There are several processes of reflection on the responsibility of the individual in relation to his position in society. One might advocate survival of the fittest while another would take the burden his brother carries as his own responsibility. This timeless debate has been the subject of essays, books and passionate debates. Two authors, Nobel Prize winner Garret Hardin and Muhammed Yunus, present juxtapositions on the subject and are worth examining from their opposing perspectives. Hardin makes a strong case against helping the poor in his essay “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor.” Yunus has a completely different point of view in his writings and shows the merits of reaching out to the poor and providing them with the necessities needed to improve their situation in life. Although there is never a clear solution to the problems facing humanity, there are always heavily weighted and favored outcomes for one or another philosophy. Despite Hardin's argument against it, he asserts that the world has limited space and resources, and he believes that ethics does not dictate the sharing of these limited resources. He also complains that poorer nations reproduce more often, leading to an increase in the poor-to-rich ratio each year and even greater consumption of the Earth's natural resources each year. This is a very limited argument for selfish self-preservation. He lacks the vision to find creative solutions. The first and most obvious solution to his position is simply to build more lifeboats. The poor don't want someone else's lifeboat; they want their own lifeboat. Even though Hardin can justify limiting immigration of the poor to the United States in order to preserve our own resources, his argument does not examine the fact that third world countries have resources to match their resources.