IBH 2BD3

Moral Issues
“Living on a Lifeboat”

By Garrett Hardin
 Hardin’s Goal
• Hardin aims to argue that prosperous nations are under no obligation to
give to/support poorer nations.

• He considers financial aid, famine relief, and refugees.

• For all of them, prosperous nations are not required to help.

 Preamble
• Hardin’s discussion focuses on rights and responsibilities: when we have
rights, we also have responsibilities (i.e., bearing the costs of those
rights).

• He thinks that the global poor are claiming rights without taking the
responsibilities that are associated with those rights.

• Example: having the right to eat requires doing the things required to eat,
e.g., work, maintain population.

• The global poor claim a right to food but are not working for it (in this
case there is a famine).
 Preamble

• Hardin thinks that aid programs will ultimately lead to the end of
humanity.

• There is no moral requirement to care for the global poor, since humanity
is the more important value.

• Human survival depends on some people’s deaths.

 The lifeboat
• Hardin subscribes to what he calls ‘lifeboat ethics’.

• Some background facts:

• Rich nations have much higher standards of living and economic power
per capita.

• Poor nations have much lower standards of living and much less
economic power per capita.

• Rich nations are statistically less populous.

• Poor nations are statistically much more populated.

 The lifeboat
• “Metaphorically, each rich nation amounts to a lifeboat full of
comparatively rich people. The poor of the world are in other, much more
crowded lifeboats. Continuously, so to speak, the poor fall out of their life
boats and swim for awhile outside, hoping to be admitted to a rich
lifeboat, or in some other way benefit from the ‘goodies’ on board. What
should the passengers of the rich lifeboat do? This is the central problem
of ‘the ethics of the lifeboat’.” (561)

• What should the rich do?

 The lifeboat

• The metaphor has an obvious connection to refugees and immigration.

• But it also covers foreign aid—since other’s do not need to be in the

lifeboat to benefit from the so-called ‘goodies’.

• Providing foreign aid is a cost on a rich nation even if it doesn’t accept

people into their borders.

• Costs, obviously, have an effect on a nation’s well-being.

 The lifeboat
• Each lifeboat can only support so much life: each nation can only produce
so much food to support the population.

• So what options are there for the rich nations?

1. Marxist-Christian option: accept/help everyone—the rich nation is

harmed.

2. Accept/help only a safe amount: but who? How can this be done fairly?

3. Admit/help no one and preserve the quality of life on the boat.

• Which option do you think is the right one?

 The tragedy of the commons
• The tragedy of the commons occurs when a public, common good is used
indiscriminately by everyone, the good will disappear, be destroyed, etc.

• The idea is that each person uses the good to serve their own interest, but
the good cannot sustain everyone’s indiscriminate usage.

• Example: fisheries are common goods that everyone takes from, as a

result most fisheries are on their way to depletion.

• Must the commons always be a tragedy?

• The tragedy depends on indiscriminate self-interest, or undiscinplined

self-servingness, lack of motivation to restrain oneself.
 The tragedy of the commons
• Hardin thinks that famine/poverty responses trigger a tragedy of the
commons because food and wealth in these situations is treated as a
common good.

• Giving to the poor/hungry creates lazy countries looking for handouts

(563): they have no motivation to preserve or contribute the good.

• Natural population control: A country can only produce so much food,

eventually without policies population will exceed this limit, creating a
famine from which an equilibrium will result.
 The tragedy of the commons
• Rachet effect: Food banks stop the famine from killing people, thereby
continuously increasing the population and the continuous need to receive
food. Eventually, the global supply of food will be exhausted by the ever-
increasing population.

• Because of the rachet effect, food banks and beneficence are not morally
required.

• To avoid personal harm, it is better to let nature take its course.

• There is no obligation to respond to a famine in other locales.

 The tragedy of the commons

• Are you convinced by Hardin’s argument?

• Is the appropriate response to famine, poverty…do nothing?

 Critical Questions
1. Why should we accept the framing of the ‘lifeboat’? Why should we
care from a moral perspective about borders?

2. Hardin seems to assume that the wealth of the prosperous nations

depends only on their own product (from within their boundaries).
Does this see like an appropriate assumption?

3. Doesn’t, e.g., England have duties toward India, Pakistan, etc. since its
wealth largely depends on plundering the sub-continent?
“Famine, Affluence, and Morality”

By Peter Singer
 Singer’s Goal

• Goal: the affluent are morality obligated to support to poor, hungry, etc.
Doing nothing is not a justifiable response.

