In the "Adrift in a Moral Sea" section of "Lifeboat Ethics," Garrett Hardin compares a wealthy country like the United States to
a lifeboat. Is this an accurate comparison to prove his argument that rich nations should not help the poor nations? Why or why not? Be sure to use details from the essay to support your point.
In "Adrift in a Moral Sea," Garrett argues that a wealthy country is similar to a lifeboat that holds 50 people with capacity to hold 10 more, but is faced with 100 additional people who need to be saved. His argument is that the lifeboat will sink if the boat exceeds capacity, and that even maximum capacity is too much of a risk.
While I believe it is possible for a country to "sink" if too much help is given, there are other means to help other than "letting people onto the lifeboat." While it is a good example, it is oversimplified. This argument is against giving handouts, or doing anything that would put a current wealthy country at risk, but it doesn't provide another alternative other than ignore the crisis.
generation z might be a bunch of kids but they are paving a way for those kids who are afraid to be themselves or go out and fight for things they think are wrong
