The Case Against Helping The Poor

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 Peter Singer’s 1972 post titled “Famine, Affluence and Morality”, he conveys that wealthy nations, for example the United States, has an ethical duty to contribute much a lot more than we do with regards to worldwide assistance for famine relief and/or other disasters or calamities which may happen. In this document, I will describe Singers objective in his work and give his argument with regards to this problem. I will describe 3 counter-arguments to Singer’s view which he tackles, and after that reveal Singer’s reactions to those counter-arguments. I will explain Singer’s idea of marginal

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.

John Arthur and Peter Singer have different views when it comes to Famine Relief and the “Ideal Moral Code”. Both theories are intuitive; yet clash heads at the idea of an opinion other than their own. They essentially both argue for what is our true duty.

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

In “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer claims that “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.” Additionally, Singer believes that distance is no excuse for allowing something bad to happen; thus, we ought to help people on the other side of the world the same way we would help a neighbor – even though we may feel further inclined to help our neighbors. Moreover, Singer states that people should help as much as possible, without putting themselves or their dependents at risk of suffering. Peter Singer is correct in stating that people with the capacity to prevent something bad from occurring should do so; however,

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 paper explores Peter Singer’s argument, in Famine, Affluence, and Morality, that we have morally required obligations to those in need. The explanation of his argument and conclusion, if accepted, would dictate changes to our lifestyle as well as our conceptions of duty and charity, and would be particularly demanding of the affluent. In response to the central case presented by Singer, John Kekes offers his version, which he labels the and points out some objections. Revisions of the principle provide some response to the objections, but raise additional problems. Yet, in the end, the revisions provide support for Singer’s basic argument that, in some way, we ought to help those in need.

In Peter Singer’s essay “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”, published on September 5th, 1999 in The New York Times Magazine, Singer claims that the solution to world poverty is for Americans to donate excess income to aid organizations. His article consists of a gathering of exaggerated situations which he uses to engage readers, while also adequately supporting an argument of moral duty by comparing the hypothetical scenarios to Americans who do not donate. Singer exhibits an appeal to pathos to a substantial amount throughout his article. The provided situations set an outline for the reader to feel certain, appealing emotions.

In his article Rich and Poor, Peter Singer argues that we have a moral obligation to give assistance to people in absolute poverty. He derived this conclusion from three premises. The first states that if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, then we ought to it. The second premise is that absolute poverty is a bad thing. The third premise is that we are able to alleviate some portion of absolute poverty without giving up anything of comparable moral significance. To illustrate the urgency of our duty to assist the poor, he believes that in a case where we happen to walk pass a child drowning in a shallow pond, the vast majority of people would agree that it would be seriously morally wrong to not rescue the child. Connecting this scenario to Singer’s argument, we can say it is seriously morally wrong to not assist the poor because the lives of these people in need are of greater moral importance than the excess income we would otherwise spend on luxury goods. Thus, Singer is correct in saying that we have a moral obligation to assist the poor, and that failing to do so is equally as morally wrong as failing to rescue the drowning child.

Peter Singer provides the specific number, $200, to demonstrate how reasonable it is to save a child in poverty. Additionally, he repeats, “to save a child’s life,” which demonstrates exactly what a $200 donation could do for a helpless child. As an example, Singer references a credible philosopher, Peter Unger, and acknowledges that, “by his calculation, $200 in donations would help a sickly 2-year-old transform into a healthy 6-year-old.” Next, he establishes that, “if you were to give up dining out just for one month, you would easily save that amount.” Singer emphasises this to show the reader how simple it is to save $200, and, more importantly, save a child’s life. By repeating this number multiple times, following with, “to save a child’s life,” throughout his essay, Singer implies a reasonable yet urgent tone in order to convince the reader that if they donate, they will save a

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

In this paper I will begin by explaining Singer’s utilitarian argument in “The Life You Can Save” regarding the obligation of affluent nations to give in order to alleviate global poverty. Secondly, I will analyze one objection to Singer’s argument that opposes charity. Thirdly, after examining the objection to Singer’s argument, I will present Singer’s noteworthy reply. Finally, after offering both an objection to Singer’s argument, as well as Singer’s rebuttal, I will offer my own view on whether or not Singer’s refutation is convincing.

Although theories that suggest the non-existence of true altruism may be persuasive, it does not explain the reasons for selfless deeds done by famous figures for their love and services to people such as Mother Teresa. Batson (1991) suggested a hypothesis and feels that some people are genuinely concerned about other people’s welfare. According to his empathy-altruism hypothesis, empathic concerns produce altruism motivation and relieving their sufferings is the main priority. This hypothesis is supported by several experiments where participants are typically given an opportunity to help those in need for whom they have been led to different levels of empathic concerns.