The Analysis for “Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Help the Poor”
The Analysis for “Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Help the Poor”
In the article “Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor”, the author Garrett Hardin raised the question that whether the rich countries should help people suffer from poverty. He claimed that the supporting strategies for the developing countries, including the World Food Bank could result in more severe recourse inadequate issue and other disasters. In addition, a large number of immigrants flood in the US could ruin the natural environment and social balance. In that case, the author argued that regardless of the current situation, privileged nations should not provide aid to people trapped within difficulties of the underdeveloped nations. Even though, his argument seems to be logic based, he failed to consider the real world. The harsh argument is opposing the humanitarian standards.
In the article, Hardin applied an analogy to appeal readers’ attention. He described the rich nation as the lifeboat with limited space, and described people from underdeveloped countries as the individuals struggling in the sea. The number of people suffered in the water goes far beyond the boat’s capacity; therefore, whether allow these people board could be a major issue. For one thing, the lifeboat would tilt or sink if the whole group of people board on it. For another thing, it is difficult to decide which person should be saved and which person should be abandoned, since everybody should be treated equally. In a harsh conclusion, Hardin claimed that the lifeboat should not allow these people board and let them to suffer for themselves. The author delivered the biased information to the audience and misled the whole article to a wrong direction. First, not all the people in water need to board on the lifeboat. Some developing countries could boost their industries and business based on their own efforts, including to encourage the internal investment and to expand the domestic demand, thus their
In the article “Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor”, the author Garrett Hardin raised the question that whether the rich countries should help people suffer from poverty. He claimed that the supporting strategies for the developing countries, including the World Food Bank could result in more severe recourse inadequate issue and other disasters. In addition, a large number of immigrants flood in the US could ruin the natural environment and social balance. In that case, the author argued that regardless of the current situation, privileged nations should not provide aid to people trapped within difficulties of the underdeveloped nations. Even though, his argument seems to be logic based, he failed to consider the real world. The harsh argument is opposing the humanitarian standards.
In the article, Hardin applied an analogy to appeal readers’ attention. He described the rich nation as the lifeboat with limited space, and described people from underdeveloped countries as the individuals struggling in the sea. The number of people suffered in the water goes far beyond the boat’s capacity; therefore, whether allow these people board could be a major issue. For one thing, the lifeboat would tilt or sink if the whole group of people board on it. For another thing, it is difficult to decide which person should be saved and which person should be abandoned, since everybody should be treated equally. In a harsh conclusion, Hardin claimed that the lifeboat should not allow these people board and let them to suffer for themselves. The author delivered the biased information to the audience and misled the whole article to a wrong direction. First, not all the people in water need to board on the lifeboat. Some developing countries could boost their industries and business based on their own efforts, including to encourage the internal investment and to expand the domestic demand, thus their