affluent person to administer the proper service to the one in need.The opposing argument to Singers premise for comparable moral significance, is the right to property, by Robert Nozick. This argument states that, if one has acquired ones property without the use of unjust means like force or fraud, one may be entitled to enormous wealth while others starve. Nozick rejects the belief that a wealthy person is obligated to give to those in need, but rather, the poor can and may be help through voluntary measures. His rejection goes in so far as the implication that the poor have a right to the aid of the wealthy. Singer believes that such a theory leaves to much to chance to be an acceptable ethical view. For if it is left up those who have, to volunteer aid to those who do not have; there will always be the possibility will continue as they do now and do nothing. This would be done because perhaps they do not know of the suffering of their fellow humans or they do not feel that such things concern them. Their life is fine.Concerning Hardins lifeboat analogy, that the rich nations are like the occupants of a crowded lifeboat adrift in a sea full of drowning people. If there is an attempt to save the drowning people by bringing them aboard the boat, the boat will be overloaded and all will perish. Within this theory it is better that some survive then none. In todays world, Hardins lifeboat ethics suggest that the rich should allow the poor to starve, for if they do not, they will eventually starve along with the poor. The reasoning behind this assessment is, that their are limited amounts of resources. Therefore, Triage Ethics (aid those who will benefit from the assistance) must be imposed. This is because, if the rich nations give to all in need; there will be some countries that will not benefit, but become worse off. This in return, perpetuates absolute poverty rather than alleviating it. Another big point that advocates of this t...
