Every day hundreds of thousands of people are starving. The issue of who should assist them is brought up time and time again. Should we give of our own? If so, how much should we give? Since only one third of the nations in the world are rich and the other two thirds are poor can and should the rich countries be expected to provide for the less fortunate? Garrett Hardin, author of Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Aid That Harms states that each country has a carrying capacity and by helping out others we push ourselves closer to a limit that we are close to reaching. Our nation only has a small amount of energy left and Hardin believes that by assisting the poor we will only make ourselves more susceptible to disaster. On the other hand, Peter Singer, author of Rich and Poor believes that there is something that can be done to prevent some people from starving and that people should take action. He states that there is hunger that can be stopped without the rich having to give up something significant. The articles disagree in that Hardin believes that these people cannot be helped without harming the rich in some way and Singer believes that something should be done about it.
Singers article Rich and Poor is a better article because the rich can give to the poor without causing financial strain on themselves. In Hardins article, the nations of the world are compared to lifeboats with the rich sitting inside and the poor swimming in the oceans outside. Hardin explains how allowing all of the poor into the boat with the rich would be completely moral but would but everyone in the ocean would perish because the boat cant support that number of people, just as the lands cant support a large group of people because of limited natural resources. Hardin also explains how the birth rate in poorer countries is lower and if you had a ratio of one to one today of Americans and foreigners in 87 years you would have one American for every eight foreigners. Hardin explained in this article how there have been many attempts to create a world food bank. He gives examples of the Food for Peace program from 1960 to 1970 that all tax paying US citizens were forced to contribute to. This program made billions of dollars for the US by raising the prices of farm products and machinery and transportation for the goods.
The Essay on Poverty Poor Life People
Poverty Poverty is hunger. Poverty is lack of shelter. Poverty is being sick and not being able to see a doctor. Poverty is not being able to go to school, not knowing how to read, not being able to speak properly. Poverty is not having a job, it is fear for the future, it is living from hand to mouth. Poverty is losing a child to illness brought about by unclean water. Poverty is powerlessness, ...
Hardin believes that these food banks should be used in case of crisis and emergency although all well run nations should plan for emergency. He believes that by learning the hard way and making mistakes will allow the countries in the future to be more competent. By helping these countries, he says that we are only making them less able to help themselves. The population of poor countries is increasing rapidly. Hardin states that if there were no system of food sharing the populations would eventually stabilize to the point where there would be a balance of poor and rich people. The strain on the environment is a concern for Hardin. He gives examples of India and their problem with having enough resources for their rapidly growing population.
He believes that with the help of organizations such as Planned Parenthood and Zero population growth that the birth rate can be brought down to the amount of immigrants that are brought into the United States each year. By bringing food to other countries we are using our resources while the poor countries are not using theirs. Hardins philosophy is that if these countries are incapable of having a system to help themselves that they should be left to fight off their problems on their own. He thinks that the population is too high compared to our natural resources and that by not helping these countries the populations would drop, saving the others in the world by not using the resources that they share also. On the other hand, Peter Singer explains in his article Rich and Poor how there are millions of people around the world that lack the nutrients they need to live a healthy life. Singer also discusses how the poverty in some countries is much worse than in others. He gives his definition of absolute poverty, where life is on the very margin of existence.
The Term Paper on Critical analysis of Good Country People by Flannery O’ Connor
Good Country People is one of the most sought after works of Flannery O’ Connor. It is said to be the biography of O’Connor but she never claimed it to be such. The novel Good Country People seems to reflect the current situation and emotional status of O’ Connor while she was writing the novel, and if it is not in fact her biography, her emotion at that time has influenced the novel greatly. ...
Singer shows how half the children in poor countries are malnourished and suffer horrible effects. This affects all growth, health and mental ability. Singer tells how there are more people in the world than it can feed and shelter. He shows how poor countries consume four hundred pounds of grain a year while North Americans consume two thousand. North Americans and others from rich countries use grain to feed livestock that they eat or use to produce dairy products and meat while those who are poor consume it directly. According to Singer, people in poor nations are unable to buy expensive American grain, machines to aid to farming, and fertilizers. He believes that the only way to change the situation is to take the wealth from the rich countries and give it to the poorer ones. Singer points out that wealthy people choose food for the taste, not to satisfy their hunger.
Most people have enough money that they could share with those in need without causing any harm to their welfare. The United Nations have a goal of 0.7 percent of the gross national product that they would like to see given to the poor while the United States gives only .22 percent. Singer believes that people should do what they believe is right even if it inconveniences them. He states that although it is easy to forget about the hungry in other countries because we do not see them that we need to remember them. He also believes that we should adopt a system of triage where the hungry are split into three categories: the ones who would survive without assistance, those who might survive with assistance, and those who probably wouldnt survive even with assistance. He believes by helping only the ones who might survive with assistance that we will slow the population growth by letting the overpopulated countries level out their populations by not assisting the ones who wouldnt be able to limit their growth anyway. These countries would lower their population by having famines and natural disasters.
The Essay on Criticizing The Argument Peter Singer Rich And Poor
The philosopher Peter Singer, in his paper Rich and Poor, gives the following argument: If we can prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance, we ought to do it. Absolute poverty is bad. There is some absolute poverty we can prevent without sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance. Conclusion: We ought to prevent some absolute ...
Helping the middle category in which might survive without assistance is Singers favored option. By helping these people he thinks that they will eventually be able to support and feed themselves. Singer believes that through this plan nations can better manage their land, help women in becoming free from their role as simply a child bearer, and improving education. While both of these articles provide examples of how we should assist those in need, they take on completely different perspectives. Both articles agree that the world is suffering an energy crisis and the lands have reached their carrying capacity. Hardin believes that by helping these people that we only provide ourselves with a greater risk of disaster.
In one way the articles agree, both stating at some point that people will have to be left to fend for themselves, most likely to die of starvation or disease. In Hardins piece, this will happen to those who live in all the countries that are unable to feed their people while Singer believes that only the people that live in counties that would probably would not be able to survive even with assistance and cannot control their own population. Hardin believes that we should not help people if it is going to affect us in a negative way. Singer on the other hand believes that we should help those who need it even if it causes us adverse effects. In Singers article, there is more sympathy given to the poor. Singers article also seems to make more sense.
It is unrealistic to have knowledge of millions of starving people and to do nothing about it. Hardin seems to be too harsh in the way he would allow millions to die. Singers article is well executed. While he believes that the poor should be helped he is also logical in the way that he believes that they cant all be helped. He shows this through the triage system. While it is easy to understand what Hardin is saying in his article, Singer does a better job of appealing to your emotion. Hardin seems cold and selfish.
These article show different views on how the problem of starvation in other countries should be taken
The Essay on Garrett Hardin's Article "Lifeboat Ethics: Helping The Poor"
I find a few things wrong with Garrett Hardin’s article “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor.” The dominant argument I have against his article is that it is completely one sided. Hardin fails to even glance at the people, who do not fall under his ideas of what our society, nation, world is like. He has his own opinions, which he is 100% entitled to, but he poses ...
