In 1974, Garrett Hardin, an ecologist and philosopher, published the article, "Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor" subsequently, it received critical controversy in regards to world poverty. In 1999, another philosopher, Peter Singer, published another article called, “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” which also discussed the issue of world poverty. Hardin clearly states the deficiency behind helping the poor, while Singer is in total favor of helping the poor. Each author properly stated their claims and utilized strong imagery to support it. Even though Singer supports helping the poor, there is something that he had overlooked, which is mentioned in Hardin’s article, however, there is something they both overlooked that may be the solution to everything. …show more content…
Singer refers to Peter Unger’s, another philosopher, book, “Living High and Letting Die” and uses a hypothetical case made by Unger, known as The Vintage Sedan, but he alternates certain elements, and the gist of it is: Your dream vehicle, that you own, is on the train tracks and there’s a small child in the distance on the other set of tracks. There’s an incoming train that is rapidly approaching and if it were to continue on its track, it will surely kill the child. You can save your vehicle by using the lever to change the trajectory of the train, but will kill the child, or you can sacrifice your dream vehicle to let the child live. This is an example of a conflict between Morality and Materialism, and since Singer uses many examples of the conflict between Morality and Materialism, it’s clear that Singer opposes capitalism and the many attributes surrounding it. Singer argues, “[...] so much of our income is spent on things not essential to the preservation of our lives and health.” (Singer,
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.
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.
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
As Andrew Kuper, a Fellow of Trinity College of Cambridge and researcher of philosophy, politics, and the modern world, once said "Since the costs to ourselves may be significant, how much ought we to sacrifice?" (Kuper, 1). A direct correspondence of such can be seen in the work of Garrett Hardin, specifically "Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping The Poor," versus Peter Singer, author of "The Singer Solution To World Poverty," and Alan Durning, author of "Asking How Much Is Enough." Garret Hardin, a former professor and ecologist, argues that the wealthier nations of the world need to not allow themselves to get caught up in helping 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,
In “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” by Peter Singer, Singer uses analogies and propaganda to defend his solution for world poverty. In the article, Singer parallels a story of a man choosing to save a car over saving a child with modern Americans choosing luxuries over donating money to save underprivileged children. He provides resources of organizations to help these children, and he continuously describes the problems with both materialism in American society and children who are dying preventable deaths. Singer’s solution is that individuals should simply give away any money that is not absolutely essential for basic necessities.
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
In her informative essay, “Assisting the Poor to Make Bail Helps Everyone”, Tina Rosenberg states the Bronx Freedom Fund is one of the four community organizations in the city that aims to directly help the innocent people accused and wrongfully given dangerous jail time. The author recognizes how the court system makes it almost impossible to make bail when they take your phone, the defendant cannot pay their own bail, and you must pay in cash. These, as well as a few other limitations make it very difficult for the defendant. The process of the court system, in fact, is not keeping the streets any safer, “a drug dealer is more likely to make bail than a shoplifter”(Rosenberg). Ritchin, head of the Bronx Freedom Fund, offers those who are not fortunate enough to make bail a third option, one that is much more helpful and safe.
After reading Peter Marin’s article what I thought he was trying to infer by tilting this article “Helping and Hating the Homeless” was the different views that our society has today on homeless people. Peter Marin’s goal in this article is to really educate people on homelessness and inform people that it isn't always caused by what we think it is. Many people think that the homeless are just a bunch of lazy people who don't want to work or who are drug addicts and cant function, when that actually always isn't the cause. Homeless people are mostly viewed by Americans as annoying people who they don't want to be bothered by. Peter Marin talks about how most homeless folks are average middle class people before they reach that stage and how
Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor by Garrett Hardin, questions environmentalists “spaceship” metaphor when describing Earths natural resources. He asks, “Does everyone on earth have an equal right to an equal share of its resources?” Hardin introduces the lifeboat metaphor in which one third of the world is rich and two thirds is poor. The rich are safe on lifeboats while the poor swim around wanting to board.
Peter Singer is often regarded as one of the most productive and influential philosophers of modern times. He is well-known for his discussions of the acute social, economic, and political issues, including poverty and famines. In his “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, Singer (1972) discusses the problem of poverty and hunger, as well as the way this problem is treated in the developed world. Singer believes that charity is inseparable from morality, and no distinction can be drawn between charity and duty. The philosopher offers possible objections to his proposition and relevant arguments to justify his viewpoint. The modern world does not support Singer’s view, treating charity as a voluntary activity, an act of generosity that needs
Singer offers many objections to his argument, but I will focus on the most important one: “If someone wants to buy a new car, they should. If someone wants to redecorate their house, they should, and if they need a suit, get it. They work for their money and they have the right to spend it on themselves” (26). This seems to be the most logical objection to Singer’s argument because humans are inherently selfish. They work for their money and would like to spend it any which way they desire—whether it be to charity or a car—without being chastised and degraded. Many people make enough to send their children to college, own a reliable car, and to occasionally be able to
Since 1991, the southern half of Somalia, a poverty stricken African nation, has seen various tribal militias battle for dominance and power over individual regions of the country. Violence has plagued Mogadishu, the capital, since warlords ousted the former president. Mere months after the collapse of the government, men, women and children in torn clothes ran helplessly towards packages dropped from military planes towards the hot sand of their tiny village. This action was one of many attempts to help underdeveloped nations receive food by the United Nations' World Food Programme. Within his article titled "Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor", Garret Hardin, a well-known philosopher of ecology, analyzes the difficulty
- No! You Cannot Come in Garrett Hardin writes about saving the poor in his essay"Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against the Poor" found in The Blair Reader. Hardin writes about how the rich countries are in the lifeboat and the poor countries are swimming in the ocean. He also writes about how the United States helps other countries. Hardin feels that if the government keeps helping other countries and letting people in then America will also drown. "We must convince them if we wish to save at least part of the world form environmental ruin"(page 765). Why should I help the poor countries? Why should I let the immigrants in? I see no reason for helping someone that