Distant Needy vs.

Future People

Dr. Ashley Taylor

1000500442

March 11, 2015

 Distant Needy vs. Future People

This essay will argue that we should be focusing our efforts on distributing our global resources

to the distant needy rather than the future people. This essay will be divided into three parts: First I will

appeal in favour of future people, then I will appeal in favour of the distant needy and finally I will

weigh the strengths and weakness of the both arguments and decide which argument I am more

inclined towards. This essay will first argue that we should be focusing our efforts and resources in

favour of future people. I will first argue that we should be focusing our efforts on future people

because future people have a right to a sustainable environment and I will then argue that if we

continue to use our resources on the distant needy then we will not have enough to build a sustainable

environment for the future. The second part of this essay will argue that we should be focusing our

efforts and resources in favour of the distant needy. I will first argue that it is a moral obligation to help

those less fortunate and I will then argue that developed nations are the one's who are contributing the

most to climate change, therefore aiding the distant needy should not hinder efforts to create a

sustainable environment for future people. I will then decide that I am more inclined towards focusing

our efforts on distributing our global resources to the distant needy and I will explain my reasoning.

Resources should be distributed in favour of the distant needy because it is a moral obligation to

help those less fortunate. It can be argued that as humans we have a duty of beneficence towards other

humans. It is our moral obligation to act in another person's benefit and to help them further their own

legitimate interests, especially if it is preventing possible harms1. According to Peter Singer in his 1971

essay Famine, Affluence and Morality, it would be immoral not to help reduce someone's suffering if it

does not significantly reduce the well-being of oneself. In simpler terms, people have a moral

obligation to help others, especially if it does not affect their own well-being2. In his essay, Singer uses

1 . Beauchamp, Tom, "The Principle of Beneficence in Applied Ethics", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(Winter 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/principle-
beneficence/>.
2 . Singer, Peter. "Famine, Affluence, and Morality."Philosophy & Public Affairs1.3 (1972): 229-43. JSTOR. Web. 10
Mar. 2015.
the Drowning Child thought experiment to support his argument that people must help those in need,

regardless of whether they personally know the one in need or where in the world the one in need lives.

In this thought experiment, Singer asks his reader to put themselves in a position whereby they passes

by a child who is drowning. According to Singer, we ought to pull the child out, even if it means

getting our clothes dirty. The fact that our clothes are now dirty as a result of pulling the child out is

insignificant and it does not outweigh the fact that we have now saved the life of the child. Singer then

uses this thought experiment to argue that it does not matter if the child whose life we are saving is in

front of us or a million miles away from us because if we believe in the principles of equality and

impartiality then we should not be taking proximity and distance into account of when deciding who

deserved our help. Similarly, if developed nations were to donate a very small fraction of their wealth

to developing countries, their loss would be insignificant in comparison to the assistance and relief they

would be providing those less fortunate. What wealthy people may consider to be a fraction of their

wealth, people who are less fortunate consider to be a lot and the aid that is provided could potentially

save a life. Thus, it is a moral obligation to help those that are suffering, regardless of their location or

distance.

Furthermore, we should focus our efforts on distributing our global resources on the distant

needy rather than future people because it is the developed nations that consume the most resources and

emit the most pollutants, therefore aiding the distant needy should not hinder efforts to create a

sustainable environment for future people. It can be argued that we should not be focusing on

distributing our resources to the distant needy because helping the developing nations would mean that

more people would survive which in turn would mean that more people would be born and consume

resources. While it is true that developing nations have the highest birth rates and in theory, not

providing them the resources to survive would mean that less people would be born, I would still

however like to challenge that argument. According to the World Bank Development Indicators in

2008, the world's richest 20% consume 75% of the world's resources while the poorest 20% of the
world only consume 1.5% of the world's resources3. Not aiding the world's poorest and letting them die

will not solve the current environmental crisis because according to the data, it is the world's richest

that are the problem, not the poorest. The world's richest also have the resources to help alleviate the

world from the current environmental crisis by implementing regulations in the way they consume their

natural resources. Not helping the world's poorest is not the solution to this current issue, instead, an

alternative solution should be found.

Our efforts should be focused in favour of future people because future people have a right to a

sustainable environment. Everyone who is alive today has a right to have basic necessities because

without these basic necessities, one cannot survive. These basic necessities include clean water, food

and shelter. If people who are currently alive have a right to these necessities, then why not people

future people? Future people also have a right to these necessities and although we may not know them

nor will we ever meet them, they still have a right to these basic needs to survive. These future people

also do not have a choice of when to be born so they cannot decide whether to be born in a time with a

more sustainable environment. With the current environmental situation, future people may not have

access to resources necessary to survive such as a clean environment. Human activities, such as the

burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, are causing immense damage to the environment. The burning

fossil fuels, for example, is altering the carbon cycle by adding more carbon dioxide into the

atmosphere and by affecting the ability of natural sinks from eliminating carbon dioxide from the

atmosphere4. Air pollution is also very harmful and is a cancer causing agent5. If current people

continue to misuse non-renewable natural resources in a reckless and wasteful way, future people will

not have a sustainable environment to live in and will be born into a world that is not worth living in.

Moreover, resources should be distributed in favour of future people instead of the distant needy

3 . "World Development Indicators." World Development Indicators. 2008. Web. 7 Mar. 2015.

