Comparison Peter Singer's and Garrett Hardin's Positions on Helping the Poor - Article Example

?Moral Journeys Nowadays people turn to ethics to reflect on what is important to them. Modern world faces new challenges and problems, most them areconnected with the rapidly growing gap between poor and rich countries. The paper analyses and compares Peter Singer's and Garrett Hardin's positions on helping the poor. Garrett Hardin’s article “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor” presents solid argument against helping the poor. In author’s view, generosity towards the underprivileged nations is an ethical misconception. The arguments Hardin provides can be grouped in three categories: metaphors, utilitarian, and relativist arguments. In his article Hardin contrasts two metaphors: “spaceship metaphor” and “lifeboat metaphor”. The first metaphor represents the egalitarian model of distributive justice, which the author considers unreasonable: The spaceship metaphor can be dangerous when used by misguided idealists to justify suicidal policies for sharing our resources through uncontrolled immigration and foreign aid. (Hardin) The latter is a new concept introduced by Hardin. “Lifeboat ethics” advocates the state-centered approach to justice: First, we must recognize the limited capacity of any lifeboat. For example, a nation's land has a limited capacity to support a population and as the current energy crisis has shown us, in some ways we have already exceeded the carrying capacity of our land. (Hardin) From a utilitarian standpoint helping the poor puts a strain on economy of the rich countries, where certain groups get financial benefit from the charity programs. The author shows how the concept of the World Food Bank cannot possibly be implemented to achieve the goal: Some countries will deposit food in the world food bank, and others will withdraw it. There will be almost no overlap. As a result of such solutions to food shortage emergencies, the poor countries will not learn to mend their ways, and will suffer progressively greater emergencies as their populations grow (Hardin). In author’s view giving help to the poor is the result of misunderstood concept of justice. In this approach, the poor are seen as victims of circumstances: unfavorable geographical position, unequal distribution of resources on the planet, ineffective government, weather conditions, and emergency situations like natural disasters. The author stresses that the rich face similar difficulties, but learn to overcome them. The arguments lead the author to the controversial thesis: it is morally wrong to give food aid to poor countries. Hardin gives rational justification for ineffectiveness of food and technology solutions offered by rich nations. To emphasize his point he returns to the lifeboat metaphor and shows that in poor countries population grows faster and in they would eventually overturn their own boats and the ones belonging to the rich (Hardin). If the moral concept of guilt comes into play the author, introduces the metaphor of a lifeboat where a sympathetic passenger feels guilty for being in the boast while many people have to be in the water. He gives his seat to the one swimming in the sea, but the person who takes the place feels no guilt for having what other don’t have. The author points out that people who get such help are likely to take it for granted and feel entitled to it in future. Sympathy would bring about the situation of “elimination of that sort of conscience from the lifeboat” (Hardin). In Hardin’s view, the wish to help the poor is likely to result in elimination of concepts of sympathy and guilt. In utilitarian perspective helping poor would do good neither the helping part, nor the needy part. The rich nation would stretch its resources beyond limit to help the ever-growing population of poor countries. Poor countries would never learn to support themselves and learn to cope with their problems independently. The help would spur population growth in the poor countries, and it would create further need. Giving help is also viewed as morally wrong, as poor countries do not appreciate it. They see the help as a form of domination and oppression and “international charity frequently inspires mistrust and antagonism rather than gratitude on the part of the recipient nation” (Hardin). Teaching poor countries the techniques of food growth, advancing them in technology is unlikely to solve the problem. Here the concept of commons comes to author’s attention. As long as resources and farmland are seen as common property, they would be exploited further and eventually exhausted. If everyone would restrain himself, all would be well; but it takes only one less than everyone to ruin a system of voluntary restraint. In a crowded world of less than perfect human beings, mutual ruin is inevitable if there are no controls. This is the tragedy of the commons. (Hardin) It brings forward the long-term consequences and dangers that help to the poor presents: the offspring of rich nations and poor nations would be left to live in the world of polluted environment and scarce resources. If the current situation doesn’t change, the rich nations would be outnumbered and overtaken by the children from poor countries. The author brings forward the argument in favor of harsh population control that is regulation based on the laws of nature, when famine and disasters solve the problem of overpopulation (Hardin). In terms of relativism the author suggests reconsidering the concept of immigration that is particularly relevant in America. The author shows that one can no longer regard America the land of immigrants that welcomes new immigrants: World food banks move food to the people, hastening the exhaustion of the environment of the poor countries. Unrestricted immigration, on the other hand, moves people to the food, thus speeding up the destruction of the environment of the rich countries. We can easily understand why poor people should want to make this latter transfer, but why should rich hosts encourage it? (Hardin) In modern America the laws concerning immigrants should be reconsidered and redefined. Hardin points out that the offspring of the original immigrants are a growing population and the influx of new immigrants risks creating shortage of food and resources. The author is aware of the fact that Americans would be the first to misinterpret this idea. He focuses on the concept of justice as the cause of “infinite regression to absurdity” (Hardin). The way out, proposed in the article, includes reconsidering the immigration laws and regulations from the modern, not historical standpoint. The following quote supports Hardin’s argument: We are all the descendants of thieves, and the world's resources are inequitably distributed. But we must begin the journey to tomorrow from the point where we are today. We cannot remake the past. We cannot safely divide the wealth equitably among all peoples so long as people reproduce at different rates. To do so would guarantee that our grandchildren and everyone else's grandchildren would have only a ruined world to inhabit. (Hardin) The points Hardin makes in his article are sound and explicit. He offers strong ethical argument from utilitarian and relativist prospective. The readers, who are less familiar with the discourse of philosophy, are provided with vivid and compelling metaphors. The arguments Hardin makes are relevant. However, the harsh solutions involving birth rate control are likely to contradict the concept of freedom of choice and the foundations of democracy. Certain points made about immigration laws are sensible, and the government has already realized it and taken necessary steps. At the same time, shutting off the poor countries in order to leave the rich countries to their current residents and their children would raise even more complex moral issues. Competition and stimuli for development are likely to disappear in both developed countries (as there is no one to take the riches from them) and poor countries (it is impossible to achieve a better life, survival is the ultimate goal). There is a big risk that rich countries would regard the residents of poor countries as “less worthy”, and consequently reconsideration of the concept of “human”. Peter Singer, in his turn, considers the problem from the viewpoint of applied utilitarianism. The point he makes is that people living in affluent countries are morally obliged to help the poor. Utilitarianism as a school of thought seeks to determine the morality of an action by its outcome, the good should be maximized and the bad minimized (Singer 68). Singer supports the approach in which satisfaction consumerism and luxurious lifestyle bring are short-lived. And in the long run the person would be left with the feeling of emptiness and dissatisfaction: “All of us in the developed countries, in the affluent world, spend money on luxuries and frivolities that are really not the things that we need” (Singer 62). This is where moral obligations are taken into consideration. In Singer’s view wealth surplus should be given to help the poor. The author argues that wealthier nations are prone to consumerism and part of the income could be given to help the poor straight away. Philosopher tries to make his appeal as universal as possible, claiming that to share his views one does not necessarily have to be a utilitarianist, he addresses general public (Singer 64). Singer chooses to advocate his view by means of giving the argument grounded in the history of philosophy and to give examples that involve the readers emotionally. Singer argues that the incomes of the people from wealthier nations exceed their needs. He proves his point by referring to the thinkers of the past, namely Thomas Aquinas. In the Middle Ages the issue raised by Singer was viewed in terms of natural and property rights: We have a natural right to property to meet our needs, but if we have met all our needs, if we have what he called superabundance above and beyond our needs, and there is someone else who can’t meet their needs, then we don’t have a right to our property that trumps that person’s right. (Singer 69) However, Singer doesn’t develop Aquinas’s concept to the point, where the Middle Aged philosopher morally justified taking from the rich. But the point is brought to the reader’s attention to show the solid foundation of the approach advocated by Singer. The latter develops Aquinas’s theory and claims that affluent people have moral obligation to use their resources and possessions to help those who are in real need. The ethical argument given by Singer is strong and coherent. However, the philosopher never specifies what the concept of surplus wealth means. What items are considered necessities and which items are luxurious ones is not defined. The author gives examples of unnecessary items like designer shoes or expensive suits: “It’s obscene that people are spending thousands of dollars on a handbag or a pair of shoes when there are a billion people in the world who are living on less than a dollar a day” (Singer 64). Moral responsibility a person faces when one makes a choice between a donation and an expensive purchase is likened to unwillingness to save a drowning child if it means ruining designer shoes one is wearing. The example is vivid and is likely to emotionally involve the reading public. However, Singer stresses that not only the most affluent members of developed countries, but all the citizens are morally obliged to help the poor. In this view, all the people living in rich countries are seen as having financial resources to provide for more than they need. Singer gives the example of a mother facing a moral dilemma: whether to buy another handbag or save her dying child. In that case the choice is obvious, and most readers would agree that having a handbag would be morally wrong. At the same time, the author never says what necessities mean. The example suggests that everything above the minimum required for survival is luxury. Singer admits that the super-rich are the least willing contributors to the charity programs. Average citizens of developed countries are more likely to consider the argument that: “Ethics is about the basic choices that we all make in our lives. And one of these choices is how we spend our money” (Singer 63). Singer addresses the whole population of rich countries, since “we live in a world where there’s affluence surrounding us, and so we don’t always understand that our obligations extend far beyond what is in front of us” (Singer 67). Speaking about moral obligation to help Singer never mentions the limit of the person’s involvement: one should contribute to the charitable cause as long as it does not threaten his or her existence. In the approach advocated by the author, helping the poor is not a collective, but an individual obligation. Thinking about the poor should become the constant preoccupation of the citizens living in developed countries: We should constantly be considering the consequences of what we do. But I don’t think that you have to be utilitarian to take this view that there is something wrong with spending money on luxuries when other people are starving. (Singer 68-69) In this view, if other members of society are unwilling to contribute, the morally and ethically conscious citizen should contribute more: “if others are not doing their fair share, and we can easily save lives by doing more than our fair share, we should do it. To refuse to do more than your fair share in these circumstances is to get your priorities wrong” (Singer 68). There is no limit to the degree of participation in helping the poor since Singer does not regard ethics as a set of rules. In his view, ethics is changeable, it is not necessarily linked to traditions and customs: “Ethics is an ongoing process of thought about how we ought to act, about the choices that we make” (Singer, p. 71). The positions analyzed in the research present polar views on the problem. Peter Singer advocates continuous involvement in charitable causes and wants every citizen of the rich nations to donate extra money, whereas Garrett Hardin focuses on preserving the well-being of the developed countries that face the danger of overpopulation. Singer’s approach is more likely to appeal to the masses. However, at close examination it lacks consistence, basic notions (luxury, necessity) are not defined. At the same time, the current situation in environmental protection, population growth, and the use of natural resources is likely to call for growing need of help to poor countries. In this view Garrett Hardin’s approach gives stronger ethical argument. Works Cited Hardin, Garrett. "Lifeboat Ethics: the Case against Helping the Poor." Psychology Today September (1974): 38-43; 123-126. Web. 16 Apr. 2012. Singer, Peter. “An Interview.” Interview by Astra Taylor. Examined Life: Excursions with Contemporary Thinkers. Ed. Astra Taylor. New Press, 2009: 62-86. Print. Read More