Do Poor Nations Contribute To The Poor?

One of the biggest problems facing American families today is the inability to afford fresh, nutrient filled food. In the United States today over 13 million families don’t have the money to buy fresh food and have to live on unhealthy diets. In the essay Prudence or Cruelty, author Nicholas Kristof talks about how much of a danger malnutrition is to poorer American families. Kristof mentions that the sole reason for such a high rate of malnutrition in poor U.S citizens stems from the lack of money to buy fresh goods. The price of fresh goods is too much compared to the amount of money these families are making. With multiple mouths to feed and a limited budget, going to the grocery store for these families is almost unheard of. These families

In the article “Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor”, the author Garrett Hardin raised the question that whether the rich countries should help people suffer from poverty. He claimed that the supporting strategies for the developing countries, including the World Food Bank could result in more severe recourse inadequate issue and other disasters. In addition, a large number of immigrants flood in the US could ruin the natural environment and social balance. In that case, the author argued that regardless of the current situation, privileged nations should not provide aid to people trapped within difficulties of the underdeveloped nations. Even though, his

In a piece by Peter Singer entitled, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Singer argues that Americans should prevent atrocious situations to arise but, we also should not sacrifice something of equal importance while doing so. Moreover, in the piece by John Arthur, “World Hunger and Moral Obligation: The Case Against Singer,” Arthur disagrees with Singer; he believes that we should help the poverty-stricken but, it is not morally imperative to do so.

diplomas that do not certify academic confidence in basic subjects that most schools after high school look for. The money spent on foreign aid can be a lot more beneficial if it’s invested at on the future of the country, rather than helping countries

It should be obvious that this is a dubious metaphor. To begin with (and this will come up again) not all countries are either rich or poor. Furthermore, it is not as clear as Hardin assumes that we lack the resources to save everyone. And the argument from the safety factor may seem dubious. Couldn't we help some people -- even if we select them in a fairly arbitrary way?

Both Hardin and Benjamin make great points about wealthy nations and poor nations receiving and giving aid. We live on the same planet, and use the same resources, if only it was as easy to give resources as it is to use them.

This increases the responsibility of the state for looking after its citizens as the poorer population of the country grows in numbers. Hardin demonstrates this in ‘Living on a Lifeboat’ by examining the rate of reproduction of the poor in comparison to the wealthy. According to Hardin, the population of the poorer classes doubles every thirty-five years, whilst the wealthier classes experience the same growth over a period of eighty-seven years. (Hardin, 1974) In a lifeboat situation, this reproduction rate would mean the poor would be heavily reliant on the income and supplies of the wealthy. Due to this Hardin states that the wealthy must assume that the poor will be self-interested and sharing our resources with them will only be harmful to our own survival. (Hardin, 1974) Why should the wealthy share if they get nothing from the poor in return? They deposit their supplies into a shared collective on the boat and the poor on-board take it without giving anything back. Hardin refers to this as the ‘tragedy of the commons’ and if taken into a real-life situation we are presented with the development of social benefits for the poor - a system in which the rich pay taxes in order for the poor to be financially supported through state benefits, social housing etc. (Hardin,

At first Hardin’s ethics seem rude and selfish, but as you continue reading he makes it clear this may be the only way to save our world and have it become a better place. For instance, "on the average poor countries undergo a 2.5 percent increase in population each year; rich countries, about 0.8 percent. If the poor countries received no food from the out side, the rate of their population growth […]" (Hardin 4). Hardin continues his piece explaining why rich countries should not help poorer countries that are in need. He believes a poor country that needs support needs to learn the hard way, even if that means losing resources or people. His words like "rich countries", "no food" shows the use of a metaphor that Hardin is able to paint a visual illustration of his argument to his audience. This helps influence and persuade his readers because they are able to grasp the whole concept of Hardin’s argument. Hardin also spoke in his essay using the repetition of the words "we" and "us" is a language factor that persuades the audience to accept Hardin’s ideas because it implicates that he and his audience is of equal status. Here, the ethics he reveals in his essay have good reasoning. Helping someone in need has always been a moral in someone’s life. But now, Hardin proposes a new ethic, "lifeboat ethics". Singer, on the other hand, often refers to the fact that nearly one-third of Americans spend their income on luxuries that they “desire” instead of donating the

In Garrett Hardin’s essay, Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor, Hardin describes the wealthy population of the world as being in a single lifeboat that is almost filled until buckling while the poor population of the world treads water below. Hardin’s essay gets his readers to feel the natural instinct to survive. The lifeboat metaphor that Hardin uses relieves the wealthy population of their moral obligations to the less fortunate, but in addition, puts all of the blame and cause of the depletion of earth’s resources on the poor. As much as his argument may make sense,

Mill argues that all sources “of human suffering are in a great degree, many of them almost entirely, conquerable by human care and effort” (Mill 15). Through this statement, Mill and Singer’s perspectives realign. Singer states that “if we stopped feeding animals on grains and soybeans, the amount of food saved would-- if distributed to those who need it-- be more than enough to end hunger throughout the world” (Singer 220). Thus, the problem rests in the selfishness of affluent nations, who do not distribute their grain to poor nations. Singer furthermore argues that we could provide contraceptives to poor nations to slow their birth rates (Singer 241). By evenly distributing food and slowly the birth rate, human suffering caused by absolute poverty could cease to exist.

The author is able to draw his audience in emotionally by speaking of such countries, and how it eventually ties in to the United States, stating that “(if) a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich,” (3) concluding the connection between the U.S. and those countries who have a lower living standard.

Richard Robbins explores and analyzes the creation and the upkeep of hunger in his book “Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism. Each day, over a billion people in the world lack basic food needs. Common misunderstandings about world hunger are that it is the result of insufficient food production, famine is the common reason for hunger and that hunger is caused by overpopulation. Robbins argues against that theory and says that famines is not the leading cause of hunger and hunger is not due to overpopulation or insufficient food production. “Food production is not determined by the global need for food; it is determined on how many people have the means for it” (page 176). The documentary “The End of Poverty” reinforces Robbins belief that food is a commodity.

In the article “ Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor”, Garrett Hardin (1974) argues that rich people should not be responsible for the poor and that the effects of feeding the poor are threatening to the environment. As I stated before, the author’s argument is

Garrett Hardin’s excerpt from “Lifeboat Ethics” first appeared in Psychology Today in September 1974. In this essay, there is a metaphor that rich and poor are very different. I strongly disagree with Hardin’s metaphor even though he is truthful about his beliefs. The metaphor is only being seen in one point of view, when there are multiple ways of looking at it.

Garett Hardin wrote the piece “Lifeboat Ethics,” in which he is giving a scenario that pertains to the poor countries of the world. The world is divided into the global north, being the rich countries, and the global south, being the poor countries. Hardin wants us to imagine that the rich countries have access to a lifeboat and the poor countries are left in the water. Each country has a certain capacity, just like a lifeboat. Hardin wants the reader to come to a conclusion and think critically about the problems going on around the world, by giving the reader a simple idea to create in their mind about a lifeboat. This article was published in 1974 in a manuscript that talked about issuing going against and for aiding the poor. Now although this article was written 42 years ago, we as a nation and country still deal with these issues of immigration and poverty, today.