More handpicked essays just for you.
Effects of population growth on the environment
The effects of overpopulation on the environment
Lifeboat ethics hardin analysis
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Effects of population growth on the environment
In his analytical essay Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor (1974), Garrett Hardin, a human ecologist, asserts that distribution between Earth’s resources without no one in control, is not only impossible, but also harmful to the limited resources Earth contains to an extent where it can go to a ruin. Hardin supports his assertion by describing the possible negative outcomes of sharing or assisting the poor with their needs such as overpopulation, where the needs of the poor would expand more as their population grows; destruction of natural resources, having the will to sacrifice resources to satisfy the needs of the poor, and tragedy of the commons, where having the equal share of everyone can result common people acting accordingly
I am tired of the United States of America giving my money to the poor
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.
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.
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.
In Garrett Hardin’s “ Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor,” Hardin argues that we should not aid the poor because there is only a limited amount of resources available, and it can become a threat to everyone if the population growth of the poor keeps increasing and if our limited resources keep decreasing. Hardin cleverly uses a lifeboat metaphor to set up his argument by putting the reader into a life or death situation. He places the rich people inside of the boat which only has a limited amount of space and the poor are placed outside of the lifeboat stranded in the water. Hardin convinces readers that the only way for survival is if the rich let the poor suffer. However, in Alan Durning’s “Asking How Much Is Enough,” Durning states that the real reason why our resources keep dwindling is because the rich are carelessly over consuming them. Unlike Hardin, Durning includes three world classes the rich, the middle, and the poor. Durning brings in the middle class which gives the reader a more realistic picture to realize that the overconsumption of the rich is just making the poor, poorer. Hardin fails to even mention the middle class or overconsumption because he only wants the reader to focus on the overpopulation of the poor. Durning exposes Hardin’s rhetoric by stating that the rich are the ones who are carelessly over consuming their own resources and how Hardin falsely demonizes the poor by making it easier to blame them for abusing our limited resources.
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.
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
Some would say helping the poor is not helpful at all. They would say that if you help them the poor will never learn to help themselves. While that may be true in some cases that is not always true. In the satirical essay “A Modest Proposal” Jonathan Swift tries to tell his audience how they should help the poor in Ireland; while in the essay “Lifeboat Ethics” Garrett Hardin tries to convince his audience that they can not afford to help anyone but themselves. Both of these essays have a similar topics and they both make good points, however, they are two very different essays. “A Modest Proposal” is a very satirical essay while “Lifeboat Ethics” is a more straight forward approached essay. Also the stances on the essays are complete opposite of each other one wants to help the other thinks it best not to help.
In this paper, I will argue against two articles which were written against Singer’s view, and against helping the poor countries in general. I will argue against John Arthur’s article Famine Relief and the Ideal Moral Code (1974 ) ,and Garrett Hardin’s article Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor ( 1976); I will show that both articles are exaggerating the negative consequences of aiding the poor, as well as building them on false assumptions. Both Arthur and Hardin are promoting the self-interest without considering the rights of others, and without considering that giving for famine relief means giving life to many children.
Ethical dilemmas create a challenge between two or more equally alternative problems requiring moral judgment. This creates both an obligation and dilemma for those involved. Living in such a globalized world with cross-cultural borders, races, and ideas; negotiating what is considered morally “right” can sometimes be very difficult. Both religion and laws have a major impact in ethical duties. What an individual may presume as right cannot be guaranteed by the government or political party. The Overcrowded Lifeboat is just one example in which all the ideas above come to play in ethical decisions.
Ostrom, E., 2008. Tragedy of the Commons. In: S. N. Durlauf & L. E. Blume, eds. The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
I am well aware of global poverty statistics and I do agree that if the most affluent people banded together, global poverty can altogether be abolished. However, I definitely cosign the fact that, what I work for is mine, what I own is mine and I am entitled to it. John Arthur suggests that equality and entitlements are both of equal importance when the topic is our social moral code, which is a system that we follow to guide us and that we use to make decisions. For example, as a full time college student, I work 35 hours a week, getting paid an inadequate amount, - which is besides the point - I see a homeless man begging for money, and my options are to either take the Peter Singer approach and give him money, because I feel the need to lessen global poverty even though it’s a small step towards improvement, or I can take the John Arthur approach and simply keep it moving and not even bother to contribute whether it be to lessen or worsen the issue of global poverty. It may sound selfish, but it is what it is and I simply see it as I’m entitled to my earnings. I’m more inclined to choose the option of not increasing or decreasing the problem at hand because I feel if roles were switched it wouldn’t even be an option for someone to help me even in the slightest way. We are all equal but however, that doesn’t mean financially or physically, it is in terms of we are all
The commons is an area of land that belongs to the public as opposed to being owned by individuals, which is private property. Garrett Hardin describes the ‘tragedy of commons’ as a population problem and individuals over-exploiting a commons for their own personal gain. He discusses the over-exploitation of resources, and pollution, but these are ultimately causes of the exponential population growth. He states that because we live in a finite world we can only support a finite amount of people, and our resources will eventually run out; however, we are living as if our resources are infinite. As our population increases it will become harder and harder to support, and in order to attempt to support the increasing population our amount of resources used must be as close to zero as possible. This creates a problem, because man is naturally selfish, and wants to advantage themselves only.
One of the most important issues facing the world today is helping people in poverty and refugees. This issue is prevalent on a global scale, (add something about how this is a big issue in Hawaii). Is it ethical for Hawaii to share its limited resources to help Syrian refugees given the issue of homelessness? I believe that Hawaii should take in Syrian refugees. However, I believe the state needs to deal with the homelessness issue first. Rich nations may have limited resources, but they can still share some of their space and food with other nations when they are in need of help. This is where Garrett Hardin and his work, “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor,” enters the scene. Throughout Hardin’s work, he lays out the premise of how each nation is similar to a lifeboat.
This “Tragedy of the Commons” is a concept first put forward by William Forster Loyd but more often is attributed to the ecologist Garett Hardin ("Tragedy of the commons", 2016). The concept can be explained as a situation in which a common resource is shared by many. Each individual attempts to maximise their share of the resource with little regard to others and therefore the resource begins to be over exploited. Furthermore, the individuals involved each feels as though their actions do not contribute to the inevitable decline of the shared resource