Write a critical analysis by identifying and assessing the argument in the following passage.
We in the rich nations are like the occupants of a crowded lifeboat adrift in a sea full of drowning people. If we try to save the drowning by bringing them aboard, our boat will be overloaded and we shall all drown. Since it is better that some survive than none, we should leave the others to drown. In the world today ‘lifeboat ethics’ apply. The rich should leave the poor to starve, for otherwise the poor will drag the rich down with them.
Oops! I believe I just addressed that in your other post.
No worries! I'll be happy to help you with this critical analysis as well. Let's break down the argument in the passage you provided:
The passage presents an analogy comparing the situation of rich nations to occupants of a crowded lifeboat adrift in a sea full of drowning people. The argument suggests that if the rich nations try to save the drowning people by bringing them aboard, the lifeboat will become overloaded and everyone will drown. As a result, it is proposed that the rich nations should leave the poor to drown in order to ensure the survival of some, rather than risking the survival of all. The argument concludes that in the current world, "lifeboat ethics" should apply, asserting that the rich should let the poor starve to prevent the poor from dragging the rich down with them.
In terms of assessing the argument, it can be viewed from different ethical perspectives. One perspective that could be applied is utilitarianism, which focuses on maximizing overall happiness or well-being. From a utilitarian standpoint, the argument appears to prioritize the well-being and survival of the rich over the poor. By accepting the premise that leaving the poor to starve is better than risking the survival of all, the argument neglects considerations of global equity and distributive justice.
Critics of this argument might argue that as members of a global community, it is the moral obligation of the rich nations to provide aid and assistance to those in need. They might question the assumption that helping the poor will inevitably lead to the downfall of the rich. Additionally, they might argue that resources and distribution could be managed more fairly and efficiently to prevent everyone from drowning.
In conclusion, the argument presented in the passage reflects a form of "lifeboat ethics" which suggests that the rich should leave the poor to starve for the greater survival of the rich. However, this argument can be questioned from various ethical perspectives, emphasizing the importance of considering global responsibilities and alternative approaches to resource distribution.