Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping The Poor by Garrett Hardin - Book Report/Review Example

?Philosophy: Report In the article “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping The Poor.” Ecologist Garrett Hardin uses the analogy of rich nations aslifeboats in debating whether the rich nations of the world have an obligation to help the poor nations. If we divide the world crudely into rich nations and poor nations, two thirds of them are desperately poor, and only one third comparatively rich, with the United States the wealthiest of all. Metaphorically each rich nation can be seen as a lifeboat full of comparatively rich people. In the ocean outside each lifeboat swim the poor of the world, who would like to get in, or at least to share some of the wealth. What should the lifeboat passengers do?  Global wealth was accumulated in the moderately populated western world until recent past. However, the entry of globalization helped global wealth to shift from the western world to heavily populated Asian countries such as China, India, Korea etc. However, the shift of wealth is taking place slowly and unevenly. In other words, majority of the poor countries remain poor even after the introduction of globalization because of various reasons such as ethnic clashes, lack of good governance, lack of infrastructure to exploit globalization opportunities, lack of education etc. In short, poor countries need further assistance from the richest countries for maintaining their economic growth. Under such circumstances, the argument of ecologist Garrett Hardin that rich nations should serve as the lifeboats for the poor nations is relevant. The distribution of global wealth is still uneven. It should be noted that nobody entered this world as rich or poor. The society and the politics have made some people rich at the expense of others. In other words, those who have more muscle power captured more wealth whereas the weakest people struggled for survival. Global wealth should be equally distributed in order to avoid poverty in this world. It should be noted that the ultimate purpose of wealth is to provide enough living standards to the people. In other words, accumulation of wealth beyond certain point in meaningless. Nobody can take some wealth along with them when they die. Under such circumstances, rich nations should serve as a life boat to help the sinking poor people to sustain their life. One of the arguments against the death penalty is that people change and may be rehabilitated. As we grow older, we develop better critical-thinking skills. Should inmates’ life changes be taken into consideration in their appeals to have the death penalty overturned or commuted to a life sentence?  Death penalty cannot be justified under any circumstances because of the huge value associated with life. Life is the most precious thing in this world and it should be preserved at any cost. Even after immense advancements in science and technology, we still struggle to unveil the mysteries behind life before birth and after death. Only the creator has authority over his creations. For example, only a painter can think about making certain changes in his paintings or destroy his paintings. Same way only the creator has the authority to take back the life he has created for certain purposes. If we provide death penalty for a criminal, then there is no difference between us and the criminal; both are committing the same mistake of taking the life which was created by God. Majority of the criminals engage in criminal activities because of the temporary lapse of control over emotions. In other words, many of the criminals who commit serious crimes may repent later in their life. The implementation of death penalty denies him the opportunity to correct his life later. Instead of death penalty, it is better to provide life sentence to the criminal. Life sentence will not only avoid the threat from the criminal to the society, but also it helps the criminal to identify his mistakes and make corrections in his behaviour. Moreover, life sentence is comparatively less expensive than death penalty. Under such circumstances, it is better to provide another opportunity to the criminal through life sentencing instead of killing him for the serious crime he committed because of the momentary loss of control of emotions. Cultural relativists equate morality with the values of their culture or subculture. However, what happens when the values of one’s culture and one’s subculture come into conflict with each other? Is the fact that the white-supremacist values of the KKK are currently considered immoral by the government and the majority of American people morally relevant? Would the Klan’s values and activities be morally admirable if the majority of American believed in them? Support your answers.  The major reason for the current problems in this world is not political, but cultural. The clashes of culture can be seen in the war on terror, Israel-Palestine issue, India-Pakistan issue etc. It should be noted that in these conflicts, one culture is trying to dominate other. It is a fact that in Muslim countries like Iraq and Pakistan, ethnic clashes between different subcultures is a common thing. Shias, Sunnis, and Kurds are fighting each other in Iraq whereas in Pakistan, Shias and Sunnis are clashing each other. We have already witnessed in Iraq about the consequences of clashes between cultures and subcultures. White-supremacist values of the KKK may bring slavery and discrimination back in this world and therefore it cannot be accepted under any circumstances. It should be noted that the current world is extremely globalized and the necessities of cultural cooperation is inevitable for the collective growth of this world. Klan’s values and activities cannot be justified morally because of the fact that these values are trying to divide the world into different groups based on the colour of the skin. Hitler once tried to conquer the world, claiming that German culture is superior to other cultures and Germany has the right to rule the world. We witnessed the consequences of this argument in Second World War. If we encourage Klan’s values and activities, a repetition of the Second World War may take place which is not good for the global community. Peace and harmony should be maintained at any cost and for that purpose, Klan’s argument would never help. Evaluate the arguments for and against advertising. Should the government place more restrictions on advertising in the media, and if so, what type of restrictions? Construct an argument to support your answer.  