Response To Garrett Hardin's Lifeboat Ethics

Over three billion people in the world today live on less than two dollars and fifty cents. With such a large portion of the world living in abject poverty, questions have been raised about the duty of those who are more well off to those in need.The most compelling and sensible of the pieces responding to this issue would be the one from Garrett Hardin Lifeboat Ethics due to its realistic approach to the ethics involved in the distribution of resources. Garrett Hardin’s Lifeboat Ethics provides the best response to the question on what is an individual's responsibility to the community due to its realistic approach to the ethics involved in the distribution of resources. For example, Harding explains why only a few select group of people …show more content…
According to Peter Singer, “If the upshot of the American's failure to donate the money is that one more kid dies on the streets of a Brazilian city, then it is, in some sense, just as bad as selling the kid to the organ peddlers.” When making this argument, Peter Singer essentially blames a large group of people he doesn’t knows for the plight of someone that they never met. He’s taking away responsibility from those responsible for the boys condition like the organ peddlers, the woman who knowingly gave him to the organ peddlers, and the government for the misuse of resources that could have prevented the child from suffering and placing it on people who have no personal connections to the boy. If paying responsibility to the community means that if you don’t pay a large portion of your money(the amount Americans should pay should be thirty thousand dollars annually according to Peter Singer) to someone you never met, someone who you will never meet, someone who can be saved by those who are closer and much more suited for the task, then Hardin was right when he said, “The concept of pure justice produces an infinite regression to