The United States Should Stop Sending Aid For Foreign Countries Essay

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.

Picture living in a community where every minute of every day you were hungry, under-clothed, and afraid death because you are poor. A world in which child dies of hunger every 5 seconds. Now imagine waking up and your biggest problem was which sweater to wear with which jeans. Even though this seems hard to imagine, this life of poverty has been a reality for most people for ages. Before the1900s, few wealthy people would ever think about poverty. Two prominent authors were Garrett Hardin and Peter Singer, who wrote essays about human poverty. They questioned whether to confront the issue of poverty or to ignore it. The first essay is "Life Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor" from the

In Garrett Hardin’s essay “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor,” Hardin asks readers if every person on earth has an equal share of resources and then argues why he takes the position against helping the poor. Hardin uses the metaphor of a lifeboat that is almost filled to capacity, floating in an ocean where the “poor of the world” are overboard. This metaphor appeals greatly to one of humanities greatest instincts, survival. The main focus of Hardin’s essay and metaphor is to strip all morals, take the fault from the rich nations and place the responsibilities and blame on the poor. There are a few rebels who seem to think that the blame and responsibilities are incorrectly placed. One of these rebels is Alan Durning who presents his argument in his essay “Asking How Much is Enough.” Durning argues that overpopulation does not threaten the world’s resources. He believes the real culprit is overconsumption by the rich. Joseph K. Skinner is another rebel who argues against Hardin in his essay “Big Mac and the Tropical Forests.” Skinner argues that wealthy nations, including the United States, are responsible for the world’s resource problem because they use poor nations as main producers of goods they expend. The arguments made in the essays’ by Durning and Skinner make readers alert of Hardin’s rhetorical strategies and how he uses his

Philosophers, Peter Singer’s and Onora O’Neill’s attempt to draw connection between poverty and moral philosophy and how aid should be directed towards groups in absolute poverty. The aim of this paper is to provide an extensive analysis on the work of both the philosophers’ while outlining some of the limitations each of the theories has.

Jan Narveson 's Moral Matters plays an important, if controversial role in the field of applied ethics. Narveson 's unique, contractarian approach analyzes ideas as diverse as suicide, abortion, sexual ethics and affirmative action. Amongst the more contentious aspects of the thoughts expressed in the book is his view of global poverty. Narveson extends foundationalist, anarcho-capitalist approach to this issue; arguing that while charity is morally virtuous, there is no moral obligation on the part of the global rich or developed nation to alleviate the global poor from their precarious position. He also argues that by continuing free trade, enough economic growth will occur to relieve the global poor regardless. *This essay will elaborate on Narveson 's position on global povery and criticize said position in the following aspects; *it 's counter intuitiveness*, *descent into skepticism or relativism* and a failure to account for the interconnectivity found in global financial institutions, *capitalism* and climate change.

In this essay I am going to argue that affluent citizens have a moral obligation to address severe poverty. I will start by examining the premises in Peter Singer’s argument in Famine Affluence and Morality and will show that his argument is valid by going through each of the premises and showing that the conclusion logically follows from them. I will then consider a number of objections to each of the premises and will show that the criticisms fail to vilify his argument. I will finally point out the two main issues with Singer’s argument and propose a way of strengthening his argument.

Peter Singer discusses that we have extensive responsibilities to the people of the world who are in poverty, nonetheless he wants you to recognise that we can encounter these responsibilities without altogether losing our worldly materialistic properties. He starts his rationalisation by emphasizing the realities which blatantly distinguish between our way of life and those who struggle to meet their "basic human needs for adequate food, water, shelter, clothing, sanitation, health care or education" (2011: 191). This is a strong and unbiased approach that makes even the most agreeable objections ethically inadequate. In relation to describing the ‘us’ in Singer’s argument it is vital to remember his collocation of absolute and absolute poverty.

