World Hunger: Moral Obligation Of The Rich To Feed The Poor

One in nine people on Earth do not have enough food to lead a healthy active life. Forty-five percent of the deaths of children under five are due to malnutrition. By the time you finish reading this paper over 120 people died of starvation. World hunger is massive problem that we will undergo for the rest of our lifetimes if not solved. The significant contrast between rich and poor raises the debate of whether it is our duty to help those in need. The stem of the debate consists of moral right/wrongdoings verses doing what is best for mankind as a whole. In his article “Living on a Lifeboat”, Hardin argues that feeding the worlds hunger is a moral evil and causes overall disaster. In this essay, I will argue against Hardin’s three main points: feeding the poor leads to overpopulation, causes more deaths, and leads to a worse environment for both the rich and the poor. I will portray my argument by, first, explaining key points made by Hardin. Next, I will explain how this argument is implausible. Finally, I will provide a proficient counterexample against my view and respond to it. I ultimately conclude that the rich have a moral obligation to feed the poor.

Hardin claims that feeding the poor results in overall negative effects on the human race. First, he uses a lifeboat metaphor to argue his point. There is a fully supplied lifeboat with a sixty seat capacity containing fifty people. One hundred fifty people are drowning in the surrounding water. Hardin gives the three scenarios: overload the boat with all 150 people with a high chance that everyone drowns, fill up the last 10 seats but lose extra resources, or let no one on the boat to prevent safety hazards and depletion of supplies. He believes that one should put behind their moral duty and let no one on their boat for the best chance of survival. Another one of Hardin’s arguments states that giving food to poor nations increases reproduction rate. In turn, more people need to be fed creating an unsolvable cycle of world hunger. To make things worse, most poor countries are already over populated. According to his article, the reproduction rate of a rich nation is significantly lower. In the U. S. , a rich country, population doubles every 87 years. In poverty driven countries, the population doubles every 21 years. He also uses a metaphor where herdsmen are given free land for their cows to graze to show his theory on the law of commons. The system worked great until the pasture became overpopulated from other herdsmen and cattle. In the end, the land is diminished and eroded. This example shows the negative impact overpopulation can have on the societies environment.

Lastly, Hardin ridicules the World Food Bank. The World Food Bank aids countries from starvation, disease, and disasters in emergency situations. He points out all of the flaws in this system. First, he disagrees with the general purpose of the organization because of his philosophy. He also shows how the WFB is more about the benefits reaped by the very few people involved then they care charity. Millions of dollars of tax payer’s money was given to farmers, distributors, and merchandisers within the industry.

I argue against Hardin’s premises that world hunger is a moral evil and leads to disaster. There are three reasons why we have an obligation to feed the poor. First, it is our moral duty to help those who are in need. According to Peter Singer, allowing a person to die from hunger when it is easily preventable with a relatively small amount of money/time is morally wrong and equal to killing, since a person will die of starvation and you were capable of helping. In Hardin’s lifeboat metaphor, Hardin does not consider morals. If we had any open seats on the boat and an opportunity to save a life, it is our moral duty to do so. I do not infer that it is our responsibility to fit all 150 people on the boat, but it is undoubtedly our moral duty to fit as many people as the maximum capacity permits. If we lived in a world with no morals, Hardin’s reasoning’s would be more justifiable.

Second, feeding the poor can bring the population under control. As poverty rates decrease, reproduction rates also decrease. When people are economically stable, they are less likely to have the desire to extend their family. Thus, more aid can level out the population. Third, aiding countries in need can reduce overall poverty rates in poor countries if more aid was given in the first place. The problem is that not enough capable people are contributing to the poor. The “green revolution”, a program where farmers and agriculturist are taught effective ways to cultivate their own food, is a program that both Hardin and I see potential in. If more people gave money to educational and training programs I believe a big difference can be made because these poor countries will become independent.

To counter my first argument stating that it is our moral duty to feed the poor, one might argue that human survival as a whole is more important than morals. Overall happiness is better then immediate gratification. Aiding poor nations will hurt them in the long-run. Since feeding the poor leads to more deaths in poor countries, would it not be morally wrong to bring upon more deaths? One might also interject that feeding the poor has not proven to monitor the population. The population rate increases by 3. 3 percent annually in third world countries. Suppose the population of Columbia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Morocco, Thailand, Pakistan, and the Philippines is 210 million people, and the U. S. also is 210 million people, by the time the U. S. had 420 million people, the poor countries will have a population of 3,540 million people. One who opposes my view will also state that it is not physically possible to get enough aid and charity due to the selfish human nature.

I disagree with this logic because I believe that if we have the means to prevent world hunger and aid poor countries, it is our moral duty to help in any possible way. Since we have an excess in what we do not need, we should give back to those in need instead of purchasing luxuries for ourselves. The quality of life of those in poor countries is much less then our own, so we should bring justice to those who are less fortunate. World hunger will never get solved if everyone thinks that their donation will not make a difference.

In conclusion, we have a moral obligation to feed the poor. If we have the power to help better the situation of others, we should take action. With little sacrifice to each U. S. citizen, we could end world hunger. Why does it still exist? Not enough people make the small sacrifice to donate to organizations that aid poor countries and not all of the money that gets donated to these organizations goes to the citizens of the poor countries. Each human being has the right to justice and human rights. We are fortunate enough to have food on our plate tonight, so we ought to enable others to have the same opportunity.