The world is constructed in a very complex way so as to include the self-opposing and contrasting concepts and factors on a single platform. Thus, the universe contains, on the one side, the concepts like light, truth, white, day, and richness which stay in contrastive distribution with, on the other side, concepts such as darkness, fallacy, black, night, and poverty respectively. The co-existence of these mutually opposing concepts and forces is necessary for the balancing effect of the universe.
A man may not question the relevance of such a construction as it is the plain fact of the existence and survival of his very being. In this background, it is very much significant to consider poverty and aid issues as raised by Garret Hardin in his “Lifeboat Ethics.” He suggests that the apt way for understanding world poverty and aid issues is through his lifeboat metaphor. By raising the issues of poverty and international aids through the metaphor of lifeboat, Hardin puts forward an interesting and relevant topic for our discussion.
Let us state this in Hardin’s own words. “If we divide the world crudely into rich nations and poor nations, two-thirds of them are desperately poor, and only one-third comparatively rich, with the United States the wealthiest of all. Metaphorically each rich nation can be seen as a lifeboat full of comparatively rich people. In the ocean outside each lifeboat swim the poor of the world, who would like to get in, or at least to share some of the wealth. What should the lifeboat passengers do?” (Hardin 1974). In an assessment of the metaphor of lifeboat for our understanding of world poverty and international aid issues, it can be very well maintained that the metaphor appropriately suits the topic.
As the relevance and the appropriateness of the metaphor are established, it is of paramount significance to consider the different aspects of the question in a meaningful and judicious manner. First of all, let us be clear about the stand taken by Hardin on the questions of poverty and aids for the poorer nations by richer nations. Hardin deals with the issue of rich nations like America extending a supporting hand to the poor nations and the underlying consequence of the apparently generous activity which is considered by the common man to be of great relevance.
However, maintaining his point very emphatically, Hardin points out that it is not desirable for a rich nation to always help the poor which ultimately brings out its own destruction. According to a specific view, Hardin argues for a very harsh thesis. It means that we simply should not provide help to people in poor countries and his argument is based on consequentiality. As the remark goes on Hardin claims that the total result of doing so will be negative and will, in effect, be courting large-scale disaster. (Garrett Hardin: Lifeboat Ethics. 1974).
Related to this specific issue, Hardin deals with many other issues as well all of which raise questions regarding the moral ethics conceived by the general notion. Therefore, it is of very vitality to respond to numerous related questions when making a plain remark of the ethics involved in the image of a lifeboat and its significance in relation to the deep sense of morality and ethics.
To consider the relevance of the book, let it be clear that there has been much literature on the article all dealing with the specific issues involved in the essay. The considerable amount of literature written on the lifeboat ethics problem has a little different perspective. These range from biblical theology and situation ethics to social biology, economics, and analytical philosophy. Wines lists out the important issues that are raised by the metaphor are the following:
- the nature of validity of the lifeboat metaphor itself
- the use of triage in determining food allocation
- the responsibility of developing nations to themselves
- the reality of the Third World’s plight
- the real implications of feeding the hungry. (Wines 2006, p. 77).
All these questions are of great priority as simple negligence of any of the ethical issues evident in the article would sign a mistake committed to the entire universe as the author raises crucial questions relating to humanity in general. Therefore, to make a personal opinion on the issue, it is of paramount importance that all the sides of the questions are properly touched in order to make an unprejudiced, all-clear opinion.
To refer our opinion to some important literature on the essay by Hardin, let us be very clear that his stand in the essay has been the reason for various responses. On the one hand, there is a common view represented by the morally bound, ethically concerned group of people who feel that the author’s stand is just ignoring the ethical and moral principles of the general notion. They interpret the lifeboat metaphor as not including the moral nature of humanity. According to this concept, every man is responsible for the well-being of his brother, and ignoring this would mean the world without any concern for the great ideals that have evolved over the course of ages. To them, the arguments put forward by Hardin are baseless which contains many weaknesses.
In response to the argument of the author that the poor will simply take the supplies of the rich and give them nothing in return, they point out various weaknesses involved in the argument. The authors stand in not correct to them as they feel that the support of the rich would mean that the people of the poor nations grow more stable and healthy which adds to the joy of the people and they work harder. The argument that more money will create more people and hence more need is also disregarded by the critics of Hardin’s opinion.
They view that more people being kept alive through charitable assistance could be useful as those who are healthy enough, could worry about working and being productive to their society instead of all the time they currently spend suffering and looking for food. According to them the existence of more people does not mean that there will be more need like the argument supposes it does. The next weakness pointed out by such critics is that once the poor obtain more wealth, they may not inevitably reproduce as they do now.
They rely on the statistical evidence from Hardin himself to use it against his argument. Thus, the evidence from Hardin suggests that the wealthier a society gets, the lower its reproductive rate. This means, to them, that the poor will maintain their current reproductive rate even with help from the affluent and it is uncertain. (I Only Care About Myself. 2005).
