Garrett Hardin Lifeboat Ethics Summary

Improved Essays
In Garrett Hardin’s “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor”, Hardin argues about “a world that must solve real and pressing problems of overpopulation, hunger and moral duty.” Hardin sets the stage by first giving his analysis on the structure of the world today by describing the earth as a lifeboat rather than a spaceship. He then dives into how population control, the tragedy of the commons and immigration are some of the main reasons for the problems we have today. Hardin argues that simply helping people and giving charitably will not solve these problems. Peter Singer, in “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” seemingly goes against Hardin by saying that “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby …show more content…
A spaceship metaphor to describe earth would be that “no single person or institution has the right to destroy, waste, or use more than a fair share of its resources.” Hardin argues that the earth is not a spaceship because there is no “captain” for the earth or one controlling entity. Hardin describes the earth as being divided into rich countries and poor countries while rich countries are the on the lifeboat and poor countries are in the ocean struggling to survive and hoping to get on the lifeboat. Hardin asks the question, “How do you pick who gets on the boat”. If you let too many people onto the lifeboat, the resources might run out, diseases might spread, and the lifeboat sinks. Help a few people, guilt and the constant need to guard against people boarding arises. This problem of who gets help and who doesn’t get help leads to the need of population control. Maybe there are just too many …show more content…
Instead he’s advocating that more can be done to help people in poorer countries. He gives an example of how a lot more money is spent of questionable things such as the Anglo-French Concorde project which was projected to cost £440,000,000, while Britain to that date, had only given £14,750,000 to the East Bengal refugees. In addition, Hardin’s argument doesn’t prove that Singer is wrong because Singer accepts that giving and helping is important but controlling population growth is important as well. Singer says that “I accept that the earth cannot support indefinitely a population rising at the present rate… The conclusion that should be drawn is that the best means of preventing famine, in the long run, is population control”. This shows that Singer and Hardin agree on a few

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Life Boat Ethics Analysis

    • 738 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Garrett Hardin, the author of this essay, is trying to explain this topic as survival of the fittest by saying that the wealthier countries and the people that…

    • 738 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Second Argument Evaluation, Singer: Morality’s Ambivalent Behavior in the Face of Affluence In the piece “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer puts forth his argument that “if it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything else morally significant, we ought, morally, to do it,” (Cahn, 505). In his argument Singer claims that men have the moral responsibility to prevent suffering when it does not negatively impact “himself or his dependents” (Cahn, 508), and that the refusal of this prescribed human duty makes him morally incompetent. The extended example that Singer uses as the basis of his argument is the mass famine that struck East Bengal in the 1970s, an issue that received much media coverage, yet—despite its fame—received little help from affluent countries and their constituents. In using this example, Singer exemplifies the ignorance of the prosperous bodies as they chose to allow tragedy to strike…

    • 836 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Aiding all those in absolute poverty could lead to massive overpopulation and the decreasing development of richer nations. An argument supporting this objection is that it is better to save some people rather than none, however some people must still be left behind. I believe that Singer does have a point about helping out the poor but he fails to establish that we absolutely have a duty to help everyone Singer’s other article, All Animals Are Equal, makes claims that we as human beings should show the same respect to the lives of non-humans so that all animals are equal.…

    • 744 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Moral Comparability In Famine, Affluence, and Morality by Peter Singer, he argues that we are morally obligated to donate as much money to charity as we can to help limit poverty in the world. Singer explains that there are many people in the world suffering from poverty, and living very poor-quality lives as a result of poverty. He argues that poverty is morally wrong because of the suffering it promotes. Singer believes it is the moral obligation of humans to donate as much as they can to help limit the suffering of the poor in the world, without sacrificing anything moral comparability. In this paper, I will argue that Singer uses vague language to describe what the line is for moral comparability.…

    • 1246 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Singer sets the stage for his argument by his first premise, which he believes most would agree too, that human suffering and death due to a deficiency of food, shelter, and medical aide are bad (231). Secondly, he states that if it is in one’s power to prevent something bad from happening, without having to sacrifice anything of equal moral importance, we morally ought to do it. He implies that…

    • 1497 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    Peter Singer Famine

