Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping The Poor
I already know about this topic is everything judge from mind. Ethics moral is people judge everything right or wrong; true or false; good behavior or bad behavior, as a ruler. However, the moral’s jurisdiction is wider range than the legal. Sometime we judge one’s behavior is good or bad, but who is not illegal, we should judge that in moral standpoints, he/she is vices. However, we choosing side by side in ethical dilemma, and what will we choose the side opposite with normal people’s choice?
The particular dilemma, I need to thoughtful to choose the proper way, this is choice side by side. In “Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor”, I think this is the thesis, “Metaphorically each rich nation can be seen as a lifeboat full of
comparatively rich people” (Hardin 290). In “ Should I Protect a Patient at the Expense of an Innocent Stranger?”, I think the thesis is, “This is not exactly a medical issue, but your relationship to the problem is still an extension of your position as a physician” (Klosterman 292). In “No Edit”, the thesis is, “This is a more conservative stance than that of at least one person who will judge the finished product” (Cohen 293).
I sew the overarching principle is choose the one the most valuable, which increases good and reduces harm. Yes, In Garrett Hardin’s article “Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor”, Garrett tends to poor people because of in a comparative, “The people inside the lifeboats are doubling in numbers every 87 years; those swimming around outside are doubling, on the average, every 35 years, more than twice as fast as the rich” (Hardin 291). In the beginning, author wants to know what will the rich and the poor people, and he set up the “rule” in this difficult choice. After take shape, the surprised result happen in the end. The poor people are have stronger determination in survival than rich people, because rich people are rely on money and relaxed vigilance.
The particular dilemma, I need to thoughtful to choose the proper way, this is choice side by side. In “Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor”, I think this is the thesis, “Metaphorically each rich nation can be seen as a lifeboat full of
comparatively rich people” (Hardin 290). In “ Should I Protect a Patient at the Expense of an Innocent Stranger?”, I think the thesis is, “This is not exactly a medical issue, but your relationship to the problem is still an extension of your position as a physician” (Klosterman 292). In “No Edit”, the thesis is, “This is a more conservative stance than that of at least one person who will judge the finished product” (Cohen 293).
I sew the overarching principle is choose the one the most valuable, which increases good and reduces harm. Yes, In Garrett Hardin’s article “Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor”, Garrett tends to poor people because of in a comparative, “The people inside the lifeboats are doubling in numbers every 87 years; those swimming around outside are doubling, on the average, every 35 years, more than twice as fast as the rich” (Hardin 291). In the beginning, author wants to know what will the rich and the poor people, and he set up the “rule” in this difficult choice. After take shape, the surprised result happen in the end. The poor people are have stronger determination in survival than rich people, because rich people are rely on money and relaxed vigilance.