The arguments of Hardin which are based on his lifeboat myth have caused severe criticisms from the people who are very much concerned about morality. To them, the concept of Hardin along with the lifeboat image is not in line with the realities and they condemn Hardin as considering universal altruism to be morally wrong. However, such a view is, in fact, away from the crude reality. To get a clear idea, it needs to be noted that Hardin is a biologist rather than a moralist and his arguments do not make a specific moral view of things as he is more inclined to the realities of nature.
To Singer, a careless reader may gain the impression that Hardin believes universal altruism to be morally wrong. According to him, however, Hardin’s arguments presuppose the opposite view which means that for evolutionary and ecological reasons, extensive altruism cannot long survive in actual fact. The remark that the egoists will always win out in large groups containing both altruists and egoists seems to be very much factual. (Singer 2008).
Therefore, it may be well maintained that rather than facing away from the important questions of morality and altruism, Hardin concentrated on reality as it faces the universe. It is in this connection we find meaning in his famous image of the lifeboat. In essence, the relevance of the entire article can be gathered from this beautiful and apposite image which speaks not in little sense, but rather in greater volume than many would think.
The lifeboat image has got great significance in the modern world which is complicated. The article by Hardin has acquired great relevance in this respect. Murdoch & Oaten points out that the lifeboat article in reality has two messages to convey. The first one is that the immigration policy of the US is excessively generous. And the second, the more important message, is that by helping poor nations, the rich nations will bring disaster to rich and poor alike. (Murdoch & Oaten 2008).
The lifeboat metaphor tells that the rich nations cannot at any cost provide for every need of the poor nations as the space in the boat is very much limited. It is too much of the rich nations to provide for the needs of the poor nations in its entirety when we recognize the limited capacity of the lifeboats. There arise numerous moral questions related to poverty and international assistance to the poor nations as we consider the metaphor of lifeboat.
It is a great metaphor that covers a large number of questions related to the arguments taken by the author and the metaphor is very well justified by the commentary on the situation in the lifeboat which is explained by the author in the most persuasive manner. However, it is also important that we consider the opposite view to the aptness of the metaphor used by the author.
There are views that suggest that the lifeboat metaphor is doubtful and cannot, in all cases, be true with facts. A study remarks that it is obvious that the metaphor is dubious. Accordingly, it is pointed out that not all countries are either rich or poor. Furthermore, the remark claims that it is not as clear as Hardin assumes that we lack the resources to save everyone. The argument from the safety factor, to the reviewer, seems dubious. (Garrett Hardin: Lifeboat Ethics. 1997).
To consider this view as true will not help one arrive at the most pertinent issues of the author as they are presented in the article. What is required is an involved but objective and unprejudiced reading of the article as it states the reality of matters. The moment we fail to recognize the crude realities of the universe, we begin dwelling in a completely idealistic, morally perfect world. There is no such world as a morally complete or ethically unerring world, and we live not in a world of ideas but rather in a world of ultimate realities.
Therefore, the lifeboat metaphor provides the readers with a complete sense of the realities and facts of the world. It is not the opinion of a single person or group but rather of a whole generation that is based on the reality principle of the modern world. Hence, the author’s meaning cannot be ignored on the baseless arguments that cover the realities to make people live in an alien world of ideologies. Hardin has a vital point to suggest through his article.
One remarkable comment of the essay recognizes the lifeboat analogy and illustrates that our ability – the earth’s ability – to provide necessary resources is finite. This view recognizes Hardin’s idea to be right which means that we cannot sustain an infinite number of people. The volume of the people that need the support is fairly large which may be a million, a billion, or a trillion. According to this view, Hardin doesn’t say – or even hint or suggest how to think about it. (Mandle 2004).
It is for the sensible reader to arrive at conclusion and make the metaphor meaningful. Hardin puts forward his idea pretty clear through the metaphor of lifeboat and judicious, unprejudiced, thinking, analyzing readers find the exact meaning to the metaphor to illumine the work through a perceptive and sagacious approach.
Bibliography
Garrett Hardin: Lifeboat Ethics. (1997). Web.
HARDIN, Garrett (1974). Lifeboat Ethics. Web.
I Only Care About Myself. (2005). Analysis of Garret Hardin’s “Lifeboat Ethics. Web.
MURDOCH, William W & OATEN, Allan (2008). Commentary: Population and Food: Metaphors and the Reality. JSTOR. Web.
MANDLE, Jon (2004). Lifeboat Ethics. Crooked Timber. Web.
SINGER, Peter (2008). Survival and Self-Interest: Hardin’s Case against Altruism. JSTOR. Web.
Wines, William A., 2006. Ethics, Law and Business. Routledge. P. 77.