Lifeboat Ethics The Case Against Helping The Poor Analysis

What is our moral responsibility as affluent Americans in regard to the poor? This is a debate that does not have an easy yes or no answer and which can easily lead to hurt feelings. Is it better to help out those in need even though it can have negative results, or is it better to just leave them to fend for themselves? In his essay “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer argues that it is the moral responsibility of the affluent and well off to help those in poor circumstances while Garret Hardin in his essay, “Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor,” does not disagree with Singer but explains why helping the poor may not be the preferred method in resolving their issues. One of the big questions that both of these cases address is whose responsibility is it to care for the poor and needy and what are the consequences of each? While there is no definitive correct position, there is a more “right” answer. It is the responsibility of the individuals in society, meaning those who have the resources to help financially, and not the government.
The focus of both essays is on the battle to …show more content…
The question is, “when should the government help?” I do not believe that the poverty in India spanning hundreds of years is the government’s problem, the government should become involved in emergency situations only. Terror attacks, wars, and natural disasters are great opportunities for the government to give initial help. These are events that occur suddenly and where immediate help is needed, however, after stemming the initial problem, the government should step back and let private organizations take charge. For example, an earthquake in Haiti, aid should be sent initially to help those people remain alive until private organizations can come in and help after which the government should