Wealth and Poverty
Introduction
Stimulus
The ethics surrounding poverty and hunger provides a significant ethical issue which provides a
reference for evaluating consequences of actions in respect to coming to an ethical decision.
The ethical question here is whether we have an obligation to help third world countries.
Obligatory and Supererogatory
A distinction here is made between obligatory actions, actions we ought or must do, and
supererogatory actions, actions which are beyond what we ought to do.
Evaluation
In this essay I will analyse the arguments of Garret Hardin and Peter Singer, by which a clear picture
of the use of evaluating consequences will be found.
I will then argue that in the case of poverty and hunger, evaluating consequences are of the upmost
importance and that Singer’s argument clearly provides an ethical theory based on consequences
that all should follow.
Hardin
Spaceship analogy
The spaceship metaphor, used predominantly by environmentalists, presents the earth as a
spaceship which we are currently polluting.
If we continue to do so, the “spaceship” will crash, killing all those on board. Therefore, we ought to
respect and look after all those on the ship.
No person has the right to destroy or waste the resources that could be used by others.
The spaceship metaphor suggests we should be looking out for each other Garret Hardin disagrees
with this approach, suggesting that to do so would cause us to agree to suicidal policies which could
result in devastating consequences to humanities continued existence.
The lifeboat
Hardin approaches the issue of poverty by providing the counter-metaphor of the lifeboat. In it, he
likens rich nations to lifeboats, and the poor starving people of third world countries are swimming
in the water, desperately trying to get into the lifeboats.
In this analogy, if we let everyone on board the lifeboat, such as through immigration, the lifeboat
will surely flood and sink. Hardin puts forward a situation with a lifeboat with a maximum of 60-
person capacity, that already has 50 people on it.
Some would argue that surely it is a responsibility of those on the lifeboat to help at least 10
drowning people into the lifeboat, but to do so would result in damage being done to the integrity of
the boat, damaging the long-term survivability of the boat due to the lack of a “safety factor”.
And even without taking in to account the safety factor, which 10 would we pick? Meanwhile, giving
out aid is fruitless, as giving out resources to those in the water will do very little to help them, and
those resources will likely be better used for the future on the lifeboat.
Hardin therefore suggests that we have an obligation to not give to those starving in third world
countries, as to do so would clearly have huge ramifications.
Those outside the lifeboats keep doubling in number by twice the rate of those in the boat, and to
help them out will on result in us having to waste even more resources.
Eventually, our lifeboat is destined to collapse under the pressure of caring for others, and instead
of helping anyone there will just be more people in the water drowning.
Criticisms
1. An argument made against Hardin is that it’s unfair that some people are born onto the raft and
others are dropped into the water.
Hardin admits that it is purely a matter of chance whether one is born in the water or in the lifeboat,
but says it matters little.
Long-term survivability is not possible if everyone is let in, and Hardin suggests that those who feel
that they are unworthy of their place on the boat should just jump out; those outside the water will
happily replace them with no moral quandary over whether it’.
2. Hardin’s theory is very simple, but it arrives at its solution of not giving by first making
severable assumptions.
Introduction
Stimulus
The ethics surrounding poverty and hunger provides a significant ethical issue which provides a
reference for evaluating consequences of actions in respect to coming to an ethical decision.
The ethical question here is whether we have an obligation to help third world countries.
Obligatory and Supererogatory
A distinction here is made between obligatory actions, actions we ought or must do, and
supererogatory actions, actions which are beyond what we ought to do.
Evaluation
In this essay I will analyse the arguments of Garret Hardin and Peter Singer, by which a clear picture
of the use of evaluating consequences will be found.
I will then argue that in the case of poverty and hunger, evaluating consequences are of the upmost
importance and that Singer’s argument clearly provides an ethical theory based on consequences
that all should follow.
Hardin
Spaceship analogy
The spaceship metaphor, used predominantly by environmentalists, presents the earth as a
spaceship which we are currently polluting.
If we continue to do so, the “spaceship” will crash, killing all those on board. Therefore, we ought to
respect and look after all those on the ship.
No person has the right to destroy or waste the resources that could be used by others.
The spaceship metaphor suggests we should be looking out for each other Garret Hardin disagrees
with this approach, suggesting that to do so would cause us to agree to suicidal policies which could
result in devastating consequences to humanities continued existence.
The lifeboat
Hardin approaches the issue of poverty by providing the counter-metaphor of the lifeboat. In it, he
likens rich nations to lifeboats, and the poor starving people of third world countries are swimming
in the water, desperately trying to get into the lifeboats.
In this analogy, if we let everyone on board the lifeboat, such as through immigration, the lifeboat
will surely flood and sink. Hardin puts forward a situation with a lifeboat with a maximum of 60-
person capacity, that already has 50 people on it.
Some would argue that surely it is a responsibility of those on the lifeboat to help at least 10
drowning people into the lifeboat, but to do so would result in damage being done to the integrity of
the boat, damaging the long-term survivability of the boat due to the lack of a “safety factor”.
And even without taking in to account the safety factor, which 10 would we pick? Meanwhile, giving
out aid is fruitless, as giving out resources to those in the water will do very little to help them, and
those resources will likely be better used for the future on the lifeboat.
Hardin therefore suggests that we have an obligation to not give to those starving in third world
countries, as to do so would clearly have huge ramifications.
Those outside the lifeboats keep doubling in number by twice the rate of those in the boat, and to
help them out will on result in us having to waste even more resources.
Eventually, our lifeboat is destined to collapse under the pressure of caring for others, and instead
of helping anyone there will just be more people in the water drowning.
Criticisms
1. An argument made against Hardin is that it’s unfair that some people are born onto the raft and
others are dropped into the water.
Hardin admits that it is purely a matter of chance whether one is born in the water or in the lifeboat,
but says it matters little.
Long-term survivability is not possible if everyone is let in, and Hardin suggests that those who feel
that they are unworthy of their place on the boat should just jump out; those outside the water will
happily replace them with no moral quandary over whether it’.
2. Hardin’s theory is very simple, but it arrives at its solution of not giving by first making
severable assumptions.
