Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Hardin lifeboat ethics analysis
What is the lifeboat ethics analogy
Hardin lifeboat ethics analysis
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Robbing the Rich to Give to the Poor Poverty has conquered nations around the world, striking the populations down through disease and starvation. Small children with sunken eyes are displayed on national television to remind those sitting in warm, luxiourious houses that living conditions are less than tolerable around the world. Though it is easy to empathize for the poor, it is sometimes harder to reach into our pocketbooks and support them. No one desires people to suffer, but do wealthy nations have a moral obligation to aid poor nations who are unable to help themselves? Garrett Hardin in, "Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping The Poor," uses a lifeboat analogy to expose the global negative consequences that could accompany the support of poor nations. Hardin stresses problems including population increase and environmental overuse as downfalls that are necessary to consider for the survival of wealthy nations. In contrast, Peter Singer's piece, "Rich and Poor," remarks on the large differences between living conditions of those in absolute poverty with the wealthy, concluding that the rich nations possess a moral obligation to the poor that surpasses the risks involved. Theodore Sumberg's book, "Foreign Aid As Moral Obligation," documents religious and political views that encourage foreign aid. Kevin M. Morrison and David Weiner, a research analyst and senior fellow respectively at the Overseas Development Council, note the positive impact of foreign aid to America, a wealthy nation. Following the examination of these texts, it seems that not only do we have a moral obligation to the poor, but aiding poor nations is in the best interest of wealthy nations. Hardin's graphic depiction of a lifeboat wi... ... middle of paper ... ...e taken seriously, it is important to consider the arguments in the appropriate context. They are global concerns in which every nation needs to cooperative to improve conditions. As humans, however, we all have moral obligations to help those around us who are living in conditions of suffering and misery. Bibliography: Bibliography Hardin, Garrett. "Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping The Poor." Taking Sides, Moral Issues. (Dushkin/McGraw Hill: Guilford, 1998), pp344-351. Morrison, Kevin M. and David Weiner. "Declining Aid Spending Harms U.S. Interests." http://www.odc.org/commentary/cbpprpt.html. Singer, Peter. "Rich and Poor." Taking Sides, Moral Issues. (Dushkin/McGraw Hill: Guilford, 1998), pp 334-343. Sumberg, Theodore A. Foreign Aid As Moral Obligation? (Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, Inc.,1973), pp 1-5.
In the article, Famine, Affluence, and Morality, Peter Singer expresses his displeasure with people not preventing bad things from happening, even when it is within their power. Spending money on buying extravagant goods instead of giving it to the needy seems to be a foreign concept to him. He questions how human beings can be so inhumane to ignore other’s sufferings. Singer is an utilitarian and believes in lending aid to the underprivileged. Through his paper, Singer argues that well-to-do people are morally obligated to help the impoverished. He also writes about the objections made on his viewpoints and responds to them with solutions.
In the article “The Singer’s Solution to World Poverty”, Pete Singer responds to the issue of world poverty and how to minimize the growing gap between the rich and poor. “Prosperous people should donate to overseas aid organizations…all money not needed for the basic requirements of life”(Singer). The money that is not spent on necessities, including, investments should be donated. Singer’s solution is unrealistic and controversial; it questions moral views and people’s rights to their own money. Through his use of hypothetical situations Singer persuades the reader to donate to overseas organizations, but it weakens the argument because of his accusatory tone. Singer’s takes an extreme stance that if you are not donating all your extra money you are responsible for a child’s death. Some readers may find it insulting and refuse to accept his views. Singer successfully rebuttals many counter-arguments, but does not include the effects on America or explain why we should focus on overseas poverty and not our own. This weakens his argument and his message to help the poor.
Singer argues and concludes in his weaker argument that those more fortunate have a duty to donate significant amounts of money to foreign aid agencies. If Singer’s conclusion is to be rejected, it seems one must provide a satisfactory argument for denying the second premise, for the following reasons. Firstly, premise one is beyond challenge, as from an intuitive level, denial would be morally callous at best. The third premise would only be refutable insofar as the efficacy of aid itself is refutable, however the scope of this essay will not examine this considering the relative security one has in trusting aid’s efficacy on an increasing basis. The second premise of the argument is by far the most ambitious and controversial, and therefore in need of enquiry. *Refine and exclude third premise as beyond scope
... aid across the world. As we have established that we do have an obligation to redistribute globally in a cosmopolitan perspective, distributing wealth however we may need to rethink what the best assistance is. Amaryta Sen conveys that before sending aid to the third world state, we would need to fully understand the limitation of freedom in the country. Redistributing wealth to global countries requires it to be evaluated by the economic shortage that they are suffering and to see whether it will be efficient in the long run. The more effective ways to contribute would be to international relief agencies or NGO’s that would pursue international development projects to help those in poverty or the alternative option by Tom Campbell’s idea of a ‘Global humanitarian levy’ which suggests a more appropriate taxation on all citizens to collectively aid those in need.
The global poor have been an issue that the world has faced for generations and with the gap between the rich and poor always expanding, we have to ask ourselves the question of “what should we do about it?” and “should we even do something about it?”. In this essay, I will be arguing the moral implications of consequentialism and why Onora O’Neill’s non-consequential view on the subject is more plausible than Peter Singer’s consequential view. I will explain what differentiates Singer and O’Neill’s views and where both their views come together.
