Many nations have much more resources than others. In todays world many capable countries aid needy countries with food, money, medical attention etc. There are many people who feel these countries do not give enough and many other people who feel these countries give too much. There is no definite answer to the question because it is all based on personal views. Pete Singer and Garrett Hardin views on the topic greatly differ from one another. In “Insiders/Outsiders”, Singer states it is a nations moral duty to do all it can to help those in need, while in contrast Harden states it is a nations duty to not help the countries in need in his article “Lifeboat Ethics.”
Pete Singer’s main argument is that these affluent nations need to do all it can to help these poor nations. That help can range from anywhere to food, money, medical supplies, taking them in as refugees and much more. Singer uses the analogy of how the world is facing massive radiations levels and a certain group of people have prepared for this situation and over the course of many years have built an under ground sanctuary for then to stay away from the deadly gases. The people who have prepared for the worst have found out they have room to take in up to 10,000 people who are at danger of being exposed to the radiation. To take in 10,000 people the sanctuary would have to remove of all the leisure space they have. Singer is comparing this sanctuary to these affluent states that should take in high numbers of needy immigrants because it is their moral duty to help out others.
One of Singer’s arguments is to let these refugees resettle in different countries. He states that these people cannot return home due to the reasons they left in the first place. Whether it is political unrest, scarce food supply, or horrid living conditions. Most of these problems do not get resolved in these third world countries. Another resolution could be local settlement, which would mean these refugees settle in neighboring countries. However, in most cases these neighboring countries do not have the means to take in refugees as they are in the same state as the surrounding countries. With both of these resolutions not being reasonable Singer says it is best for these immigrants to resettle in another affluent country far away as they have the means to take in refugees.
Singer goes on to talk about how the citizens of the affluent country will be affected by the influx of refugees. Taking in a great number of refugees will have an effect on the economy. It may have many negative effects as more jobs will be needed, more public welfare being needed, business competition will boost. However, Singer says not to look at the bad but the good than can arise from the situation such as new business, new ethnic diversity within the community, and having new loyal citizens who are reading to contribute to the country.
Garrett Hardin’s views greatly contrast Singers views. He states it is in the best interest of affluent countries to not help these people in need. He says by helping these people you are only putting a bandage on the problem. By putting a bandage on the problem the problem will only increase and multiply. Allowing these countries to go through their struggle with no foreign aid will help them exceed in the long run.
One of Hardins question at issue with helping these people is their population will continue to grow. When their population continues to grow the problem will only get bigger as it will be harder to take care of more people. He says poor countries populations grow 2.5 percent per year while affluent nations only rise 0.8 percent per year. The number of people in need is only getting higher and…