• Singer’s argument is a simple one: it depends on a moral principle that he

derives from a simple case and extends it to famine by analogy.
 Singer’s Argument
• Singer’s (weaker) argument: (weaker because 2 is a weaker formulation)
1. “suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad” (231)

2. “if it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby
sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought, morally, to do it.” (231)

3. It is in the affluent’s (us) power to prevent death by famine by way of donating.

4. The affluent do not sacrifice anything morally significant by donating some money.

5. Therefore, we are morally required to give to the starving, the famine sufferers.
 Singer’s Argument
• Singer’s (weaker) argument: (weaker because 2 is a weaker formulation)
1. “suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad” (231)

• Singer takes this assumption for granted.

• He says that some one might try to deny it, but we shouldn’t really consider it.

• If you think it is deniable, it is not bad in your own case to die from hunger.
 Singer’s Argument
• Singer’s (weaker) argument: (weaker because 2 is a weaker formulation)

2. “if it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without
thereby sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought, morally, to do it.”
(231)

• The justification is that the principle applies in this case:

• “if I am walking past a shallow pond and see a child drowning in it, I ought to
wade in and pull the child out. This will mean getting my clothes muddy, but this
is insignificant, while the death of the child would presumably be a very bad
thing.” (231)

• The reason that we have an obligation to the child is because of the principle.
 Singer’s Argument
• Singer’s argument works because of the analogy with the drowning child
and the famine sufferers.

• There is no relevant difference between the child and the famine sufferers.

• Do you find the two cases analoguous?

• Two potential differences:

1. The child is near—the famine sufferers are far.

2. Only I can help the child—Many can help the famine sufferers.
 Singer’s Argument
• Difference 1: distance has a bearing on moral obligation.

• Do you think the difference matters? Are we more obliged to help those
who are near than those who are far?

• Singer thinks the answer is clearly No: distance may bear on whether I
shall help (due to difficulty, personal affection, psychological…), but it
has no bearing on whether I ought to help.

• Morality applies impartially—we should favour the near and dear.

• Notice how this undercuts Hardin’s assumption about borders.

 Singer’s Argument
• Difference 2: If others can help the famine sufferers, not only me, doesn’t
that diminish my moral accountability?

• Do you think that moral responsibility is less severe for each person if
there are many people who can help?

• Here is Singer’s response:

• “Should I consider that I am less obliged to pull the drowning child out of
the pond if on looking around I see other people, no further away than I
am, who have also noticed the child but are doing nothing? One has only
to ask this question to see the absurdity of the view that numbers lessen
obligation.” (233)
 Singer’s Argument

• Is Singer right?

• Notice how Singer’s aim is to establish our moral obligations, not to settle
whether people will give as a matter of psychology and choice.

• We can fail in our obligations, that doesn’t negate the existence of the
obligation.
 Singer’s Argument
• The significant non-compliance case:

• So, we each have a duty to give 10$ to the famine relief fund.

• If everyone gives 10$, the starvation will end.

• Me and you give 10$, but most others do not.

• The meagre funds do not end the starvation.

• Have you and I discharged our moral obligation by giving 10$?

 Singer’s Argument
• The worry is that the obligation derives from the suffering and my ability
to help.

• Given the famine’s persistence, it seems we need to keep giving, up until

the point where we would sacrifice something morally comparable (our
own well-being, our family’s, etc.)

• Should we accept this implication?

• Why should my obligation persist simply because others are not doing
what they are obligated to do? I did what I had to do in the first place.
 Singer’s Argument
3. It is in the affluent’s (us) power to prevent death by famine by way of
donating.
• This is an empirical claim (it seems true).

4. The affluent do not sacrifice anything morally significant by giving

some money away.
• This is also an empirical claim that seems true, up until a certain point. 10$ is not
the end of the world for the affluent.
 Singer Contra Hardin
• Singer notes on (240) an argument similar to Hardin’s: that preventing
famine leads to a boom in unsupportable population, therefore we
shouldn’t prevent famine.

• But Singer suggests that famine prevention is not the only means of
population control, so Hardin’s conclusion doesn’t necessarily follow.

• We can prevent famine by saving lives and promote population control by

more humane means.

• Hardin’s argument is invalid, according to Singer.

 Singer’s Argument

• Singer takes the implication of his argument to be that we need to revise

our sense of obligation to the global poor.

• It is not charity to donate money, it is what we ought to do insofar as we

are affluent (by world standards, not the country’s standards).

• Are you convinced by Singer’s argument?