    • 1735 Words
    • 7 Pages

    To Hardin, it is nationhood and the concept of overpopulation that should dictate an individual’s role in helping the poor. He believes those that live far away on other continents, or within other states, should not receive help from those in wealthy nations like the United States. American citizens, according to Hardin, have no obligation to help those that are starving in other countries, even as a result of a failing government. He believes that any foreign aid given to states will only lead to worse outcomes for the rest of the world. If countries provide foreign aid, “poor countries will not learn to mend their ways, and will suffer progressively great emergencies as their population grows.”…

    • 1735 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    What Makes the World Go Round Professor of Bioethics, Peter Singer, explains in the article “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” that all prosperous people should give all money that is not needed for basic necessities to places that are in need of food and medicine. As an American, I have knowledge this argument would shake up America as a whole. This could create a world of giving up the Capitalistic ways of America and the economic food chain. On the other hand, it could create a world of kindness and less violence. Can you imagine giving up your freedom to help others?…

    • 1058 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Throughout the essay, Hardin relates overpopulation and tragedy of the commons to the Lifeboat analogy-thus Lifeboat ethics should be used. (Main Argument) Singer’s essay is trying to convince that everyone should reduce suffering by any means necessary. He puts a great emphasis on helping those who are distant from us. Singer links this case back to the analogy of the drowning child, he argues that if there are a lot of people surrounding the drawing child and no one is helping him out-…

    • 1468 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    What is Utilitarianism? Utilitarianism is a philosophical concept that holds an action to be held right if it tends to promote happiness for the greatest number of people. Utilitarian’s define the morally right actions as those actions that maximize happiness and minimize misery. Many believe that utilitarianism is an unrealistic theory. Arguments and responses to utilitarianism being too demanding have been made John Stuart Mill and Peter Singer.…

    • 783 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In this paper I will reconstruct Singer’s argument as well as argue why his argument is unsound. In Singer’s paper, Famine, Affluence and Morality, he argues that any kind of suffering from lack of food, healthcare and shelter is a bad thing. He further argues that if we have the ability to prevent something bad from happening, that it is our duty as moral beings to prevent suffering unless we have to sacrifice something of significant moral importance. In class we called it the prevent suffering principle. An example that Singer gives is of the prevent suffering principle is to imagine a young child drowning in a shallow pond.…

    • 815 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Peter Singer Analysis

    • 1509 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Many would agree that murder is the most morally atrocious and impermissible thing that an autonomous being can commit. As well, many would agree that there is a certain moral obligation that everyone should have to their fellow man, and hence feel some obligation to help prevent the suffering of a fellow man if the opportunity presents itself. However, how far does that obligation stretch? Does it go beyond the bounds of only being morally responsible for the circumstances that you can see in front of you? Or are people in a way just as much responsible for all the suffering throughout the world that we have the capability to help prevent; such as the suffering of the global poor.…

    • 1509 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Suppose there was a boat with only ten available spots left, the answer for all three suggestions Hardin suggested is simple. First, allow the extra ten people on board, of course with the most sensible selection of those ten. Then let the others know that you will come back for them, meaning you will try to do your best to think of a solution to help the poor. Next, look for others who would be willing to help get the others out of the water. For example, the wealthy should contribute with shelter, clothing and food for the poor.…

    • 751 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    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.…

    • 817 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Life You Can Save Argument

    • 1197 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Peter Singer’s main philosophy is that no child or adult living in poor countries should die due to a lack of fresh water, food or basic health and medical needs. He gives examples like the drowning child to make people aware that, if it is in your power to prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything as valuable or important, then it is wrong not to do so. Mr. Singer feels that people that live and receive beyond their basic needs should contribute to aid agencies. Singer believes that spending extra money on luxuries while 10 million children are dying due to poverty is just utterly and morally erroneous. Thus, John Arthur is also a utilitarian and believes that people should contribute to aid agencies that will stop unfortunate people from dying each year due to poverty.…

    • 1197 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Everyday millions of people around the world suffer in circumstances, in which they could die from lack of proper care and resources. In Famine, Affluence, and Morality, Peter Singer acknowledges this issue facing humanity and argues for the moral obligation to give large amounts of money to those in need. Singer believes that all who are able should be giving up many, if not all of their luxuries to help give the less fortunate their necessities. I will begin by summarizing the argument that Singer dictates in his article and then explain my reasoning for believing his notions to be sound and valid.…

    • 2212 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Superior Essays