![]() Professor Yaffe applied this to a smaller-scale, saying, “If you have three pieces of candy and four children, all equally deserving, it is better, according to Van den Haag, for three to receive their desert than for none to receive what is deserved.” This scenario can easily be applied to Hardin’s lifeboat metaphor. The same ideology may be applied in other philosophical debates, including the death penalty, as we discussed in lecture.Įrnest Van Den Haag, a defender of the death penalty, explains in his article that the importance of punishment is not whether every individuals gets what they deserve, but rather that some, rather than none, of the convicted receive their rightful punishment. Although the boat’s capacity should not exceed the admission of more than ten people, why not admit three, four, or even those ten? It seems rather unreasonable to deny help to every individual, when, although not all can be rescued, the boat clearly holds the space for more. He insinuates that once the decision is made to help some, the lifeboat passengers must attempt to save all of those drowning, which is clearly not feasible given the carrying capacity of the lifeboat. Our survival is then possible although we will have to be constantly on guard against boarding parties” (2). Hardin disregards the idea of helping some people, even if selected in a fairly arbitrary way: “Suppose we decide to preserve our small safety factor and admit no more to the lifeboat. Either the passengers help ten more individuals and drown, or they neglect to help any, and float securely away with the “safety factor” still intact. Within this scenario Hardin appeals to the readers with the presentation of a circumstance in which only two outcomes seem probable. ![]() In knowing this, Hardin however, chooses to eliminate the statistic entirely. However, if the number of people that could be helped was presented, some may change their minds, recognizing that helping some is better than helping none at all. By disregarding the importance of such a number, Hardin influences the reader to believe helping impoverished nations is impossible, for, after all, an unlimited number of individuals would hardly be feasible. Exactly how many people are contained within an “unlimited number”? Hardin disregards any hint as to what this number is, a fairly important point when referencing a depletion of world resources. Furthermore, Hardin assumes the earth does not hold enough resources to provide for everyone, and although correct in stating we cannot sustain an unlimited number of people, he neglects the very definition of such a word. In relation to Hardin’s metaphor, these nations, in retrospect, require a short ride on the lifeboat before they may swim safely away. Many waver on the edge, needing very little aid to push over into industrialization and development. Hardin characterizes the safe and the drowning as rich versus poor nations, though in reality not all countries are deemed on one side of the scale, wealthy or impoverished. Complete justice, complete catastrophe … we might let 10 aboard, but how do we choose? And what about the need for a safety factor? (1,2)Although logical, this metaphor is undoubtedly dubious. ![]() Suppose the 50 of us in the lifeboat see 100 others swimming in the water outside, begging for admission to our boat … since the needs of all in the water are the same … we could take them into our boat, making a total of 150 in a boat designed for 60. To be generous, let us assume it has room for 10 more, making a total capacity of 60. The metaphor he creates is, nonetheless, coherent, and is used to describe the limited carrying capacity a lifeboat (rich nations), can hold:So here we sit, say 50 people in our lifeboat. Within the section titled “Adrift in a Moral Sea”, Hardin reveals the lifeboat analogy upon which this essay is almost entirely founded, although shortly after it is presented one can see a loophole he cleverly ignores. Similar to a lifeboat, Hardin leaves the assertions of the “humanitarian apologists” to drown so regarding prevent the reverse of his claim. In addition, any counter-arguments Hardin feels might refute his claim are pressed aside, preventing accurate proof that might show his argument inaccurate or misleading.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |