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

1201 Words Oct 31st, 2016 5 Pages
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" (citation); 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 (citation). Both authors take extreme positions on whether we should be involved in helping the famine or not. This essay will analyze the rational of both authors’ while trying to provide reason that both views are extreme and a middle ground should be taken instead.(tygerwolf… return here upon completion)
(2)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 (citation). Singer’s principle is reflected by the analogy that if a person sees a child drowning in a pond, that person ought to pull the child out - that’s because the child’s death is very bad…

Related Documents