Deck 97: Garrett Hardin: Living on a Lifeboat

Question 1

In this article Hardin argues that the affluent should not aid the poor and starving people of the world because doing so will lead only to disaster for everyone, rich and poor. Helping desperately needy, overpopulated countries is morally wrong. He makes his case using several metaphors, the "lifeboat" being the most memorable.
Imagine, he says, that the affluent nations are lifeboats carrying rich people in a sea dotted with the desperately poor, many of them trying to clamber aboard or seize some of the passengers' supplies. Each lifeboat has a limited carrying capacity, just as each rich nation does. For safety's sake, a lifeboat should carry fewer passengers than it can actually accommodate, just as a country should have a population small enough to guarantee excess carrying capacity to offset emergencies such as droughts or crop failures. No lifeboat can take on more passengers or give handouts without risking disaster for everyone. If all those trying to climb aboard are taken into a boat, it will capsize and everyone will drown. If only some of the poor people are let on board-enough to fill the craft to maximum capacity-the safety factor is eliminated, and the boat will sink sooner or later. The third option, unthinkable to some, is to turn away all the poor. Many will perish, but the lucky few already on board will survive. Given these cruel realities, the morally right course for affluent nations is clear: Do not aid the people of desperately poor, overpopulated countries.
Hardin bolsters his argument with another metaphor, "the tragedy of the commons." The commons is any land or resource that is open to all to exploit. In any arrangement based on a commons system-such as public field where all shepherds can freely graze their sheep or a social system in which all goods are shared alike-it is in each member's self-interest to use the system's resources to the maximum. It is in each shepherd's interest, for example, to graze as many sheep as possible to support his family. There is no incentive for him to think about the common good, to act responsibly so the field is not overgrazed and ruined for everyone. The result is disaster; the field is destroyed. This is the tragedy of the commons: "mutual ruin" from a well-meaning system of sharing.
Hardin claims that in a world where all resources are shared and reproduction in the impoverished countries is uncontrolled, the tragedy of the commons is inevitable. The catastrophe will come when rich countries let the poor inundate their lifeboats or when a world food bank becomes an international commons that shares the Earth's food reserves.
-Hardin argues that the affluent should not aid the poor and starving people of the world because

A) doing so will raise their standard of living.
B) doing so will lead only to disaster for everyone, rich and poor.
C) the poor are undeserving.
D) the rich have no moral obligations.

Answer 1

B

Question 2

In this article Hardin argues that the affluent should not aid the poor and starving people of the world because doing so will lead only to disaster for everyone, rich and poor. Helping desperately needy, overpopulated countries is morally wrong. He makes his case using several metaphors, the "lifeboat" being the most memorable.
Imagine, he says, that the affluent nations are lifeboats carrying rich people in a sea dotted with the desperately poor, many of them trying to clamber aboard or seize some of the passengers' supplies. Each lifeboat has a limited carrying capacity, just as each rich nation does. For safety's sake, a lifeboat should carry fewer passengers than it can actually accommodate, just as a country should have a population small enough to guarantee excess carrying capacity to offset emergencies such as droughts or crop failures. No lifeboat can take on more passengers or give handouts without risking disaster for everyone. If all those trying to climb aboard are taken into a boat, it will capsize and everyone will drown. If only some of the poor people are let on board-enough to fill the craft to maximum capacity-the safety factor is eliminated, and the boat will sink sooner or later. The third option, unthinkable to some, is to turn away all the poor. Many will perish, but the lucky few already on board will survive. Given these cruel realities, the morally right course for affluent nations is clear: Do not aid the people of desperately poor, overpopulated countries.
Hardin bolsters his argument with another metaphor, "the tragedy of the commons." The commons is any land or resource that is open to all to exploit. In any arrangement based on a commons system-such as public field where all shepherds can freely graze their sheep or a social system in which all goods are shared alike-it is in each member's self-interest to use the system's resources to the maximum. It is in each shepherd's interest, for example, to graze as many sheep as possible to support his family. There is no incentive for him to think about the common good, to act responsibly so the field is not overgrazed and ruined for everyone. The result is disaster; the field is destroyed. This is the tragedy of the commons: "mutual ruin" from a well-meaning system of sharing.
Hardin claims that in a world where all resources are shared and reproduction in the impoverished countries is uncontrolled, the tragedy of the commons is inevitable. The catastrophe will come when rich countries let the poor inundate their lifeboats or when a world food bank becomes an international commons that shares the Earth's food reserves.
-Hardin says that in the lifeboat analogy the morally right course of action is to

A) allow everyone to climb into the boat.
B) allow only some poor people to climb into the boat.
C) turn away all the poor.
D) purposively sink the boat.

