Dear Hardin,
I’m writing this letter in response to your article titled Lifeboat Ethics: A case against helping the poor. Its main purpose is to provide feedback on my view on the article and point out what I think are you're your strengths and weaknesses. It is worth noting that, you have packaged your message in an encouraging manner. In my understanding, you have metaphorically used the earth as a spaceship and the nations as lifeboats to convey a sensitive message of your opinion on how rich and poor nations should help each other. In my reading, I identified five areas of focus that supported your arguments.
The five areas are the issue of; population, environment, immigration, interests of humanitarians, and the ultimate solution for the presented problem. Population growth seems to be an inherent problem for poor countries. In rich countries it is less as compared to poor countries. As discussed, they lack mechanisms of controlling it yet they lack enough food supply. Their ever-increasing population also strains the environment. Ultimately, individuals from the poor nation have sought to immigration and dependence on humanitarian support. However, they are not the ultimate solution since the rich countries they seek to migrate to, have their resources almost fully utilized. On the other hand, the humanitarians have no clear mission in their establishment and, increase the dependency of the poor nation.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The ultimate solution is to promote a culture of responsibility among every state. Each government should know that the lack of devising mechanisms to secure harsh times is likely to lead to their failure. As such, programs such as food donation and immigration channels should be stopped. Nations that fail to set aside food reserved during bumper harvest would likely have its population checked the hard way by famine.
The strength of the reading is that the language is simple and elaborates all points conclusively. Furthermore, the examples used are logical. However, one distinct shortcoming of the work is that no scientific data is provided to back the stated remedy to the problems. As such, it is hard to trust its implementation fully. Nonetheless, the discussion provides a blueprint to think about.
References
Hardin, G. (1974). Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor. Psychology Today , 8, pp.1-8.