The United States is one of the leading suppliers of Foreign Aid in the world, and even though the US gives billions, European countries give aid money to the same countries, this causes many areas of the Middle East, Africa, and Asia to be almost fully dependent on foreign aid. This means that without aid from other countries, they would not be able to support themselves at all. Foreign aid is meant to help countries that are struggling with civil unrest, disease, or natural disasters, it is not meant to help keep the country out of debt, but that is where more and more of the US and The EU’s foreign aid budget is going. The question is, does all this money actually go where it is intended? It should be going towards the government and to help the people, but in many cases, the countries government does not have the resources to properly track the flow of money. The countries in most cases have poor infrastructure and corrupt or oppressive leaders, not always at a national level, but in the towns and cities. So this means there is almost no way to oversee the flow of foreign aid through the country, all we can see is that their situations aren't getting any better and the countries are still impoverished. If this is the case, where are the millions of dollars going? Countries like Afghanistan and Iraq receive the most money from American foreign aid and European aid, yet they are still under oppressive governmental rule and there is still an extreme difference between the rich and poor. Garrett Harding’s theory of “Lifeboat Ethics” exemplifies how not giving aid to others will allow the strongest of society to thrive, while teaching the impoverished to help themselves. He believes that giving aid to poor countries will only make ...
It is not easy to always practice love and compassion to everyone. This is why similarly to Miller, I believe it is our human nature to favour those we are closest to, such as family and friends. We create special bonds and relationships with particular people and they become our main concern. These relationships may cause us to become self driven. However, this does not change the fact that we are all human beings and hold the same value as one another. We must continuously remind ourselves that others have it worse off, and that we have the means to help them. So why would we choose not to? It is important to help those in need, they do not deserve anything less than wealthier nations do. Therefore, wealthier nations should be obligated to dedicate a percentage of their resources and income to ensuring the wellbeing of individuals in other
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
William Easterly's The White Man's Burden is about what its author calls the twin tragedies of global poverty. The first, is that so many are seemingly fated to live horribly stunted, miserable lives and die such early deaths. The second is that after fifty years and more than $2.3 trillion in aid from the West to address the first tragedy, it has shockingly little to show for it. We'll never solve the first tragedy, Easterly argues, unless we figure out the second. The ironies are many: We preach a gospel of freedom and individual accountability, yet we intrude in the inner workings of other countries through bloated aid bureaucracies like the International Monetary Fund and World Bank that are accountable to no one for the effects of their prescriptions. We take credit for the economic success stories of the last fifty years, like South Korea and Taiwan, when in
I don’t think of the starving children as I’m shopping for a new pair of jeans or shoes. After reading Singer’s article, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” I understand how remotely “immoral” not contributing to the solution of world hunger is if it is in our ability to do so, the importance of marginal utility, and the effects of this topic in Ethics.
Garret Hardin uses a “lifeboat” metaphor that argues against helping other countries. Garret not only discourages providing food and relief to other countries, he even says that it is erroneous to do so. Hardin said all wealthy nations and their people are in a lifeboat; these lifeboats can only carry and provide for a limited number of people. All the other people of the world, immigrants, the starving, they are all in the water trying not to drown. If we let too many of these people into our lifeboat, the boat will sink and we will all drown.
While the efforts of developers have aided the lives of billions, none would claim the amount of humanitarian aid administered has raised the living standards of the vast majority of the poor even close to that of industrialized nations and for a large proportion of the poor even to a state of adequately possessing basic necessities including food, clean water, and clothing. Even wealthy nations must struggle to finance the consumption of crucial modern goods such as healthcare and information technology. It is doubtful then the small fractions of wealthy nations' income being donated to the impoverished will be sufficient to fill a significant share of this material gulf of inequality between rich and poor nations. The goods humanitarians wish for the poor can only be produced in satisfactory quantities by the currently poor peoples themselves in economies in which they are valued, productive participants. The question then is whether sending aid to autocracies controlling destitute nations serves this greater goal of economically enabling the impoverished or does little more than prop up the level of development in poor autocratic nations. To answer this question, we again invoke Easterly's
Peter Singer said; “If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it” (Famine, Affluence, and Morality). As human beings, we have a moral compulsion to help other people, despite the verity that they may be strangers, especially when whatever type of aid we may render can in no approach have a more significant consequence on our own life.
Generosity does not necessarily means giving to others what they really need, but the giver risking his or her own necessities just to please others (Khalil Gibran). Peter singer suggested a solution to the world poverty in his given titled essay “the singer solution to world poverty.” Peter Singer makes multiple different assumptions in his proposal about the world poverty, and they are seen on the aspect that Americans spend too much savings on things and services that are not necessarily needed. First, Singer evaluate those who focus more on their wants rather than their pressing needs. He also talked about saving a child over valuables. Singer went further
Foreign aid critics, noble laureates Friedman and Bauer (1950) argue that aid strengthened and enlarged central governments and as a result aid did more damage than good, these critics see aid as being used as a political tool that distorts incentives and increases corruption. Brautigam and Knack (2004) concluded and found evidence that suggested that foreign aid has a negative impact on growth. They argue that it helps corrupt dictators and large business corporations to take advantage of the poor, uneducated and helpless population and environment of the developing countries. This is enforced by showing how despite 4 decades of aid there has been an increase in poverty in Congo, Haiti, New Guinea, Ethiopia and Sudan.