Answer 2

C

Question 3

In this article Hardin argues that the affluent should not aid the poor and starving people of the world because doing so will lead only to disaster for everyone, rich and poor. Helping desperately needy, overpopulated countries is morally wrong. He makes his case using several metaphors, the "lifeboat" being the most memorable.
Imagine, he says, that the affluent nations are lifeboats carrying rich people in a sea dotted with the desperately poor, many of them trying to clamber aboard or seize some of the passengers' supplies. Each lifeboat has a limited carrying capacity, just as each rich nation does. For safety's sake, a lifeboat should carry fewer passengers than it can actually accommodate, just as a country should have a population small enough to guarantee excess carrying capacity to offset emergencies such as droughts or crop failures. No lifeboat can take on more passengers or give handouts without risking disaster for everyone. If all those trying to climb aboard are taken into a boat, it will capsize and everyone will drown. If only some of the poor people are let on board-enough to fill the craft to maximum capacity-the safety factor is eliminated, and the boat will sink sooner or later. The third option, unthinkable to some, is to turn away all the poor. Many will perish, but the lucky few already on board will survive. Given these cruel realities, the morally right course for affluent nations is clear: Do not aid the people of desperately poor, overpopulated countries.
Hardin bolsters his argument with another metaphor, "the tragedy of the commons." The commons is any land or resource that is open to all to exploit. In any arrangement based on a commons system-such as public field where all shepherds can freely graze their sheep or a social system in which all goods are shared alike-it is in each member's self-interest to use the system's resources to the maximum. It is in each shepherd's interest, for example, to graze as many sheep as possible to support his family. There is no incentive for him to think about the common good, to act responsibly so the field is not overgrazed and ruined for everyone. The result is disaster; the field is destroyed. This is the tragedy of the commons: "mutual ruin" from a well-meaning system of sharing.
Hardin claims that in a world where all resources are shared and reproduction in the impoverished countries is uncontrolled, the tragedy of the commons is inevitable. The catastrophe will come when rich countries let the poor inundate their lifeboats or when a world food bank becomes an international commons that shares the Earth's food reserves.
-According to Hardin, the tragedy of the commons is

A) mutual ruin from a well-meaning system of sharing.
B) the overabundance of resources.
C) the waste of some resources.
D) mutual destruction through violence.

Answer 3

A

Question 4

In this article Hardin argues that the affluent should not aid the poor and starving people of the world because doing so will lead only to disaster for everyone, rich and poor. Helping desperately needy, overpopulated countries is morally wrong. He makes his case using several metaphors, the "lifeboat" being the most memorable.
Imagine, he says, that the affluent nations are lifeboats carrying rich people in a sea dotted with the desperately poor, many of them trying to clamber aboard or seize some of the passengers' supplies. Each lifeboat has a limited carrying capacity, just as each rich nation does. For safety's sake, a lifeboat should carry fewer passengers than it can actually accommodate, just as a country should have a population small enough to guarantee excess carrying capacity to offset emergencies such as droughts or crop failures. No lifeboat can take on more passengers or give handouts without risking disaster for everyone. If all those trying to climb aboard are taken into a boat, it will capsize and everyone will drown. If only some of the poor people are let on board-enough to fill the craft to maximum capacity-the safety factor is eliminated, and the boat will sink sooner or later. The third option, unthinkable to some, is to turn away all the poor. Many will perish, but the lucky few already on board will survive. Given these cruel realities, the morally right course for affluent nations is clear: Do not aid the people of desperately poor, overpopulated countries.
Hardin bolsters his argument with another metaphor, "the tragedy of the commons." The commons is any land or resource that is open to all to exploit. In any arrangement based on a commons system-such as public field where all shepherds can freely graze their sheep or a social system in which all goods are shared alike-it is in each member's self-interest to use the system's resources to the maximum. It is in each shepherd's interest, for example, to graze as many sheep as possible to support his family. There is no incentive for him to think about the common good, to act responsibly so the field is not overgrazed and ruined for everyone. The result is disaster; the field is destroyed. This is the tragedy of the commons: "mutual ruin" from a well-meaning system of sharing.
Hardin claims that in a world where all resources are shared and reproduction in the impoverished countries is uncontrolled, the tragedy of the commons is inevitable. The catastrophe will come when rich countries let the poor inundate their lifeboats or when a world food bank becomes an international commons that shares the Earth's food reserves.
-Hardin claims that in a world where all resources are shared and reproduction in the impoverished countries is uncontrolled, the tragedy of the commons is

A) undetectable.
B) possible.
C) inevitable.
D) instructive.

