Garret Hardin in his article “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor”, is attempting to show that we should not give money or resources to poor countries. Hardin recognizes that two-thirds of the world’s nations are poor and one-third of the nations are rich, with the U.S. being the richest. By recognizing this, he understands that there is some moral luck involved depending on if your rich or poor. However, he believes that giving to the poor is a destructive and terrible idea. He uses the analogy of a lifeboat to show that giving to the poor is a bad idea. A lifeboat has a limited capacity size of people that can fit for it to function. In his argument, the lifeboat has some room for more people, but not enough for all the people
…show more content…
Singer argues that if we could save the kid from drowning with little inconvenience, it would be wrong not to save the child. Singer believes this situation is like giving to the poor. Singer states that “if for the cost of a pair of shoes we can contribute to a health program in a developing country that stands a good chance of saving the life of a child, we ought to do so” (Singer 7). If everybody gave a small amount, we would be able to help support developing programs to help poor countries. Singer drowning child argument and Hardin lifeboat argument have overlaps. Both use their hypothetical situation to support their claim about giving to the poor. However, Hardin uses the lifeboat analogy to state that giving to the poor is a handout that would damage us in the long run. Hardin believes it is not our social responsibility to help others, and in fact we have a responsibility to be selfish to a point. Singer believes that if everybody gives a small amount, the cost of developing good programs for the poor would benefit everybody and that we have a social responsibility to help the poor. Singer believes giving a small amount would not affect us that much, as oppose to Hardin who believes it is a determinant to the
Singer argues that if we could save the kid from drowning with little inconvenience, it would be wrong not to save the child. Singer believes this situation is like giving to the poor. Singer states that “if for the cost of a pair of shoes we can contribute to a health program in a developing country that stands a good chance of saving the life of a child, we ought to do so” (Singer 7). If everybody gave a small amount, we would be able to help support developing programs to help poor countries. Singer drowning child argument and Hardin lifeboat argument have overlaps. Both use their hypothetical situation to support their claim about giving to the poor. However, Hardin uses the lifeboat analogy to state that giving to the poor is a handout that would damage us in the long run. Hardin believes it is not our social responsibility to help others, and in fact we have a responsibility to be selfish to a point. Singer believes that if everybody gives a small amount, the cost of developing good programs for the poor would benefit everybody and that we have a social responsibility to help the poor. Singer believes giving a small amount would not affect us that much, as oppose to Hardin who believes it is a determinant to the