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…
the ocean outside of each lifeboat swim the poor of the world, who would like to get in, or at least to share some of the wealth,” (Hardin 1). His thorough discussion of the lifeboat metaphor convinces some of his audience of its legitimacy and pertinence to the existing situation of the world. Another strategy that Hardin successfully utilizes is the cause and effect strategy. For example, Hardin argues that the earth’s limited resources will run out without preservation and population control. Shared resources are subject to irresponsible use: he calls this situation “the tragedy of the commons” (2). He also claims that if countries were accountable for themselves they would put more effort into fixing their own problems, “…if each country was solely responsible for its own well-being, poorly managed ones will suffer. But they can learn from experience. They may mend their ways, and learn to budget for infrequent but certain emergencies,” (4). Hardin goes on to suggest that if we don’t give out food or assistance then the population of the poorer countries would soon learn to contain itself, and the larger populations would perish at a quicker rate until they learn to take care of themselves. Hardin’s argument is primarily supported by facts, examples, and statistics.
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
reader. However strong Hardin’s argument may be, there are still many logical fallacies that can be discovered while reading the essay. One logical fallacy that is quite prevalent is the either/or fallacy, which can be found throughout the entirety of the essay. Hardin just assumes that every country in the world is either a rich country or a poor country. A country is either in the lifeboat, or out of the lifeboat. This is untrue because there are many countries that are simply in the middle, ones who are not extremely wealthy but also not struggling either. South Korea and Ireland are a couple examples of this. Hardin also makes hasty generalizations about the poorer countries that are “in the water,” as some of them may actually be able to fend for themselves without the help of richer nations. Hardin makes a strong and effective argument in his essay, but may not be able to convince every single reader. While he skillfully utilizes strategies such as appealing to emotions, cause and effect, and statistics, he fails to understand the reality of the situation and just breaks it up into strict, solid beliefs.
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
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.
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.”
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.
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
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?
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
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.
McClellan, Jock. “Metaphors, Words, and Models of a Wiser World.” The Swaraj Foundation. Web. 28 Oct. 2014.
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.