Singer And Hardin Solutions To The Global Poverty

Introduction

Singer’s use of extreme hypotheticals to indicate how we should donate our unnecessary belongings, money, and time appeals to the emotional and logical sensibilities of the reader, but it creates a gray horizon because there is no direct explanation of what is considered a necessity, nor is there a law that states that one is obligated to donate. Despite Singer overshooting his argument, we should value the livelihood of the poor because prosperous nations have grown too accustomed to lavash living. Hardin’s “Lifeboat Analogy”, like Singer’s hypothetical situations aims to frame the complex problem of global need in simple terms for readers through analogous thinking, but he too oversimplifies his analogy along with skewing a fact that he bases his argument upon. While both writers to succeed in helping people conceptualize the powers of global poverty their arguments, because their analogies and metaphors are oversimplified, it makes them insufficient. Yet, we can take points from each argument to provide a sensible explanation for world poverty.

To address some shortcomings of Singer’s essay we must look into the metaphors he chooses to express his point, the gray area of what is considered a necessity, and the fact that Singer conveys his argument through the ideology of marxism. Throughout his whole argument, Singer masterfully argues his point using language and logic that appeals to the readers emotions. Singer’s proposition is simple when said, but not when done. He proposes that whatever money or goods is left over after one provides for what is needed, should be donated to charity. The logic behind this is that then with this proposition constantly being achieved there will be more resources available for less wealthy nations to use, balancing out consumption and growth of all nations. The issue here is we do not know what a necessity is. Of course one needs food, water, and shelter. But do they need clothes, shoes, toilet paper, a car, education, heat, or air conditioning? There are many appliances and items that border the line of a necessity, and the fact that Singer constantly reminds us to donate things that are not a necessity is a hard concept to grasp because it is unclear what a necessity is and Singer does not specify this. Another issue of the argument is the extreme metaphor he uses. Singer begins with a man who owns a very expensive Bugatti. This man, Bob, has invested all of his money from retirement into this car. He knows if he were ever to sell his car, the value of his car will keep rising with the economy, so he is sitting comfortably right now. One day he takes a drive to a railroad track and parks his Bugatti to go for a walk. Farther down the tracks he sees a child who will be hit by the train, if he doesn't pull the switch to divert the train into the area where he parked his Bugatti. In the end, Bob doesn’t pull the switch and the child is killed by the train. This illustrates that the loss of the Bugatti would not have been as big of a loss as the child’s life, or the child is less valuable than the Bugatti. In his case, Bob is morally incorrect to not change the switch because he was the only person around, but in the case of the real world’s problem of poverty, this metaphor is faulty because Singer is applying it to all the people of the world who are capable of donating, it is not just one person's responsibility. By this comparison, Singer is trying to convey it is morally incorrect to not donate our necessities, because everytime we don’t we are killing a child. Singer also suggests like Bob, most of us are unwilling to donate what we do not need, and he is correct.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place an order

Additionally, Singer argues with a marxist viewpoint. Marxism can be explained as a strong, central government, that ensures equality in a society, or the people should pay the government some of their profit, and in turn, the government will distribute it equally, eliminating the idea of rich and poor. In the long run, perhaps pure economic equality is a net positive for humanity. However, if we were to ever get there, what would have to happen first is a complete restructuring of our economic and social institutions. It’s hard to see how humanity would accept this. As for humanity this would be difficult because every individual must have the intent to put others’ welfare ahead of his own, even when it displays a risk for himself, such as in the case of Bob and his Bugatti. And what is bound to happen with this approach is that all of society will go unchecked. Some will be donating, some will not, and the money they collect from those who are donating, may be put forth to other efforts or not in fair amounts to bettering the issue of poverty.

Singer argues we have a moral obligation to donate what we are not in need of to charity, but this would require sacrifice, and it is difficult to expect people to live up to this. Yet, Singer recognizes that meeting moral obligations isn’t an easy task, and that by recognizing them and choosing not to meet them, that we are still doing better then not even recognizing them. Similarly, donations do not have to be as extreme as Singer illustrates they must be. By donating any amount we will be helping others who need it more, because we have grown accustomed to lavash living a small donation does help third-world countries. So if we do choose to donate we will be making a positive impact. Donation also makes a positive impact on future generations. Teaching children to be generous and develop a sense that others are struggling in our world more than we are will help improve the future generations idea of charity. Just because we can’t end the issue of world poverty doesn’t mean we should stop trying. Singer’s argument tries to draw a logical conclusion to poverty, but the problem is the conclusion is only applicable to the people who are willing to donate money they put towards necessities, to the poor, and that number is very slim. Although his argument may not be reasonable for humanity, it does make the reader realize than we do live a very lavish lifestyle, and that money given to poverty organizations can make an impact.

