Essay on Mortality, Ethics, and the Economic Crisis

A paper I had to do for Eng. 102.

 

Ethics and Mortality on the Economic Crisis

One of the most controversial topics for debate is ethics, morality and their effect on the economic crisis facing the countries of this planet. The countries with more wealth, like America, are being pressured into giving until the point of “marginal utility.” Singer argues this in his essay “Famine, Affluence, And Morality.” I however, disagree. I think that Hardin makes a valid point in his essay “Lifeboat Ethics” and that our personal survival depends upon the fact that we cannot keep giving to countries in need lest we jeopardize our own.

As children, people have something called the golden rule instilled in them. Basically, treat others as you want to be treated. It is what’s considered morally correct. And in the realm of sharing crayons and construction paper, this seems a simple and valid rule. But when dealing with money, food, property and other things used to survive, is it really as simple as that? Singer would argue yes. “If everyone does what he ought to do, the result will not be as good as it would be if everyone did a little less than he ought to do, or if only some do all that they ought to do” (Singer 392). I think, however, that this way of reasoning is illogical. If our countries were run like Hardin suggests in his “Lifeboat Ethics” then we would have to refrain from doing just what the golden rule teaches us to do. There would only be so much room for the poor on the limited capacity of the boat. (Hardin 404). We could not give to the poor because it would jeopardize our own survival. Some would say that this kind of reasoning is immoral and goes against our human nature. Yet is it not in our human nature to survive?

Another major point to be made is that giving to these poorer countries may in fact make the situation worse than better. It is like Hardin states in his example of the well known Chinese proverb: “‘Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach him how to fish and he will eat for the rest of his days’” (408). By aiding these 3rd world countries and bailing them out time and time again, we are nearly encouraging them to become dependent on outside sources for their livelihood. There is no incentive for them to fix their economic condition if there is always a larger country ready to provide for them. And in doing that, bailing out other countries, our country suffers even more. Is it right to help the poor of another country when the country can barely help its own less-fortunate population? I think that most would agree that is morally unsound.

There is a general consensus among people that it is good to help out the less fortunate. It is charitable and morally correct. However, I think that Hardin presents a strong case against some aspects of this, especially if we were to run our country like a “lifeboat.” There is a difference between simply helping out someone or country in need and providing so much that they become dependent not on themselves but on others. The latter is what Hardin is trying to avoid and I agree with his argument wholeheartedly.