World Hunger and Poverty: Hardin Philosophy 220

World Hunger and Poverty Go check out these sites: http://www.stopthehunger.com/ http://feedingamerica.org/faces-of-hunger/hunger-101/hunger-and-poverty-statistics.aspx Scrolling down the first page, reveals a series of estimates challenging common moral intuitions. The moral concerns they raise are captured in these questions: "Are economically advantaged people morally required to participate in…redistribution…[to the] severely economically disadvantaged?" "…what best explains this obligation?" (444)

An Answer to #2 A duty to Beneficence (to help those in dire need) is widely assumed. If we accept such a duty, the issues we need to flesh out are: What is the scope of the duty? Whose need are we obliged to address? What is the content of the duty? How much are we required to sacrifice to meet the obligation. How compelling (strong) is the duty? How does our duty to beneficence compare to other duties we have (to ourselves, to our children, etc.) or to other interests we have (say in expensive cars).

What about #1? Clearly, fleshing out the answer to the second question has important implications for the first question. If you understand the scope, content and strength to be significant, then you are going to answer the first question in the affirmative, and interpret its requirements expansively. "I/We should be actively and substantially trying to reduce the need of the neediest." If, on the other hand, you understand the scope, content and strength to be negligible, then your answer will either be negative or weakly, negligibly positive. "I have no obligation to help," "I/We should help, but I have other important things to address."

Consequentialism From the consequentialist standpoint, fleshing out our answer to the second question is going to depend on the evaluation of the consequences that would follow from helping the needy. Consequentialists have differed in their evaluations, with much debate turning on the likely efficacy or optimality of substantial economic sacrifice.

Kantian Moral Theory Not surprisingly, adherents of KMT take a very different approach to this question. Kant defended the notion that we have a duty of beneficence, largely on the basis of the Humanity Formulation of the Categorical Imperative (Treat people as ends.) Kant doesn't, however, specify the scope, content or strength of the duty, insisting that only those who have the duty are in a position to do so.

Hardin, "Lifeboat Ethics" Hardin starts with what to him seems a troubling metaphor: Spaceship Earth. The trouble comes from it's tendency to produce a feature famously identified by Hardin: The Tragedy of the Commons. Another problem is the one of command and control: who is the captain of the spaceship? What theory of human nature is Hardin assuming in all of this?

A Better Metaphor Let's set up some lifeboats: see 448c1. What should we do with all of those swimming poor people? A Key Concept: Capacity Limitations. What should we do? Be a Christian or a Marxist (they're the same thing!) Let in 10 more, exceed safety limits. Let in no one. Differing rates of reproduction only exacerbate the problem.

A Common Ruin The lifeboat metaphor is an example of Hardin's argument that free access and unrestricted demand for a finite resource ultimately dooms the resource through over-exploitation. This occurs because the benefits of exploitation accrue to individuals or groups, each of whom is motivated to maximize use of the resource while the costs of the exploitation are borne by all those to whom the resource is available. "Nice Guys finish last." This, in turn, causes demand for the resource to increase, which causes the problem to snowball to the point that the resource is exhausted.

Ratchet Effect There's a sort of biofeedback mechanism to the tragedy that is also apparent, Hardin insists, in the use of international aid to prevent hunger or starvation. Helping them just lets them breed more which ultimately just causes another collapse. See figures 11.1 and 11.2.

What about the swimmers? The conclusion of Hardin's argument is that, for consequentialist reasons, we have no obligations to help the needy around us. Agreeing or disagreeing with Hardin requires an examination of the assumptions about consequences that his argument relies on.