Global economic justice is a set of moral principles and obligations that guide economic policy. If implemented thoughtfully, it will produce the best possible economic outcomes for all inhabitants of our planet. The purpose of this discourse is to contrast two different approaches. The first approach is Hardin’s lifeboat ethics. In Hardin’s view, developed nations that adopt free immigration policies and give economic assistance to poor nations will pay a heavy price. By contrast, Murdoch and Oaten critique this approach step by step, citing Hardin’s conformation bias, intellectual laziness, and his misguided conceptions and facts. I will use Murdoch and Oaten’s arguments to prove my thesis and critique Hardin’s point of view while looking
…show more content…
By remaining indifferent to the poverty in 3rd world countries, the U.S is sacrificing its national security and influence on the world stage. For instance, imagine a situation where we stopped providing a poor country with aid. If this poor country has a monopoly on a recourse like oil, it could use it as leverage to its advantage. Here, the U.S would feel compelled to intervene, ensuring oil be sold at a reasonable price. At worst, situations like this could lead to catastrophic wars with poor countries armed with nukes like China and India (Murdoch and Oaten, A Critique of Lifeboat Ethics, Pg. 879). If this hypothetical were to take place, global security would be at risk, along with America's influence among other nations. It is in the best interest of the U.S to provide nations with aid, since it will prevent wars and promote …show more content…
For instance, if it was the year 1974, 5 billion a year could provide family planning services to poor nations and a health care program for mothers and infants (excluding China), and a five year literacy program for all adults and children (Murdoch and Oaten, A Critique of Lifeboat Ethics Pg. 883). There is no doubt that the costs of the proposals mentioned above have increased substantially since then, however, with the expansion of new technology and a decrease in defense spending, developed nations can do a great deal to help poorer nations with sustainable
By remaining indifferent to the poverty in 3rd world countries, the U.S is sacrificing its national security and influence on the world stage. For instance, imagine a situation where we stopped providing a poor country with aid. If this poor country has a monopoly on a recourse like oil, it could use it as leverage to its advantage. Here, the U.S would feel compelled to intervene, ensuring oil be sold at a reasonable price. At worst, situations like this could lead to catastrophic wars with poor countries armed with nukes like China and India (Murdoch and Oaten, A Critique of Lifeboat Ethics, Pg. 879). If this hypothetical were to take place, global security would be at risk, along with America's influence among other nations. It is in the best interest of the U.S to provide nations with aid, since it will prevent wars and promote …show more content…
For instance, if it was the year 1974, 5 billion a year could provide family planning services to poor nations and a health care program for mothers and infants (excluding China), and a five year literacy program for all adults and children (Murdoch and Oaten, A Critique of Lifeboat Ethics Pg. 883). There is no doubt that the costs of the proposals mentioned above have increased substantially since then, however, with the expansion of new technology and a decrease in defense spending, developed nations can do a great deal to help poorer nations with sustainable