Morality and Responsibility Ethic: The Case Against “Lifeboat” Theory

Recognizing the limited and unequally shared recourses of the earth, Hardin insists that a rich nation should adopt a “lifeboat” measure to control its recourses. The rich should refuse to aid any other nations in need, even the rich possess great wealth surplus to their essential needs, which is saved as “safety factor” for a faraway emergency. Hardin points out the fatal errors of the “spaceship” ethic resulting in “the tragedy of the commons” which places no control on utilizing recourses and therefore enhances the poor’ s motivation to ask for aid. This, in turn, exacerbates poverty.

This may seem an amazingly reasonable solution to the poverty issue, but this theory turns to be very unacceptable and farcical when we seriously take morality and responsibility ethics into consideration. Hardin views the poverty problem in a fairly extreme way. Human beings are born a united community whose development lies on the mutual support and cooperation. This custom passed down from generation to generation constitutes a valuable moral tradition. In addition, there is no separate problem of poverty for which most of the rich nations shall be mostly responsible. Each nation has limited capacity, but if we try seriously to keep morality and responsibility ethics in mind, we will never turn to the “lifeboat” option.

According to Hardin’s theory, World Food Bank makes the poor dependent on the others’ aid, reluctant to work hard to change their poor living condition, which eventually brings the poor greater poverty. A wise nation or organization predicts emergencies, budget them, and saves for them. However, how could we expect a nation that suffered oppressive and deprived treatment from the western-world colonists from the late 19 century to late 1950s to get over poverty? How can we expect such African countries objectively lacking natural recourses and undergoing completely destructive climate to settle the issue of economic development in such a short time? Those are the unchangeable key factors contributing to Africa’s lagging economic development which is decisive to living condition. Under those circumstances, though those poor nations have expected the emergency in the future, they are so powerless that they even can not get rid of hunger, not to mention budget and save for emergencies. At this point, it is the invading countries that should take the responsibility to help the poor recover.  Also other countries should try to share their recourses with those poor nations, after all real development is a whole thing but not single.

Let’s see another example. Nowadays, powerful industrialized countries like America transfer pollutant to the poor countries which are incompetent to deal with it, and criticize the poor for not treating pollution. How ridiculous they are. Shouldn’t those evil industrialized countries bear the responsibility? Or should they still stick to the damn “lifeboat” ethic and refuse to offer help?

If we dig deep into the “lifeboat” theory, we can see how selfish and cruel it is. The rich would rather preserve greatly excessive capacity as “safety factor” than donate them to save lives, and would rather give up saving lives in threat in order not to diminish the life quality for the rest alive. This is no better than slaughtering people for achieving population decrease. Is this the way we human beings should go, without conscience and mercy, cold-blood? Don’t forget that it is morally decentness that distinguishes human beings from other creatures, that pulls human beings out of the black darkness toward a bright world. The rich are not necessarily required to give away all they own, but wealth surplus to their necessities should be given mostly to help people suffering from poverty so dire as to be life-threatening. Maybe the rich citizens shouldn't buy a luxurious car, have a pricey dinner, or take a grand travel. After all, a $1,000 dinner could save five children's lives. Many people may be unwilling to sacrifice so much for strangers. Considering human nature, they might be right, but they would be wrong in respect of morality.

Lifeboat may be safe for individuals only temporarily but not for a long run. People, rich or poor, would be eventually trapped in unexpected difficulty which can be overcome only through cooperation and each other’s support. That is the morality and responsibility ethic, for making a better life for all of us.