The counterclaim in “Lifeboat Ethics – the Case Against Helping the Poor”, is what I find unreasonable. The argument’s counterclaim is that government resources are limited and therefore it should not assist the poor. It’s not rational. I believe the government should spend its money on things that we do not need, rather than giving it to the poor.
It doesn’t hurt to give up a few of your own things to help those in need. This isn’t the case. The text states, “Let’s be generous and assume that it can accommodate 10 more people, giving it a capacity of 60.” Suppose that 50 of us are in a lifeboat and 100 other people are swimming outside the boat, begging to be admitted or for food. How can we decide? What are the criteria? Here is the problem. It is possible to identify which 10. Consider the possibility that some people may be sick or elderly and on the verge of death. Some adults may have a knack for finding land. We could compare them to children and babies who are still too young to solve problems. We could give more to the young than the old: not because we favor them, but simply because they need it. We could give more to the poor than the wealthy, not because we favor them but because they need more help than the others. Garrett Hardin goes against it. Garrett Hardin argues against it in an essay. This isn’t true. It is simply not true. People are generally aware of the program’s benefits and do not need to explain its importance. It’s all about feeding the poor. Garrett is against the program, claiming that it gives away food. He says it convincingly, “The combination silent selfish interest and highly vocal humanist apologists formed a powerful lobby for extracting taxpayer’s money.” This lobby is likely to continue pushing for a World Food Bank. He makes people think that the entire world revolves round the poor. The rich get no recommendations. He doesn’t realize that the lives of people are more important than being recognized.
Garrett includes details about people who give out of compassion. In the text it says, “‘But it’s not their fault! Some kind-hearted liberalism argue. How can you blame people who find themselves in a crisis? This is not the time to be blaming people. It is not the question of whether a world-wide food bank is necessary, but rather what the consequences are. There are some people who can’t stop themselves. Garrett claims there are more important concerns. What could be more important than the lives of people? Nothing. It’s not their fault. They just want a fresh start. Why is it wrong to give them food? What will happen to other people’s lives? How can it possibly affect anyone in any way? It is the government’s fault that there are homeless people. In America, the biggest issue is legalizing drugs. Increasing the price will only make matters worse. Someone who gives a person on the street money will likely use it to buy drugs. Food is consumed by homeless people who are given food. What’s wrong with this food program? What is wrong with the food program?
Garrett’s claim was not reasonable. The poor are more in need of help than the wealthy. This is not about favoring anyone, but we must do our best to save the most lives possible. Garrett spoke about the waste of food in the food program. We didn’t throw it away, we used it for good. We could find ways to store more food, but denying the needy access to government-provided food is not an effective solution.
