Charles Darwin established in his article Natural Selection that natural selection facilitates those individuals that are fit to dominate and to continue existing. This concept is illustrated as the key factor that makes a man be the most constant and dominant animal on the planet. This success is attributed to a number of diverse and dissimilar variables. Man, for instance, has been swift to adapt and succeed in different places under extreme circumstances. However, in the editorial, Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor, Garrett Hardin’s foremost dispute is that the poor should not be assisted. This commentary starts by illustrating the dissimilarity involving the spaceship ethic, where we may share available resources for all requirements and shares are equivalent. While in lifeboat ethics, we are not allowed to share resources and by exploiting this aspect we should not assist the poor.
Examining this article through Charles Darwin’s observations in Natural Selection it is imperative to understand that Hardin seems to suggest only the strong can save the weak. This is illustrated by the manner he describes lifeboat ethics. According to the aspects of Natural selection, lifeboat ethics presents the strong who have adapted the opposite traits of survival. Therefore, Darwin observed that there are those animals that remained dominant due to their adaptability traits. Thus, on the economic aspect, Hardin’s argument does not fully satisfy the scope of natural selection fully. Rather he suggests that the rich should avoid or ignore supporting the poor. Therefore, looking at his article as a metaphor would be critical in understanding his argument. Perhaps that is why he has argued for the preservation of the rich societies amidst the drowning poor citizens.
Darwin argument in Natural Selection may perhaps in a way though not entirely explain this phenomenon in part. According to the law of Natural Selection only the suitable species that are well suited to their surroundings tend survive. While on the other hand the weak species are either destroyed by nature or get dominated by the fit species. This is either through biological or physical influence. Examining the aspects of physical influences, the dominant species can easily overcome such issues like floods, diseases, droughts, or other natural challenges.
While we look at the article by Hardin we find that those in the lifeboat have overcome the physical challenges presented by nature. This illustrates why they have the resources of survival and they are the few while the majority are the one wallowing in diseases and poverty. He argues for the reason that we have limited resources, misfortune of commons and no true global government to manage reproduction and utilization of obtainable resources; we ought to manage our actions by the morals of lifeboat. And lifeboat ethics do not allow the poor to be assisted.
Therefore, in regard to Darwin argument it would be vital to compare Hardin’s observation with the aspects of Natural Selection. Looking at the section with sub-head “Adrift in a Moral Sea” we are presented with a metaphor of lifeboat. Here we are challenged to understand that the boat cans only accommodate 50 individuals. To be somehow generous the boat can accommodate additional 10 individuals. This illustrates the raw reality of natural supremacy in natural selection. However, when we examine the real scope of this article we find that Hardin characterizes the rich nations as the most dominant. Too, he seems to suggest that there are no sufficient resources to support all of us. He equally points out as is with the scope of natural selection the poor needs the rich before they can gradually adapt and swim away in safety.
However, unlike in Darwin argument Hardin fails to illustrate how many people are in reality described within “unlimited number”. Hence he attempts to influence the society by illustrating that it is impossible to help the poor. Using a flawed judgment of natural selection Hardin ignores the fact that helping is better than helping no one at all.
Reading Hardin’s article in the context of Natural selection one cannot fail to note the inconsistencies presented. According to the dynamics of natural selection only the fit survives. More so, those designed fit are not determined by their strength rather their adaptability dictates. For instance, Darwin establishes that diverse variables affect the very survival of a given species (Brown 76). Also he noted that the fit species can dominate and eventually control or eliminate the weaker species for their own survival. However, when exploring Hardin’s article we find a totally different approach to the scope of survival. This can be testified by the manner he creates his argument. By comparing the rich and the poor as well as attempting to justify the dominance of the few rich in the society. Thus, in regard to Hardin’s concept of lifeboat ethics we are presented with not the real natural selection per se but rather with elimination due to the scramble for the depleted resources. This is well illustrated by his depiction that either the boat passengers assists 10 more people and perish, or they ignore to assist anyone and sail safely away with the “safety factor” secure.
Interpretation
Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor, is a controversial article by Garrett Hardin. Examining his argument against the real aspects of survival he shared his thought differently from the conventional wisdom. Unlike in the Natural selection by Darwin, Hardin thinks the rich have the mandate and the prerogative of assisting the poor at their own pleasure. This is well illustrated by what we terms as boat life ethics where the available resources are not shared as is with the spaceship ethics. The current society of capitalism has presented the human race with motley of challenges. This has seen the division between the rich few and the poor continue to widen. On the scope of natural resources the rich and mighty are stealing or taking away from the helpless poor. Exploitation has become the core foundation of capitalism.
Therefore, as Hardin notes, the rich are living within their secure comfort zones and they cannot accept to help the poor due to the fear of unsettling their safety. Equally, the rich have opted to remain afloat instead of drowning their boat for the sake of the struggling majority. The reason he fails to satisfy the aspects of Natural Selection as outlined by Darwin can be due to the fact that his argument is one sided. His principle argument illustrates that; for we have scarce resources, we should manage our activities according lifeboat ethics and avoid sharing the available resources. Where we have limited resources we should control the manner we utilize them. Hence, he builds his argument on the premise that survival can only be possible where excess passengers are avoided. As is illustrated in the sub-argument “Population Control the Crude Way” the poor if unchecked will continue to deplete the scarce resources and this would mean their requirements for assistance would also mount (Hardin 2).
Therefore, increasing the support does not suggest increasing the want for support. Equally, his position on aid and population is also unsound. With the underprivileged receiving more support, they will turn out to be wealthier. And if an individual or a country becomes better-off; it does not imply that the status of reproduction will continue at unchanged rate. So an increased population doesn’t necessary mean an increased need for aid.
That is why Darwin illustrates that the best suited species dominates but not necessary the strong. Thus comparing the two articles it is evident that one was drifting towards natural aspects of dominance while the other drifted towards elimination. Therefore, examining Hardin’s article through the Darwin approach the most outstanding element is that of social and economic elimination. This is testified by Hardin’s proposals in regard to population control, Immigration, Food Supply, and Learning the Hard Way.
In essence, the argument in some instances holds true to the Darwin aspects of natural selection. However, the author seems to have avoided any strong engagement with the real scope of survival. Hence, he asserts that on the dynamics of private ownership an individual is more responsible, while on communal ownership negligence may arise. I such instances he fails to offer solid direction. Thus, he reflects on the safety of the rich through ignoring the plight of the poor. The boat ethics can be compared to capitalism which has created man-eat-society.
This article, “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor” viewed from the angle developed in Darwin’s article Natural Selection presents a lot of crooked logic and ambiguous metaphors; it consists of ironies. Although the author now and then goes back to lifeboat metaphor, adeptly he rejects to mention and ignores the importance of providing the counter-measures necessary to steer the world to a more accommodating level of dealing with poverty.
Works cited
Brown, Bryson. Evolution: A Historical Perspective. NY: Greenwood, 2007.
Hardin, Garrett. “Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor”. Psychology Today. 1974. Web.