Famine, Affluence, And Morality By Garrett Hardin 's Lifeboat Ethics

1468 Words Nov 6th, 2016 6 Pages
(Intro) Peter Singer’s “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” and Garrett Hardin’s “Lifeboat ethics” are contradictory philosophical works that examine whether scarce resources should be shared with the poor. Singer’s argument is that “suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care are bad" (Singer, 1972); therefore all people become morally obligated to help the poor. While Hardin argues that ethics of a Lifeboat should be followed because there is a finite amount of resources available at our disposal (Hardin, 1974, pp.566). Both authors take extreme positions by providing opposing arguments on whether we should be involved in helping the famine or not. This essay will analyze the rational of both authors’ while trying to show that both authors essentially argue for the same case- to bring the greatest amount of good of the greatest number of people. This is done by merging a combination of arguments that both Singer and Harding have to offer.
(Explication) Singer’s “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” is concerned with the ideology that people are not doing what it takes to help the famine. Rather he argues, that it’s a moral obligation for everyone to help the famine. That’s because people dying from famine and starvation contributes to one’s suffering. He mentions that “if it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought, morally, to do it”
(Singer, 1972).…

Related Documents