A Review on Lifeboat Ethics Essay Example for Free

A Review on Lifeboat Ethics Essay Lifeboat ethics: the case against helping the poor is a famous essay written by Garret Hardin, a human ecologist in 1974. This article aims to re examine the lifeboat ethics which was developed by the author to support his controversial proposal. In the theory, the world is compared to a lifeboat with a carrying capacity of 60. There are totally 50 people on board, representing comparatively rich nations, while the 100 others swimming in the ocean outside the lifeboat stands for the poor nations. To solve the dilemma of whether the swimmers should be allowed to climb aboard at the risk of lifeboat’s safety, Hardin suggested that no admission should be granted to boat, or to interpret it in a straight way, no humanitarian aids should be offered to the poor countries. Regardless of the additional factors which the author took into consideration from the real world in the essay, in my opinion, the basic metaphor itself is questionable. Firstly, the status of the lifeboat is not an accurate reflection of reality. Arguably, natural resources of the earth are finite, however, this does not equal to the scarcity of resources in the control of the rich nations. On the contrary, nowadays in the developed countries, what the rich have used is out of proportion to their actual needs, which not only leads to colossal waste each year but also creates disposal problems. A familiar example is the popularity of losing weight among the western world, which is not solely a way of pursing beauty but also a clear indication of the growing number of obese people who consume food excessively. In contrast, in the third world especially poverty-stricken nations like Ethiopia, millions of people are filled with untold suffering. They drag themselves on the street from day to day, begging for only a slice of stale bread. Due to the unfair distribution of resources caused by the affluent people’s favorable political position, most rich nations currently obtain more than enough resources and they are still casting their greedy eyes on the untapped poor regions. In the light of the facts above, in the lifeboat metaphor people on board actually occupy  more room than normal and the real carrying capacity of a lifeboat is more than 60. With no admission given to those swimmers who are in need, the room is not allocated to each according to his needs, a principle the author cited in explanation of the rationale behind the lifeboat ethics. The second doubtful point is related to Hardin’s computation of conscience. In defense of the survivors’ guilt arising from not helping the poor, he claimed that â€Å"the net result of conscience-stricken people giving up their unjustly held seats is the elimination of that sort of conscience from the lifeboat†. He defined guilty about one’s good luck as a type of conscience and the newcomer’s lack of guilt about the rich people’s loss as conscience drain; but the author deliberately omitted the morality of rich people’s indifference to the poor asking for help. Counting the negative effects on total conscience in the lifeboat if no rescue is attempted, the final solution to the lifeboat dilemma might be changed. Essentially, the author’s negligence of social injustice against impoverished people and the ethical issue indifference is just a result of his bias for the rich countries. To improve the general population quality, the author repeatedly emphasized the necessity of reproduction control in poor nations and increasing the proportion of rich nation’s population. This suggestion in fact is based on the assumption that the people in rich nations are innately superior to their counterparts in poor countries, which is an apparent violation of the creed that everyone is born equal. In conclusion, the poor people should not be the sacrifice of the population growth in the developed regions. Logic and rigorous as the essay Lifeboat ethics: the case against helping the poor may appear to be, the author wrote more on behalf of the countries on board, group of which he belonged to. The author urged people to get rid of sentiment and make rational decisions, but ironically he himself deceived his mind with prejudice and sense of superiority.

The Importance of Names in Toni Morrison’s Song Of Solomon Essay

The Importance of Names in Toni Morrison’s Song Of Solomon Toni Morrison’s award-winning novel Song of Solomon is full of very interesting, deep symbolism. Macon Dead III, nicknamed â€Å"Milkman,† is a very symbolic character throughout the novel. His character is not only symbolic, for so is his name. Also, Milkman’s paternal aunt, Pilate, has an extremely significant and symbolic role in the novel. To her father, she represents the child who killed her own mother and took away her father’s wife. Seeing that Pontius Pilate sentenced Jesus to death, the name Pilate seems to coincide with her father, Macon Dead’s, opinion. Ironically, though, Pilate is a good person and is murdered in the end, just as Jesus was by Pontius Pilate. Another important character in the novel who portrays a great deal of symbolism is Guitar, Milkman’s best friend. Guitar is named after something that he is ultimately unable to attain. â€Å"I saw it when my mother took me downtown with her. I was just a baby†¦I crie d for it, they said. And always asked about it.† This unreachable goal accurately describes his character throughout the novel. He is never able to overcome the obstacles that stand in his way or to reach the goals he has set for himself. Toni Morrison intelligently uses the characters Milkman, Pilate, and Guitar to successfully portray a great deal of symbolism throughout her novel. â€Å"A milkman. That’s what you got here, Miss Rufie.† Milkman is given his name for a very logical reason: hi...