As long as the human race has been on this Earth there have always been those who are above the rest with their wealth and prosperity and those who are poor and could use a hand. With this rises the dilemma of whether it is a moral obligation for those who are wealthy to lend a helping hand to the hungry people that are less fortunate than them. That brings the question of what would this moral obligation be; would it be something that we perceive as being the correct thing to do or an actual obligation that is required of us. The two men whose articles I will be discussing today have differing views when it comes to this subject. On one hand we have Garrett Hardin who believes that aiding the poor is the wrong course of action. We then have Peter Singer who believes that is should be an obligation for all of us to help those in need. While Garrett Hardin makes a strong argument as to why we should not provide aid to the poor it is Peter Singer’s argument that gives a more compelling reason as to why it is right for us to aid those in need.

Introduction: In the essay ‘’Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor,’’ Garrett Hardin argues that wealthy and more prosperous nations of the world should not be responsible for supporting the poor. I completely disagree with the idea of ignoring the needs of the poor nations. People that have better lives and live in wealthy countries should use their power and privilege in order to help people in need. Everyone deserves a chance to create a good life and immigrate to a developing country.

Nowadays, the process of globalization strengthens the connections between numerous countries across the world, and enables people living in developed countries to help those who are experiencing famine, deaths and diseases in poor countries. However, the moral necessity of doing so has been controversial in human’s society for years. One philosopher named Peter Singer gives his opinion in the article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, and presents a powerful argument supporting his claim. In this essay, I will explain his conclusion and main argument, propose one objection to his argument, and evaluate the validity of my objection by considering possible response that Peter Singer would make to my objection.

Poverty for centuries has been a very severe issue that has troubled many nations while impeding economic developments and progress. Poverty stricken countries are majorly concentrated in the continents of Africa and Asia. Continents like the Americas and Europe have globally been recognized as been wealthier yet still many parts of these ostensible countries face massive cases of poverty. Most at times, countries with high populations owing to high birth rates face the most cases of poverty. The definition of poverty can be boundless in the sense that poverty entails so many subsections as it sometimes gets complicated to group everything under one umbrella. Society tends to focus more on the tangible aspects of poverty because many people associate poverty with lacking money and it makes sense because poverty in terms of lacking money is a major problem affecting almost every country in the world. Even though it is debatable that poverty can be physical, intellectual, spiritual and even emotional, it is best to talk about the lack of money and economic developments in this essay. With reference to the oxford English Dictionary, poverty is state of being extremely poor and the state of being inferior in quality or insufficient in amount. Reflecting on this definition given, I deduced that malnutrition and hunger can define poverty. In the light of this, I think poverty is lacking a comfortable place of shelter, being ill and not having access to a better

Many describe poverty as an economic deprivation, or lack of income. However, this alone does not incorporate the different social, cultural and political aspects of this unfortunate reality. Poverty is not only a deprivation of economic or material resources but a violation of human dignity. The general scarcity, lack, or the state of one without a specific amount of material possessions or money. It is a versatile concept that may be defined as either absolute or relative. Time and again, poverty is a call to action, for the poor and the wealthy alike, it is a call to change the world so that many more may have enough to eat, adequate shelter, access to education and health, protection from violence, and a voice in what happens in their communities.

One can easily identify the fact that poverty is generally considered as one among the most serious problems in human life. But the mainstream society provides less importance to this serious problem because human life did undergo transformation from empathy to disinterestedness. The western nations are comparatively safe from poverty and related issues, but the third-world nations are under the threat of the same. The problems related to global poverty is unimaginable because it forces human beings to do anything, just for survival. Still, world nations, especially the developed nations, can play the most important role in alleviating poverty from the world. Thesis statement: Global poverty, the most serious problem faced by humanity primarily

Over the last 50 years, the world has struggled to maintain an economic balance and stability, while flourishing countries try to maintain a steady income to support its people and relations with other countries. Therefore, when a continent like Africa fails to maintain a stable government and economy, super powers such as America decide to intervene with its relations. Africa has great potential to become another pillar of the world’s economic structure with its mass amounts of uncultivated land. Unfortunately, corruption and irresponsible governments hinder that progress. Foreign aid while helpful should be limited to a yearly amount because it allows the government to repudiate responsibility and gives room for corruption; it creates a