Misleading advertisements are growing day by day on different types of media and many people get cheated because of that. Fabricated or exaggerated claims are the themes of many of the advertisements. Product manufacturers and service providers are looking for any opportunity to cheat or mislead the public to make money. So government should definitely put some restrictions upon advertisements. Marketers or advertisers use all media for sending their messages to the customers. Apart from print and audio visual media, current marketers use social media, internet, email, and mobile phones extensively to contact the customers. In short, people are fed up because of the accumulation of advertisements. Advertisements in print and audio visual media can be justified up to certain extent since these media are making revenue from advertisements for meeting their expenses. However, email messages, SMS messages and marketing calls cannot be justified under any circumstances since these things are clear privacy violations. Marketers have the right to use different media for marketing their products; however they should make sure that none of their advertisements provide any disturbances to the people. Government should restrict the number of advertisements as well as the content of the advertisements. Government should make rules to prevent people from get cheated by the false claims of the advertisements. If an advertisement provides some offers or guarantee certain things, the government should make sure that the consumers are getting it. Moreover, government should put restrictions on advertisements which are intruding into the privacy of the public. In a highly publicized case at the University of Michigan, a student distributed over the Internet a violent sexual fantasy about a fellow student, whom he explicitly named, in which she was raped, tortured, and finally killed. The judge ruled that although the story was deeply offensive, it was not a crime. Do you agree with the judge’s ruling? Should incidents such as these be regulated, banned, or criminalized? Support your answer.  In my opinion, the judge’s ruling is definitely not providing any good to the interest of the people. In fact spreading of materials related to violence and sex through internet like media are the major reason for the increased violent activities in this world. If the judge visualise the above story only as an offense and not as a crime, more and more people will be encouraged to do the same thing in future. On the other hand, if the judge declares above incident as a crime, people will stay away from such things in future. In other words, the judge’s ruling is definitely providing a wrong message to the society. In highly digitalized world, it is difficult to prevent sex or violence related messages. Internet and mobile phones are major sources of sex and violence related materials. It should be noted that children do not have the ability to segregate between the good and evil. A child who comes across with sex materials in internet may try to imitate the same thing in his real life also. He might think that such activities are legally permitted and nothing wrong in doing such activities in real life also. Criminal justice system should help the people to stay away from offensive activities. It should help the people to segregate between good and evil. In this case, instead of discouraging people from spreading sex and violence related materials, the judge is trying to simplify the matter which is unacceptable. Discuss Peacock's claim that religion and science complement each other. Is his position reasonable? Support your argument.  Many people have the belief that none of the religious principles may go in parallel directions with the scientific principles. In other words, some people believe that religion and science are spreading contrasting messages always. In fact religion and science are complementing each other as said by Peacock. Even though many people have strong belief in scientific principles, it is a fact that scientific principles are undergoing periodical changes. For example, earlier, science claimed that the sun is moving and the earth remains stationary. Then science argued that the earth is moving and while the sun remains stationary. Based on the above principle, science tried to prove that some of the claims of the Bible are false (It should be noted that in some of the chapters in Bible, sun is described as a moving object). However, science later modified its principle again. Now science says that both sun and earth are moving objects. It should be noted that until recent times, science believed that no object can move as quickly as light. However, a couple of months before, science discovered a particle which is moving much faster than light. Many people believe that many of the basic scientific theories are going to be changed because of this discovery. In short, scientific principles are undergoing changes periodically. On the other hand, religious principles never undergo any changes. In fact religion wins where science fails. For example, religion is the only entity which gives us some ideas about the life after death. On the other hand science remains silent on such issues. In short, religions should educate people about the spiritual aspects of life whereas science should concentrate only on the physical aspects of life. Both physical as well as spiritual aspects are important for human life and therefore science and religion should complement each other to help the people. Works Cited Read More