Thought Piece: "Spaceship" vs. "Lifeboat"

[Marauder06]

For those of you who haven't seen this before, from time to time here on the site we have a structured debate on a certain topic. When the topic is announced, site members volunteer to take a specific position for or against a certain topic, and then vigorously support their point of view in the ensuing debate.

The major twist? Oh yeah, you don't know what the debate topic is until you're assigned a point of view.

So, we're going to do it again. I'm not going to announce the specific topic just yet, but there is a major clue in the thread title.

The rules for this thread are these:
1) if you want to participate, respond to this thread and let me know if you want the "pro" side or the "against" side
2) after a couple of days, I'll compile a list of people who want to participate and let them know what side their on (sometimes I have to assign people to a point of view other than the one they requested in order to even the teams, or for other reasons I assign them to something different than what they ask for)
3) then I reveal the debate topic, and the debate starts
4) during the debate, only members of the site staff and people who volunteered to participate in the debate can post in this thread, I'll delete all other posts
5) after the debate is over, the thread is open for comment by anyone
6) during the debate, no matter how you feel about a certain topic, you are to make the best argument you can for the point of view to which you have been assigned; caveats like "I don't really believe this but..." undermine your position so don't do it
7) if there's not enough interest in this topic, no big deal; we'll close it and move on to something else.

These things are a lot of fun, and are usually quite educational. Personally, I love seeing someone who I know has a strong point of view on a certain subject, come on here and make a great case for the complete opposite point of view. These threads are great critical analysis exercises and help people practice research, writing, critical thinking, presentation, and considering multiple points of view on topics of major interest to our community.

So if you want to participate, let me know and we'll get started.

 

[mac21]

I'm up for it. I'll volunteer for the "pro" side.

 

[reed11b]

My debate skills are mostly limited to punching people, but I'll jump in for "against"
Reed

 

[racing_kitty]

I don't want to put myself in the same position as the last time I participated, in that work reared its ugly head before I was able to complete my second argument. I'm going to make sure that I will have the time at my disposal before I commit.

Excellent choice in subject matter, though.

 

[Marauder06]

I don't want to put myself in the same position as the last time I participated, in that work reared its ugly head before I was able to complete my second argument. I'm going to make sure that I will have the time at my disposal before I commit.

Excellent choice in subject matter, though.

"Blah blah blah, I'm in for the 'pro' side."

Got it.

 

[pardus]

I take a crack at it. I'll take pro.

 

[SpitfireV]

I'm off overseas on a junket early Jan, do you think it would all be over by then?

 

[dirtmover]

I'm in ......don't care what side...you are just going to change it anyways.......lol

 

[x SF med]

I'll play... whichever side needs intellectual reinforcement... just don't put me on a team with either Reed or Pardus

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

I'll play, whichever side needs another person.

 

[racing_kitty]

"Blah blah blah, I'm in for the 'pro' side."

Got it.

Guess I have my answer, then!

 

[medicchick]

I'll play... whichever side needs intellectual reinforcement... just don't put me on a team with either Reed or Pardus

That's a contraindication if I ever saw one.

 

[Marauder06]

I'm off overseas on a junket early Jan, do you think it would all be over by then?

What do you think this is, a case study?? Yeah it'll be over in just a couple of days.

 

[Marauder06]

Last call for participants. We'll get going with this tomorrow.

 

[Marauder06]

OK, this thread is closed for comments until further notice, unless you're a member of the staff or one of the people listed below.

The Argument:

"The United States has a moral obligation to do more than it is currently doing to help the impoverished, the starving, and the ill peoples of the world."

The Instructions:
Using Peter Singer's "Famine, Affluence and Morality" and Garrett Hardin's "Lifeboat Ethics" as primary sources (see links below). construct an argument either for or against the argument presented above.

The Sides:
For: ("Spaceship Earth")
@mac21
@racing_kitty
@pardus
@JAB

Against: ("Lifeboat Ethics")
@reed11b
@x SF med
@dirtmover
@medicchick

Background information:
Peter Singer is an Australian philosopher and moralist, who is famous for, among other things, the "drowning child" allusion in his work "Famine, Affluence and Morality." Singer's position might be represented by the concept of "Spaceship Earth;" that we are all in this together, that resources are ample enough for all of us, and that we have a duty to share what we have with the people who need it most (which, usually, isn't us).

In contrast, American ecologist Garrett Hardin makes a "Case Against Helping the Poor." He uses the allusion of "lifeboat ethics" to describe what we should, and should not do for the world's poor.

Suggestions:
Using the Singer and Harden pieces, and any other research or original thoughts of your own, craft an argument to support your assigned point of view on this topic. It is not a requirement to cite sources, but I find it usually makes a better argument when you do. No one expects you to read all of both articles in their entirety (they're much shorter in the textbook versions, but I can only find links to the full versions online). Skim the readings, and then make your arguments. This isn't intended to be a time-consuming, research-based exercise, the readings are merely to help jumpstart the debate.



Game on!

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

I know nothing of the topic, so I'll be reading for the next few hours. How long do we have to make our initial statement/argument?

 

[Marauder06]

Take as long as you want, bro. Remember that I'm not envisioning this as some big research project for anyone, the two readings are just to provide some context for what you kind of already know/feel.

