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
Later in the essay, Hardin writes about the differences in the population growth between rich and poor nations. Poor nations multiply much more quickly than richer nations. The essay then goes on to explain what the consequences would be of setting of a national food bank. It explains that only the rich nations would be able to contribute to the food bank and the poor nations would only draw. This would only add to the problem of the poor nations as they would have no desire to save of food for themselves since they know they will be taken care of anyways. Giving poor nations food would be bad a...
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
In the novel Poor People, written by William T. Vollmann asks random individuals if they believe they are poor and why some people are poor and others rich. With the help of native guides and translators, and in some cases their family members, they describe what they feel. He depicts people residing in poverty with individual interviews from all over earth. Vollmann’s story narrates their own individual lives, the situations that surround them, and their personal responses to his questions. The responses to his questions range from religious beliefs that the individual who is poor is paying for their past sins from a previous life and to the rational answer that they cannot work. The way these individuals live their life while being in poverty
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. While I agree with Singer’s argument in principle, I have a problem with his conclusion. In my view, the conclusion that Singer espouses is underdeveloped.
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.
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.
After reading Alan Durning’s argument, you see that Durning exposes Hardin’s rhetoric by using three classification levels. Alan Durning uses the lower class, middle class, and upper class which shows that he does indeed have a middle ground argument. While Garrett Hardin leaves out the middle class in his argument, Durning tells us that, “Their vehicles are directly responsible for an estimated thirteen percent of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels worldwide (408).” The multiple vehicles owned by the middle class are a major part of the problem. In Alan Durning’s argument there are a total of five billion people in the three classification levels, “one billion live in unprecedented luxury”, “one billion live in destitution” (404), and there are three billion in the “massive middle class of the world” (408). In Garrett Hardin’s argument he blames everything on everyone except the Americans. On the other hand, Durning points out that the Americans are the cause of the destruction. While Garrett Hardin tries to make the rich feel like the poor are dangerous, Durning on the other hand states that, “The world’s 1 billion meat eaters, car drivers, and throwaway consumers are responsible for the lion’s share of the damage humans have caused to common global resources (406).” Alan Durning goes against Hardin, he says that the rich need to slow down and stop
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 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
Pogge, Thomas Winfried Menko, and Keith Horton. "Famine, Affluence and Poverty." In Global ethics: seminal essays. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House, 2008. 1-14.
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.
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.