In “Lifeboat Ethics: The Arguments Against Poor Relief,” I find the counterclaim to be unreasonable. The counterargument to this argument is that the government should not help the poor because of its limited resources. This is not reasonable. I think the government should give its resources to the poor instead of using them for things we don't need. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an Original Essay It wouldn't hurt to put some things aside to help the poor. In “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor,” this is not the case. In the text it says: “To be generous, let's assume there is room for 10 additional people, which makes a total capacity of 60 people. Suppose we, 50 people in the lifeboat, saw 100 other people swimming in the water outside, begging for admission to our boat. or for documents. » which is soon followed by “But which 10 are we letting in?” How do we choose? Should we choose the best 10-inch statements, after that, including how this is an example of America. Here's the problem. There is a possible way to determine which ones are 10. Think about it, what happens if there are people who already have illnesses, or who are old and are not that far from death. There may be adults who manage to find land. We could compare these people to babies and children who have a whole life ahead of them and are too small to find a solution. We could favor children and babies rather than older ones: not because we favor them, but because young people need help more than others. We could also favor the poor over the rich and give the poor more things than the rich; Not because we favor, but because the poor need help more than the rich. The essay also includes information about the Food for Peace program. Garrett Hardin objects. According to the essay, "those who proposed and publicly defended the Food for Peace program rarely mentioned its importance to any of these special interests." Garrett clearly states that the program is not a good idea. This is not true. There are many benefits to the program and it's honestly a bit selfish to say it's a bad idea. Most people are aware of the program and do not emphasize its importance simply because the program speaks for itself. The goal of the program is to give food to the poor. Garrett objects, saying the government is giving away our food supplies. He makes it convincing by saying: “The combination of quiet selfish interests and loudly vocal humanitarian apologists has constituted a powerful and effective lobby for extracting money from taxpayers. We can expect the same lobby to now push for the creation of a World Food Bank.” The “World Food Bank” was a perfect demonstration of what Garrett thought about government aid to the poor. It makes it seem like the world revolves around the poor, so the rich don't get any recommendations. What he doesn't understand is that people's lives matter more than being recognized more than others. Garrett also includes information about how people give out of pity. It is stated in the text: “But it's not their fault! » Some good-hearted liberals argue. “How can we blame the poor who are..