Hardin makes a very compelling argument with his analogy of “Lifeboat Ethics”, but at its roots, this analogy is distorted. He compares the earth to a lifeboat, and in order to safely carry those aboard it, there must be a certain carrying capacity with an allotted safety factor. If we overflow the lifeboat by helping poorer countries, then all aboard will die. But, this isn’t as extreme as Hardin illustrates it to be. It does not accurately reflect reality because it is overcomplicates how we can help foreign nations, when in fact in the real world, helping countries isn’t as dangerous to one’s own nation as Hardin illustrates it to be. This pushes few people to believe that helping poor countries is as detrimental as the “Lifeboat” analogy proposes it to be. This is a perfect example of a False Analogy fallacy because these ideas are essentially different, though they seem similar. Secondly, Hardin oversimplifies the relationship between rich and poor countries. He separates the nations of our world into rich and poor, when in fact there are many more states of wealth one could be in that just rich or poor. Also, the fact Hardin assumes that poor nations must be struggling in the water of the Lifeboat analogy is not true. Many impoverished nations have abundant natural resources and land that could be used for growth. Since, they have the resources, they simply need help making use of the natural resources they have. Because Hardin believes that we will eventually exhaust all the natural resources of the world, he proposes an idea called the Tragedy of the Commons. The Tragedy of the Commons is when a resource is available to all of a population, the people accessing it will use it out of proportion and for their own personal gain. Misuse of the resource will benefit the person who is misusing it because he or she will receive the full profit of it, but the prices will be spread among all users. This proposition is falsely rooted because we are not consuming our resources too quickly. A study from McGill University and the University of Minnesota captures results from 66 studies and 300 trials, and they came up with the conclusion that earth already produces one and a half times enough food to feed everyone on the planet. So, here Hardin is skewing facts to convince readers of his point.

In certain cases, some readers may argue that the metaphors Hardin uses and the situation Singer uses are relevant because they do not simply compare two things, but illustrate the importance of survival in real life. Others would disagree and say that Hardin’s metaphor and Singer’s hypotheticals help them conceptualize the argument both authors propose to objects in real life, thus leading them to form a viewpoint on the argument they may not have been able to establish if the metaphors and hypotheticals were not present in each argument.

In my opinion both arguments contribute something valuable to the argument as a whole; however neither arguments fully illustrate a sensible, non problematic solution for poverty. There is a middle ground that we should strive to achieve where we are donating our time, knowledge, and skills to the impoverished because with this they will be able to provide for themselves for a lifetime, and so we do not have to worry about our monetary donations being used for things that will not actually improve the lifestyle of those being donated too. Money is not the only reason impoverished nations struggle. Most poor nations lack the technology that more prosperous nations see everyday. By teaching poorer nations newer technologies, we will be providing them with something greater than anything they could get with a small monetary donation because there is no way for them to spend this knowledge, but only the option for them to put it to use.

Conclusion

To wrap up, Singer and Hardin both come from opposite perspectives, but they are similar because they both oversimplify their hypotheticals, and lead readers to form a biased opinion corresponding to their argument respectively. By carefully studying each hypothetical, readers can find the issues and opportunities for rebuttal in each one, and avoid being wrapped into Singer’s convincing emotional appeal, or Hardin’s persuasive ethical claim. Only, with attention to detail in each argument can we find a legitimate, balanced solution to aid the epidemic of world poverty.

Works Cited

1. “‘Ethics: Global Warming’ and I.” Ethics Global Warming and I RSS, blogs.commons.georgetown.edu/phil-108-spring2013-jjc276/2013/02/16/hardins-the-tragedy-of-the-commons/.
2. Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons - Summary and Commentary, faculty.wwu.edu/gmyers/esssa/Hardin.html.
3. Holt-Gimenez, Eric. “We Already Grow Enough Food For 10 Billion People -- and Still Can't End Hunger.” HuffPost, HuffPost, 18 Dec. 2014, www.huffpost.com/entry/world-hunger_b_1463429.
4. Gimpy. “World Poverty: Walking Two Roads.” The Musings of a Digital Vagabond, 6 Apr. 2011, tddr.wordpress.com/2011/04/06/world-poverty-walking-two-roads/.
5. Hardin, Garret. “Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor.” Sept. 1974, pp. 1-7.
6. Singer, Peter. “The Singer Solution to World Poverty.” 5 Sept. 2009, pp. 1-7.