While living on this earth do we ever stop and think about how we should try to save our natural resources for future generations, or do we give it away to everyone that is in need of these resources? In his essay, Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor, Garrett Hardin, discusses the plight of overpopulation on our natural resources. Hardin states that for posterity we should not contaminate, waste, or give away our natural resources. He uses a lifeboat metaphor, Hardin explains that there are 50 people on a lifeboat, and 100 swimmers want to get on. If the lifeboat’s capacity is 60 what ten individuals do we choose? Also, if you fill the boat up to its total capacity, you give up your safety factor in case something unforeseeable
…show more content…
Others believe that we should give away to the needy anything above what we need to survive. In his essay, The Singer Solution to World Poverty, Peter Singer states that we should donate everything that is not a necessity. Singer says that in America a family that earns $50,000 per year spends about $30,000 in essentials and that the remaining $20,000 should be given to the poor and not used for luxuries. This amount is extreme Singer is not just saying give what you can; he tells us that we are not to use our money for any luxuries. He even tries to make his audience feel guilty if they don’t abide by his formula. Singer tries to make people who don’t donate generously feel responsible for children who are dying around the world. If having to choose between Hardin’s self-survival and posterity or Singers demand that we live without luxuries so that we can give generously. I’m somewhere in the middle because I like a little of both. I agree with Hardin that we should all help preserve our natural resources for posterity, but I don’t agree that we should refrain from sharing or giving to those in need. I also agree with Singer that we should help children who are experiencing hunger or dying preventable deaths, but I don’t agree with donating everything above our bare necessities. Also, I don’t agree with Singer’s way of trying to make his audience feel guilty or responsible for the children’s
Others believe that we should give away to the needy anything above what we need to survive. In his essay, The Singer Solution to World Poverty, Peter Singer states that we should donate everything that is not a necessity. Singer says that in America a family that earns $50,000 per year spends about $30,000 in essentials and that the remaining $20,000 should be given to the poor and not used for luxuries. This amount is extreme Singer is not just saying give what you can; he tells us that we are not to use our money for any luxuries. He even tries to make his audience feel guilty if they don’t abide by his formula. Singer tries to make people who don’t donate generously feel responsible for children who are dying around the world. If having to choose between Hardin’s self-survival and posterity or Singers demand that we live without luxuries so that we can give generously. I’m somewhere in the middle because I like a little of both. I agree with Hardin that we should all help preserve our natural resources for posterity, but I don’t agree that we should refrain from sharing or giving to those in need. I also agree with Singer that we should help children who are experiencing hunger or dying preventable deaths, but I don’t agree with donating everything above our bare necessities. Also, I don’t agree with Singer’s way of trying to make his audience feel guilty or responsible for the children’s