts.
In Peter Singer’s “Famine, Affluence and Morality,” Singer makes three claims about moral duty; that avoidable suffering is bad, that it is our moral obligation to help others in need, and that we should help those in suffering regardless of their distance to us or if others are in the same position as we are to help. First, I will elaborate on Singer’s arguments for each of these positions. Next, I will discuss two objections to Singer’s position, one that he debates in his writings and another that I examine on my own, and Singer’s responses to those objections. Then I will examine why Singer’s rebuttals to the objections were successful.
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.
response to the Singer. Cullity argues that Singer’s conclusion, that we ought to help others in need so long as this does not cause any significant damage to ourselves, is severely demanding, as it is essentially arguing that we are morally obligated to help everybody in the world. The only way in which we would be able to justify not helping somebody who needed our help would be if doing so would put the person helping at significant risk. Cullity argues in his paper that Singer’s argument is asking too much of people when it claims that donating to aid agencies is a moral obligation and that not doing so would be immoral. His main way of doing so is by rejecting the Severe Demand.
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.
Peter Singer's paper “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”has made a drastic impact on modern applied ethics. The simple nature of the paper makes for an easy read, yet the point clearly set out by Singer is at the end with the targeted audience's popular beliefs. Although most will object to Singer's idea by throwing away a basic principle of most moral theories, I wish to deny Singer's solution by showing that the ability to apply Singer's conclusion is not reasonable and does not address the problem's core. Singer starts with the assumption that suffering and death from lack of the essentials of food, water, shelter, and proper medical assistance are bad. I find no problem with accepting this assumption, as it is consistent with most widely accepted moral theories.
Conversely, in the case of preventing the death of a child in a third world country by donating to a charity, you are more likely prolonging a life for a short period of time rather than truly saving it. Donating money that will be put towards, for example, a malaria net, may prevent someone from passing away due to one illness but it will not give them an education and it will not save them from famine or distress. The donation will only save people in great poverty from one of their many struggles. In the biography “Mountains Beyond Mountains,” Tracy Kidder discusses Paul Farmer’s establishment of the nonprofit, Partners in Health, that obtains donations to its charitable cause from large companies and organizations. These companies and organizations are well-established foundations that can give an amount of money great enough to potentially make a difference and save lives through health care. Nonetheless, even with these great amounts of money, one of Farmer’s patients, John, gets all the medical help possible yet dies anyway. This saddening story exemplifies the point that when donating you cannot guarantee that a life will be saved. The best medical care possible could not save John, so even the best help we can give through charity may not save the people in need. There are many struggles in third-world countries
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.
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
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
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
Many people who read such statement wonder about our obligation towards famine relief, and ask, whether we are morally obliged to spend one dollar in order to prevent such a crisis or not. Forty years ago, Peter Singer answered this question in his article