Pros And Consequences Of Lifeboat Ethics

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

Garrett Hardin published in Psychology Today in September 1974. This passage is an excerpt from his popular paper “The Tragedy of the Commons” as a warning that overpopulation was dangerous due to how limited Earth’s resources are. This theory is reflected in Hardin’s thesis that the rich should do nothing to help the people of poor nations and turn away those trying to come in. Hardin used the imagery of a lifeboat almost filled in a sea full of drowning people to pose and answer a single question, “what should the lifeboat passengers do?” (290). Hardin's answer was to defend the boat against all trying to board. If anyone felt guilty about this course of action they should feel free to swap places with a drowning man and give them their

In the essay Lifeboat Ethics by Garrett Hardin and the essay A Challenge to the Eco-Doomsters by Walter Benjamin, there are many things I agree and disagree with. Both essays make very good points with facts to back them up. But I can’t help but side with Hardin on his essay Lifeboat Ethics. In this essay I am going to compare and contrast some of the similarities and differences between Hardin and Benjamin’s essays about the aid the United States provides to poor nations all over the world by reducing pollution, controlling population growth, and the dependency of economical imports and exports.

In his paper published in 1974 entitled ‘Living on a Lifeboat’, Garrett Hardin condenses the issues of foreign aid, growing populations and immigration amongst other things to a metaphor of people living on a lifeboat. In the paper Hardin’s premise is that each country represents a lifeboat, which can only hold a certain capacity depending on the relative size of the country that the boat represents. The capacity of each boat symbolizes the weight of responsibility that is placed on a state when caring for its citizens as well as the possibility of allowing new citizens onto the ‘boat’. This essay will discuss Hardin’s thesis for lifeboat ethics by outlining the problems faced in maintaining a stable lifeboat by examining the issues of immigration,

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

Regardless of the ever-so-sensitive metaphor of a lifeboat, Hardin uses an appeal to force, or ad baculum, to make his point. He basically states, "If everyone, rich and poor nations alike, is let on the lifeboat, then everyone will die. We don't want everyone to die, so everyone shouldn't come onto the lifeboat, as in the wealthy should stay where they are."

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,

This is the scenario of the Lifeboat Ethics in which Hardin relates this lifeboat to the space ship Earth. It goes that the lifeboat is the wealth nations and the people in the water are the poor or unfortunate. All ethic beliefs have flaws and strong points, as you will see in the following explanations. The 5 ethical theories have a one or two examples explaining how someone would go about making this decision from the view of: Divine Command Theory, Egoism, Utilitarianism, Kantian Ethics, and Natural Law. All five have ethic believes do justice, but have flaws, and strong point. An ethic theory to solve a problem is good. Following

Often throughout life you are approached with situations that may make you question your ethics. This could very well happen in any profession, on any day. Being a part of the military is one of those professions that could put individuals in many moral/ethical dilemmas. “An ethical or moral dilemma is a situation in which a person is required by their ethical code to take at least two actions and, while able to take either, is not able to take both. In other words, they face an ethical failure no matter how they choose to act” (“What is an ethical dilemma?”, 2007). The popular movie film Lone Survivor has a few points where ethical dilemma stands out.

In his essay, Famine, Affluence, and Morality, Peter Singer talks about the need to help other countries who are suffering. He says “As I write this, in November 1971, people are dying in East Bengal from lack of food, shelter, and medical care.” Singer was making the point that while richer countries are spending money on pointless things, people in poorer countries are dying. In Garrett Hardin’s, Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor, he talks about who should be saved first, the rich or the poor?

Words on a piece of paper no matter how powerful they are in my humble opinion will never help an unethical person have morals , distinguish right from wrong or even be honest. It’s in their character, their moral fiber if you will.

Hardin’s lifeboat analogy proposes an interesting situation. If a lifeboat with 50 people on board and a capacity of 60 floated past 100 other people in the water, who would we take, if anyone? If we tried to take everyone, the boat would capsize and everyone would either become stranded or die. It would lead to “complete justice, complete catastrophe” (Hardin 1). If we took no one, we would constantly have to stave off desperate people climbing on board and those who claim entitlement. If we decide to push our lifeboat to its limits, and add 10 more people, how would we choose who to take? What I gather from this is that there’s no truly correct solution. If we take everyone, we all die. If we take no one, we get shamed and blamed for leaving others behind. If we take a select few, we get called out as biased by those who weren’t selected.

Ethics of Emergencies “The Ethics of Emergencies” explains Ayn Rand’s radical and unique view of altruism. She believes that there are 4 consequences of altruism, all of which are negative. These, simply put, are lack of self-esteem, lack of respect for others, a pessimistic view of life, and an indifference to ethics. She says that altruism hinders acts of true benevolence, and instead people act out of an obligation to others that has been internalized over time. Rand then argues that one should only volunteer to help strangers in emergency situations, and even then, only when the risk to one’s own life is less than the risk to the stranger’s. Rand advocates action in such emergencies because of the high value of human life. But Rand

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.

The example of the sinking ship and Holmes’ decision to throw people off of the lifeboat represents an Act Utilitarian belief. Holmes’ decision making process can be seen as morally right when one assesses the amount of pleasure and pain that can be expected from his actions. The lifeboat is the only method of getting to shore, and the less people that are in it the better the chance they all have of surviving since it will be less likely that the lifeboat will capsize. The boat holds fourteen people, so it is best to take exactly