We cannot be held accountable for those ascribed to famine, until those ascribed achieve successful changes in their cultural and social practices. Both Peter Singer and Garrett Hardin agree with this point of view suggesting that financial aid should do more than provide food. Hardin writes in his essay Lifeboat Ethics: the Case against Helping the Poor, “[That] the modern approach to foreign aid stresses the export of technology and advice rather than money and food (5). Singer offers the same opinion in is essay, Rich and Poor, “We can assist poor countries to raise the living standards of the poorest members of the population. We can encourage the governments of these countries to enact land reform measures, improve education, and liberate women from a purely childbearing role. We can also help other countries to make contraception and sterilization widely available” (512). Hardin mentions in his essay the ancient Chinese proverb: “Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach him to fish and he will eat for the rest of his days.” Nevertheless, teaching a man to fish while living in poverty stricken areas overrun by rogue governments and guerilla fighters would require teaching him or her how to survive beyond the margins of hunger, which would be impossible. This is why it is necessary to change social institutions and traditions in order not only to “teach a man to fish,” but also to keep the person alive from forces other than famine.

The people in famine stricken nations need to achieve stability whether it is through rebellion or changes in traditional institutions and social practices if they expect to put an end to ascribing a life of famine to future generations. Biblically speaking, Jesus could not save everyone while alive. Even after his crucifixion he can only save those who wish to be saved, (e.g. Peter goes into the turbulent waters with Jesus and begins drowning when he turns away from Jesus, he is only saved when he turns his eyes back to Jesus and says “Save me”. Lot’s wife was forewarned not to look back upon Sodom and Gomorrah. Nevertheless, she refused the warning and turned into a pillar of salt.) Martin Luther King Jr. states in his book Why We Can’t Wait, “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.” In the case of those ascribed to famine, they too must demand of themselves and of their government a better life by changing their lifestyles which would mean changing their government and economic practices. Economically the governments of these impoverished countries need to begin efforts on helping their citizens and this can only be done by rebuilding and through education.

Altruism could in fact be hurting instead of helping the problem of world hunger. Richard Lippke, addressing problems of mandatory sentencing and crime reduction in the United States suggest: “In some instances some attracted to libertarian theories of social justice believe the government welfare programs or excessive government regulation of the economy as a contributing factor to crime” (29). The same could be said for helping impoverished nations. Hardin writes, “as a result of such solutions to food shortage emergencies, the poor countries will not learn to mend their ways, and will suffer progressively greater emergencies as their populations grow” (5). Our help needs to come with certain obligations that must be met by the government of the impoverished nation, and the rules should be very strict or help will not be granted in the form of financial aid.

There are those who disagree entirely with both Hardin and Singer, which is difficult to do when both Singer and Hardin agree in their conclusions. Hardin concludes that we have to manage the way we help other people. We cannot just give willingly if those we are trying to help are not using the resources to create changes in the cultural and social institutions therefore saving lives instead of “giving a fish.” Diane Brzozowski disagrees with Hardin’s “lifeboat ethics” using examples of specific sea tragedies in which men were forced into lifeboats. However, Brozozowski’s illustration of Sir Earnest Shackleton’s heroic attempts to save the crew of his ship, the Essex is a wonderful story of survival; it does not directly show empirical evidence that Hardin’s lifeboat analysis is in fact the only realistic solution in helping the poor. Hardin does not suggest that the poor should not be helped, on the contrary he argues that before anyone can be helped they must first help themselves or change their social and cultural practices. On the other hand, it is hard to disagree with Peter Singer’s point of view of the analogy of the child drowning in a pond, until you realize that as soon as you rescue that child five more take his place. Eventually you have to keep the children from entering the pond and this is where both Singer and Hardin agree. Although Singer says “that you shouldn’t buy that new car, take that cruise, redecorate the house or get that expensive new suit. After all, a $1,000 suit could save three children’s lives” (Oppenheimer 66). One would have to understand that if you “divide $2,000 by 500 million (sick and hungry people in need of assistance), [then] each such needy person would get a benefit worth $0.00004, or one twenty-fifth of a penny” (Abelson 36). When you look at it from that perspective, many people do not feel as if their money is actually being spent to save lives but to preserve the conditions in which those ascribed to famine already exist.

In every society we have social institutions (e.g. family, religion, education, government, and economics), and you will find that in the case of impoverished nations there are problems with population, corrupt governments, which lead to economic woes and famine. If these nations are educated in the value of birth control, if the people of those nations will stand up against those who steal valuable resources, and if the government will have compassion upon its citizens and not in lining their own pockets, then not only would these nations being doing their own part in saving themselves they would find that those manning the “lifeboats” less apprehensive of helping.

Works Cited

Abelson, Raziel. “Moral Distance: What Do We Owe To Unknown Strangers?” Philosophical Forum 36 (2005): 31-40

Brzozowski, Diane. “Lifeboat Ethics: Rescuing the Metaphor.” Ethics, Place & Environment 6 (2003): 161-66

Hardin, Garrett. “Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor.”16 Feb. 2005

Lippke, Richard L., “Crime Reduction and the Length of Prison Sentences.” Law & Policy 24 (2002): 17-35.

Oppenheimer, Mark. “Who lives? Who Dies?” Christian Century 3 Jul. 2002: 119

Singer, Peter. “Rich And Poor.”