<http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators>.
4 . "Carbon Dioxide Emissions."EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, 2 July 2014. Web. 07 Mar. 2015.
5 . Simon, Stacy. "World Health Organization: Outdoor Air Pollution Causes Cancer."American Cancer Society. N.p.,
17 Oct. 2013. Web. 07 Mar. 2015.
because if we continue to use our resources on the distant needy then we will not have enough to build

a sustainable environment for the future. There is no doubt that the natural environment is in a state of

crisis and that the world is continuing to warm up. There is also no doubt that the developing countries

are overpopulated. It is predicted that by 2050 the world's population will be about 9 billion6.

According to Garret Hardin, a solution to climate change and the overpopulation problem would be to

stop all foreign aid to developing countries. His reasoning is very simple: if we stop all foreign aid to

developing countries, then their populations will stabilize because of crop failures and famines7. Hardin

explains his theory of resource distribution using his lifeboat metaphor. In the lifeboat metaphor,

Hardin metaphorically describes rich nations as lifeboats with a limited capacity while people from

poor nations are swimmers. The lifeboat has room for ten more people however instead of admitting

ten more people on the lifeboat, Hardin argues that as a safety precaution, no more people may be

admitted onto the lifeboat. He states that if someone feel guilty about their place in the lifeboat then

they can switch places with one of the swimmers. Hardin uses this metaphor to help explain his theory

that we should not help those in need by allowing them into our rich, developed countries or by

providing them foreign aid, and nor should we feel guilty about our position as citizens of wealthy

countries. In Hardin's perspective, non-assistance would be the lesser evil compared to helping those

living in developing nations. His reasoning is that if we save lives in developing countries, we are

diminishing the quality of life for future generations in those countries and destructing their

environment. These developing countries have an overpopulation problem and by coming to their aid,

we are perpetuating and encouraging their issues. However, if we do not aid the less developed

countries, we could not only alleviate developing nations of their overpopulation problems but we

could also focus our efforts and funds on attempting to find solutions to our current environmental

problems. We should therefore not aid the distant needy.

6 . Block, Ben. "U.N. Raises "Low" Population Projection for 2050."Worldwatch Institute. N.p., 2013. Web. 07 Mar.
2015
7 . Hardin, Garrett. "Commentary: Living on a Lifeboat."BioScience 24.10 (1974): 561. Web.
 Both arguments have their strengths, however I am more inclined towards the argument that we

should be focusing our efforts on distributing our global resources to the distant needy. One reason why

I am more inclined towards this argument is that while I do agree that future people should be entitled

to the basic necessities to survive, I find it hard to garner sympathy towards people who are yet to

exist. I do however have much sympathy for those who are currently alive and living in poverty in

developing nations. I disagree with Hardin's lifeboat metaphor and his argument that we should not be

aiding developing countries. Rich, developed nations are the ones that are contributing the most to the

destruction of the natural environment therefore, allowing people in developing countries to die will

solve the issue. What needs to be done is for developed countries to invest into developing countries to

help them provide a sustainable environment for their future people. I am not arguing that we should

not be working towards a cleaner, healthier environment, instead I believe hat we should be working

together to provide a clean environment for everyone who lives, and will live, on earth.

Another fact that we should also consider is that we do not know who will exist in the future

and that their future existence is dependent upon existing people's actions8. Thus, future people cannot

complain that they are not satisfied with their lives or the state of the environment that they were born

into because if it was not for the actions of their ancestors, they would not have been born at all, which

is the worst possible outcome. So in theory, if we aid the poor we would not only be helping those less

fortunate (which is our moral obligation to do so) but we would also be helping future people because

our actions will result in them being born. There are people who are currently suffering, so instead of

trying to prevent suffering from potentially occurring to people who are not born yet, we should focus

on helping those who are already here. For these reason I would not choose to focus our resources on

future people at the expense of people who are currently alive and suffering.

In conclusion, we should be focusing our efforts on distributing our global resources to the

distant needy rather than the future people. We should be focusing our efforts aiding the distant needy
8 . Parfit, Derek. "Chapter 16: The Non-Identity Problem." Reasons and Persons. Oxford Oxfordshire: Oxford
Univeristy, 1984. Print.
because it is a moral obligation to help those in need. Also, rich nations are the one's who contribute the

most to climate change and future people's existence is dependant upon our current actions therefore,

they cannot blame us for the state of the environment because it was our actions, good or bad, that led

to their existence.
Work Cited

Beauchamp, Tom, "The Principle of Beneficence in Applied Ethics", The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (Winter 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/principle-
beneficence/>.

Block, Ben. "U.N. Raises "Low" Population Projection for 2050."Worldwatch Institute. N.p., 2013.
Web. 07 Mar. 2015

"Carbon Dioxide Emissions."EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, 2 July 2014. Web. 07 Mar. 2015.

Hardin, Garrett. "Commentary: Living on a Lifeboat."BioScience 24.10 (1974): 561. Web.

Parfit, Derek. "Chapter 16: The Non-Identity Problem." Reasons and Persons. Oxford Oxfordshire:
Oxford Univeristy, 1984. Print.

Simon, Stacy. "World Health Organization: Outdoor Air Pollution Causes Cancer."American Cancer
Society. N.p., 17 Oct. 2013. Web. 07 Mar. 2015.

Singer, Peter. "Famine, Affluence, and Morality."Philosophy & Public Affairs1.3 (1972): 229-43.
JSTOR. Web. 10 Mar. 2015.

"World Development Indicators." World Development Indicators. 2008. Web. 7 Mar. 2015.

<http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators>.