It is important to know right from wrong Essay

During this essay I am going to try to prove that it is important to know right form wrong. I am also going to explain how different cultures; backgrounds and circumstances can change people’s morals on right and wrong. An example of how people morals can changes due to circumstances is war. How is war different to murder? War can be defending the country you live in from being invaded and taken over. If your countries soldiers don’t shoot the invading soldiers then you would either be dead or living somewhere everything about you is considered wrong just because of you nationality. However, war can be attack where your country is the one who is invading another. But either way, does the little man have a choice? The little man has to do what his leader tells him to avoid being named a traitor or being killed by the enemy. In my opinion war isn’t murder. If both sides have weapons and neither side has a choice because if they don’t shoot first then they’ll end up dead. It’s a no win situation. However, a person who commits murder can have a choice. Murders can happen due to jealous or revenge or even pure hate of the person. But the murderer has a choice or whether or not to take someone else’s life. There is an exception in my opinion of somebody who is beaten up or constantly being injured by his or her spouse. I’m not saying women who get beaten up or men who do because it can happen both ways. There is a point in some people where they snap and can’t take any more and their hidden anger get released and they can murder someone in a moment of losing control. This does bring up the question ‘Is suicide murder?’ and one which I can’t answer myself for many reasons and therefore I’m unable to give my opinion on it. Some people may consider self harm to be a sickness and that even thinking about suicide is murdering yourself. If the life is yours to take who decides if you take it or not? Other people, maybe those who have considered it themselves believe it can be a way of escaping a situation rather than fighting through it and even that considering it is just bringing them to a conclusion that nobody else has reached yet. Is murder right or wrong? Murder is wrong in circumstances and can be right in others, the same for suicide. It all depends on the point of view that somebody looks at it from. There are always going to be exceptions in murder and suicide so nobody can give a clear right or wrong answer. Another example of right and wrong is the black and white version. The law is in black and white and doesn’t consider exceptions in many cases. The legal age of understanding the difference between right and wrong is ten years old in the United Kingdom. No child under the age of ten can be prosecuted and even those who are older are very rarely prosecuted as the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) doesn’t always agree to go ahead with the cases. Some cases do go through such as the case when Robert Thompson and Jon Venables murdered James Bulger. The CPS did agree with prosecuting them as they had taken a life and the chance of getting a conviction was realistic. The law has to be in black and white to ensure they treat everybody equally To know the difference between right and wrong you have to have substantial judgement to know when something you are doing is wrong. Growing up living in a location where burglary and violence are everyday occurrences can tilt the persons point of view on right and wrong. Circumstances can change the way their view is on different situations and the basic common sense that people have can cause the person to have different outlooks on different situations. This can cause their view of right and wrong to lead them to things they wouldn’t do other wise and end up in prison for committing a crime that they didn’t even know is wrong. Is it possible to unknowingly do something wrong? I believe that it is possible to do something wrong without realising it is wrong. It depends on common sense and the situation. In my opinion it is important to know the difference between right and wrong. If you don’t then you can do things unknowingly that are wrong and kill somebody due to not understanding the consequences of your actions. This makes it important to know the difference and be able to judge a situation on whether it’s right or wrong yourself. Ethics and morals are part of everybody’s opinions on whether something is right or wrong that means that your opinion has more influence on your actions and the way you treat other people than you realise. The problem with just saying it is wrong to murder or war is murder is that things aren’t that simple. The world isn’t in black and white like the law, it is in colour and so many things and situations have an exception, which is why people have to understand the difference between right and wrong so they can be able to judge the world for themselves.

History of Torture in the United States