 

[racing_kitty]

I'll have to re-read Spaceship Earth, as I haven't read it in a very long time.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

Oh great, so I get to be the first one who has his “opinion” picked apart…:blkeye::-"

"The United States has a moral obligation to do more than it is currently doing to help the impoverished, the starving, and the ill peoples of the world." Because the United States has some of the richest agricultural lands, the most advanced farming and ranching techniques and possess the unique ability to produce and transport foods globally, beyond any other nation in the world. We are one of the leading countries in basic health research, development and implementation. We also hold the world’s currency reserve and are undoubtedly the wealthiest nation in the world today.

As the wealthiest nation and unarguably the world’s strongest super power, we spend trillions on influencing the world through foreign policy’s, wars and foreign aid in geographical areas where we want to maintain influences over the population and or region. We will provide
financial, medical, food and military aid (I will use simply “aid” to describe this from now on) to nations who will assist us in maintaining influence, who assist us in development of resources we need, and who will fight proxy wars, that assist us in maintaining our power/influence throughout the world.

As a nation, we have proven our ability to provide disaster relief at an unprecedented level to nations we deem friendly and our allies. In the past decade, we have systematically fought two wars, while providing aid throughout the world at a level unseen in history.

Hardin compares the lifeboat metaphor to the Spaceship Earth model of resource distribution, which he criticizes by asserting that a spaceship would be directed by a single leader — a captain — which the Earth lacks.

When assuming disagreement with Hardin’s assertion of earth lacking a “captain” and asserting that the United States is that Captain, it becomes a moral obligation to assume the role of “captain” of this “Spaceship Earth”. As the assumed captain, it requires us morally to develop its crew of other nations, to become more efficient in growing their own food, developing their own economies and bringing them to a level of acceptable health. Not only in development of resources and population sustainability, but also in leadership of their specific section of the ship (or nation).

Inevitably this will require us to take a different approach from molding the world as we want it, in order to gain/maintain our power and influence. It will require us to stop using the carrot or the stick approach, and view that we are part of this ship we are calling earth. Not just part of it, but the leader of it, the captain of the ship, the nation who must demonstrate leadership, and not dictatorship. We must also understand, that over time, just like with any other good crew and crew leaders, new leaders will develop and take over the role of captain. At which point we must assume the role of a good crew, and support the ship and its captain in maintaining good order and prosperity of the ship.

Of course this will take time; it will take understanding and cooperation. Not just from our part as the leader, but also from the many other nations of the world. However, the end result will be one non-cooperative nation watching several cooperative nations develop and progress, while the non-cooperative nations remain in a prosperity negated environment. Sooner or later populations will catch on to what is going on, and will demand their governments change, and when governments fail to change, the Spaceship’s crew of nations can react as needed.

We did not become the world super power over night, we did not develop the medical, economical and agricultural methods we have over night. First we must stabilize the other nations by providing the resources they need to keep their populations alive and healthy, and than we must develop/train/educate them so that they can stabilize themselves and become a productive member of the crew.

In the theory of sharing resources, although we have plenty of physical resources to share, our two best resources we can ever share, is our leadership and knowledge.

 

[pardus]

"The United States has a moral obligation to do more than it is currently doing to help the impoverished, the starving, and the ill peoples of the world."

I will present this with a different angle. One of security and the survival of the free world.
The USA as the so called Leader of the Free World has a firm moral obligation to ensure the continued existence of freedom in the western world and the future expansion of that freedom to the rest of the world.
One very easy way to make inroads of this notion is for the USA to lead the way in humanitarian efforts throughout the world. The winning of Hearts and Minds.
This is not a handout of resources, more an investment for future gain.

If for example, the USA leads the way in humanitarian efforts with resources such as food, personal and logistics, to a country undergoing a humanitarian crisis.
The people of that country see US personal flying and driving US govt vehicles, handing out food from the USA. Good will is generated and those people through favorable contact will view the USA in a favorable light. This in turn could reap significant rewards in terms of regional stability, exploitation of natural resources, trade etc...

I will India as an example here. Cyclone 05B, a super-cyclone that struck the Indian state of Orissa on 29 October 1999, was the worst in more than a quarter-century. With peak winds of 160 miles per hour (257 km/h), it was the equivalent of a category 5 hurricane. Almost two million people were left homeless, another 20 million people lives were disrupted by the cyclone. Officially, 9,803 people died from the storm.
To quote a BBC article "Many died from starvation and water-borne diseases in the weeks immediately after the cyclone, as the rescue workers could not reach them quickly enough."
The USA with it's vast civil and Military resources could have and should have deployed shipping, aircraft, vehicles, personal, food, water purification equipment, medical aid and what ever else they could to avert or at least limited the loss of life after this storm. The goodwill this would've generated from the the people and govt of India could have been significant indeed for the United States.

USAID spent just 77.4 million dollars in India in 2011. Now to put this is perspective of the investment I spoke of earlier, India has placed an order with Russia for new fighter aircraft for over US 30 Billion dollars.
That is 30 Billion dollars that could be going to industry in the United States.
India with it's strategically vital location should be a country we are heavily investing in.

By taking the moral high ground the USA is not only doing the right thing morally, but is making meaningful investments in the continued safety and security of not only the United States and the western world, but is in a softer manner than military intervention, promulgating freedom and security to the rest of the world.