Every day hundreds of thousands of people are starving. The issue of who should assist them is brought up time and time again. Should we give of our own? If so, how much should we give? Since only one third of the nations in the world are rich and the other two thirds are poor can and should the rich countries be expected to provide for the less fortunate? Garrett Hardin, author of "Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Aid That Harms" states that each country has a carrying capacity and by helping out others we push ourselves closer to a limit that we are close to reaching. Our nation only has a small amount of energy left and Hardin believes that by assisting the poor we will only make ourselves more susceptible to disaster. On the other hand, Peter Singer, author of "Rich and Poor" believes that there is something that can be done to prevent some people from starving and that people should take action.
United States
United States
United StatesHe states that there is hunger that can be stopped without the rich having to give up something significant. The articles disagree in that Hardin believes that these people cannot be helped without harming the rich in some way and Singer believes that something should be done about it. Singer's article "Rich and Poor" is a better article because the rich can give to the poor without causing financial strain on themselves. In Hardin's article, the nations of the world are compared to lifeboats with the rich sitting inside and the poor swimming in the oceans outside. Hardin explains how allowing all of the poor into the boat with the rich would be completely moral but would but everyone in the ocean would perish because the boat can't support that...
Ok
This is ok but you need to structure it into paragraphs and I would probably put in more stats. Also, you seem to have forgotten to attach the end of it. Informative essay though with some controverisal theories.
I don't agree with not giving aid to developing countries, I think countries like America and Britain should deliver non tied aid frequently and without interest as we can definately afford it.
Tied aid and high interest loans only increase the problem of third world countries. Much of the problems and poverty in sub saharan africa are created because rich countries have given high interest loans that mean developing countries will NEVER be able to pay it back, all their resources are put into paying back this money leaving no money to put into developing education and getting rid of poverty. Also, much of the aid given by us is tied aid. Cash Crops in Sudan and Rwanda are a good example. We give the countries money to buy crops but dictate what crops they should grow and who they should buy the resources off of (us, obviously). The countries then have to buy the resources off us, expensively and are unable to look for a lower price.
We also dictated exactly what crops were to be grown in these coutries, getting it completely wrong. The climate and the land was wrong for the sort of crops that Britain and America decided to be grown and the result was the crops were ruined, money lost and Sudan was in even more debt than before without haivng any way to pay it back.
Also, all the land was used in the cash crops, taking away land from local farmers and thus taking away the ability of local people to grow their own food, thus contributing to the poverty of the country.
The only non tied aid given to developing countries is by Non Government Organisations. Everything and anything given by governments or the world bank is generally pretty evil and is ALWAYS tied, meaning that the country giving the aid will benefit from the aid given as well. Rich countries never seem to be able to give the aid because they genuinely want to help and I think thats extremely frightening.
2 out of 3 people found this comment useful.