Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping The Poor, By Garrett Hardin

Improved Essays
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

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    In Garrett Hardin’s essay, Lifeboat Ethics, he emphasizes on the ethical issue of how to judiciously help the poor and the argument behind it. In the beginning of the essay Hardin responds to the comparison of Earth as a spaceship, by stating that it can be dangerous when used by misguided idealists to justify suicidal policies for sharing our resources through uncontrolled immigration and foreign aid. Interestingly enough, he prefers to address the issue with a lifeboat metaphor, in which refers to the rich nations (such as the United States) as being aboard the boat, as well as the poor nations who are swimming around the boats for…

    • 109 Words
    • 1 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    He introduces his idea by telling readers about a film called Central Station where a woman named Dora can possibly make one thousand dollars by delivering a homeless boy (who is nine years old) to a designated home. Dora doesn't find out the boy was being taken to be killed and have his organs donated until she leaves him, however, she decided to deal with the consequences and rescue the boy from death. Singer relates this to many situations; he compares it to Americans who waste money on things such as upgrading to the latest in technology. He also gives an example where a man has to pick between killing a boy he never met or crashing into his beloved car that’s worth thousands of dollars. The man picked saving his car; and Singer says that people do this every day when they decide to spend their extra money on the finer things rather than making a donation, meaning that people who don't donate don't value a life.…

    • 846 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Singer contends that we generally have an ethical obligation and duty to help those at risk, and spare them wherever possible. Narveson believes that while it is noble to help another person on the off chance that it bears the little cost to ourselves, this isn't required for us to be…

    • 816 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Singer does not provide criteria to decide on what is morally comparable. Also, I will deny Singer’s conclusion that we are obligated to donate as much as we can to help end poverty. I will argue that donating to charity is supererogatory, which means that donating to charity is not obligated, but instead a positive thing to do. I will also deny his second premise which states that it is our moral responsibility to prevent bad things from happening to other people.…

    • 1246 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Peter Singer Argument

    • 1206 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The argument to which Singer lays his claim would be pragmatic in an idealistic world. However, this world in which human existence thrives is far from being in a state that is unimpeded by flaws. Singer argues that those who earn enough to spend their extra money on luxuries should instead donate those funds to overseas organizations to help combat poverty. This proposal is unrealistic due to reasons that you can’t expect beings who carry faultful qualities to amend their ways without delay. Many individuals who have become accustomed to living an affluent lifestyle, will feel reluctant towards Singer’s proposal due to the fear that it will jeopardize their comfortable way of life.…

    • 1206 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved 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
  • 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…

    • 994 Words
    • 4 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
  • Superior Essays

    In life we are faced with a series of “big questions”. These questions answer whether we are decently moral people. The ‘big question” we are going to tackle is ‘are we under an obligation to save lives?’ If so, what is required of us to be a morally decent person? In “The Gift” by Parker we learn that Zell Kravinsky would take a utilitarian approach to this question.…

    • 1409 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior 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
  • Great Essays

    He does this first by presenting a drowning child situation that attempts to convince people to agree with his main moral principle that people are morally obligated to prevent bad things from happening that would not result in a loss of something of equal moral value. Singer claims that should a person agree that one is morally obligated to save a drowning child with the cost of dirtying their clothes, they therefore must also agree to donate their surplus of money until they themselves are in poverty, because doing so would not risk anything of equal moral value. Contrary to Singer’s argument, one might still be able to agree with his main moral principle without donating all of their money to help prevent poverty. It follows logically this main moral principle is equally applicable to other issues such as the environment, as the degradation of the environment is another bad thing that is preventable to the same extent as poverty. With critical analyzes of Singer’s argument, it may be concluded that one may consistently agree with the initial premises of Singer’s argument without agreement to his conclusion of morally obligatory…

    • 1478 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In efforts to find summum bonum or the ultimate good, philosophers during the 20th century began to investigate ethical issues, and tried to create their own versions of an ideal moral code. During this time, John Stuart Mill and Peter Singer base their ethical beliefs in the philosophy of utilitarianism. Both Mill’s essay Utilitarianism and Singer’s work Famine, Affluence and Morality explore the pursuit of happiness and its relation to moral philosophy. The doctrine of utilitarianism emphasizes the consequences of one’s actions as they add to the sum total of happiness.…

    • 1033 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    The prominent philosopher Thomas Malthus addressed sustaining our resources in his essay, An Essay on the Principle of Population. Malthus proposed that human population would grow faster than our resources; our resources are limited and, therefore, we cannot sustain the population. Malthus himself writes, “to meet the needs and aspirations of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (552). Basically, Malthus is warning us that we need to find a way to control overpopulation, so we have enough resources for the future…

    • 1859 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    As population numbers of every country is different, needed resources are also unequal. In our crowded world, there are many people who are living good lives while two thirds of the population are living a poor life. Through Lifeboat Ethics: the Case against Helping the Poor written by Garrett Hardin (1974) it explains how there are many dangers of overpopulation through the world. Hardin goes into detail about how overpopulation and having different population’s causes for an unequal resource need. Hardin’s article has many strengths and weakness to prove his point that there are many things wrong with overpopulation and what the world is trying to do to deal with these issues.…

    • 1332 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    In fact, he points out “1 billion of the world’s meat eaters, car drivers, and throwaway consumers are responsible for the lion’s share of the damage humans have caused to common global resources.” (406) Essentially, he disagrees with Hardin’s essay in regards to the lifeboat and what Hardin thinks about overconsumption. According to Hardin, if the wealthy nations continue to provide for the poor nations their population will continue to grow. As a result, they will use most of the resources provided from the earth. The lifeboat in turn will be affected because of the overpopulation and overconsumption.…

    • 1381 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays