Lifeboat Ethics Essay My Country Essay
We are then supposed to choose sides, favoring either the strong or the weak.
And note especially that underlying all of the arguments is the assumption of scarce resources. (Available words are now scarce, as my editor’s cruelly-imposed limits for this column have decreed.) We live in a world of plentiful resources, both actual and potential.
The reasoning was that the eldest were the weakest and that vital food resources should go only to the strongest.
In a widely-reprinted essay, contemporary bio-ethicist Garrett Hardin extended lifeboat ethics to the human population at large, arguing that the Earth’s resource scarcity demands that we rich and strong nations stop giving to the poor and weak nations.
His vision of a correct salvation is "tough love" (ref., 1) that would save the planet, or better called "spaceship" than lifeboat.
Hardin suggests several ways to overcome the issues.
Packs of wolves also followed the caribou, picking off the old, the weak, and the injured.
The writer Garret harden, ecologist researching overpopulation, in his article Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor gives major arguments that would both agree with you and not.
On my behalf to the article, the author intended to raise globally important issues, and having both intrinsic credibility and partially pathos, sometimes, in the text he could pursue the reader.
And we should not forget that very realistic lifeboat scenario — the sinking of In accordance with Victorian and Edwardian ethics, stronger men had a noble obligation to protect and, if necessary, sacrifice for their weaker women and offspring.
So which is the more moral policy: Should we sacrifice the weak for the strong — or the strong for the weak?