Lifeboat Earth Famine, Onora O'Neill, Famine Affluence and Morality, Peter Singer, moral obligation, hunger, poverty, humanity, starvation, resources, Thomas Hobbes, economy, moral government, drowning child metaphor
Hunger and poverty have been a consistent problem for humanity. While the majority of humanity agrees that hunger and poverty are atrocious, the degree to which we are morally obligated to interfere is debatable. I will be examining two philosophers' papers, both that argue we are morally obligated to help those who are starving: "Lifeboat Earth" by Onora O'Neill and "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" by Peter Singer. O'Neill compares the earth to a lifeboat in an attempt to persuade the reader that we are all morally obligated to protect what she calls our right to avoid death. Singer utilizes a metaphor wherein starving people are a drowning child and every passerby is morally obligated to interfere. I contend neither paper provides sufficient rationale to force humanity to interfere with those starving, with one small exception.
[...] In the meantime, the starving country grows even more in size, resulting in a higher need for aid. The cycle can't continue forever. A lifeboat has to utilize the finite resources available until salvation. In actuality, salvation isn't going to swoop in and magically save everyone's problems. Unlike a lifeboat, a starving country is not a temporary situation. By forcing the country to reduce its population, we actually help the country in the long term by breaking the cycle. While I agree with Hardin's argument, I intend to take it a step further. [...]
[...] Third, Singer believes we are morally obligated to help a drowning child. While I agree with his assumption that "death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad" I don't believe that this implies we are obligated to interfere. The sole reason I believe a government may be obligated to interfere in certain situations is because their purpose is to improve the lives of their citizens. Humans are not created for this purpose. Humans have free will, and so long as that right does not impinge the rights of others, free will takes precedence. [...]
[...] Country A decides to send a politician who convinces country C to offer aid on the condition that country A not invade country C. Country A has no such plans since country C is across the ocean and a war would not be cost-effective. Then the cost for country A (sending a politician and agreeing not to invade a country they already planned not to) was next to nothing, so they did the morally correct action. Similarly, suppose the cost of aid is the same but country B neighbors country A. [...]
[...] It is an incredibly time consuming and expensive prospect. Let's modify O'Neill's metaphor to include many lifeboats, where each lifeboat represents a country (Hardin 148). According to O'Neill, each lifeboat (and its passengers) is obligated to avoid scarcity in order to protect everyone's right to avoid death. If we still believe everything O'Neill states, what does each lifeboat owe the others? In other words, in addition to trying to avoid starvation within their own countries, do they also owe every other country their resources? [...]
[...] However, if the cost analysis were to reveal that the cost of a war is lower than the cost of aid, then they are obligated to choose war. Yes, it will cost country A lives, but the cost is lower than offering aid. In all of my arguments so far, I've mentioned the obligations of a moral government, but what about on a personal note? Singer's "drowning child" metaphor suggests that we are morally obligated to offer aid as long as it wouldn't cost us something morally significant (weak version). I disagree. There are a number of issues with his metaphor, enumerated below. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