Question 5

In this article Hardin argues that the affluent should not aid the poor and starving people of the world because doing so will lead only to disaster for everyone, rich and poor. Helping desperately needy, overpopulated countries is morally wrong. He makes his case using several metaphors, the "lifeboat" being the most memorable.
Imagine, he says, that the affluent nations are lifeboats carrying rich people in a sea dotted with the desperately poor, many of them trying to clamber aboard or seize some of the passengers' supplies. Each lifeboat has a limited carrying capacity, just as each rich nation does. For safety's sake, a lifeboat should carry fewer passengers than it can actually accommodate, just as a country should have a population small enough to guarantee excess carrying capacity to offset emergencies such as droughts or crop failures. No lifeboat can take on more passengers or give handouts without risking disaster for everyone. If all those trying to climb aboard are taken into a boat, it will capsize and everyone will drown. If only some of the poor people are let on board-enough to fill the craft to maximum capacity-the safety factor is eliminated, and the boat will sink sooner or later. The third option, unthinkable to some, is to turn away all the poor. Many will perish, but the lucky few already on board will survive. Given these cruel realities, the morally right course for affluent nations is clear: Do not aid the people of desperately poor, overpopulated countries.
Hardin bolsters his argument with another metaphor, "the tragedy of the commons." The commons is any land or resource that is open to all to exploit. In any arrangement based on a commons system-such as public field where all shepherds can freely graze their sheep or a social system in which all goods are shared alike-it is in each member's self-interest to use the system's resources to the maximum. It is in each shepherd's interest, for example, to graze as many sheep as possible to support his family. There is no incentive for him to think about the common good, to act responsibly so the field is not overgrazed and ruined for everyone. The result is disaster; the field is destroyed. This is the tragedy of the commons: "mutual ruin" from a well-meaning system of sharing.
Hardin claims that in a world where all resources are shared and reproduction in the impoverished countries is uncontrolled, the tragedy of the commons is inevitable. The catastrophe will come when rich countries let the poor inundate their lifeboats or when a world food bank becomes an international commons that shares the Earth's food reserves.
-Hardin thinks that the World Food Bank is a good idea.

Question 6

In this article Hardin argues that the affluent should not aid the poor and starving people of the world because doing so will lead only to disaster for everyone, rich and poor. Helping desperately needy, overpopulated countries is morally wrong. He makes his case using several metaphors, the "lifeboat" being the most memorable.
Imagine, he says, that the affluent nations are lifeboats carrying rich people in a sea dotted with the desperately poor, many of them trying to clamber aboard or seize some of the passengers' supplies. Each lifeboat has a limited carrying capacity, just as each rich nation does. For safety's sake, a lifeboat should carry fewer passengers than it can actually accommodate, just as a country should have a population small enough to guarantee excess carrying capacity to offset emergencies such as droughts or crop failures. No lifeboat can take on more passengers or give handouts without risking disaster for everyone. If all those trying to climb aboard are taken into a boat, it will capsize and everyone will drown. If only some of the poor people are let on board-enough to fill the craft to maximum capacity-the safety factor is eliminated, and the boat will sink sooner or later. The third option, unthinkable to some, is to turn away all the poor. Many will perish, but the lucky few already on board will survive. Given these cruel realities, the morally right course for affluent nations is clear: Do not aid the people of desperately poor, overpopulated countries.
Hardin bolsters his argument with another metaphor, "the tragedy of the commons." The commons is any land or resource that is open to all to exploit. In any arrangement based on a commons system-such as public field where all shepherds can freely graze their sheep or a social system in which all goods are shared alike-it is in each member's self-interest to use the system's resources to the maximum. It is in each shepherd's interest, for example, to graze as many sheep as possible to support his family. There is no incentive for him to think about the common good, to act responsibly so the field is not overgrazed and ruined for everyone. The result is disaster; the field is destroyed. This is the tragedy of the commons: "mutual ruin" from a well-meaning system of sharing.
Hardin claims that in a world where all resources are shared and reproduction in the impoverished countries is uncontrolled, the tragedy of the commons is inevitable. The catastrophe will come when rich countries let the poor inundate their lifeboats or when a world food bank becomes an international commons that shares the Earth's food reserves.
-Hardin uses the lifeboat analogy to show that the resources of the developed world are limitless.

Question 7

In this article Hardin argues that the affluent should not aid the poor and starving people of the world because doing so will lead only to disaster for everyone, rich and poor. Helping desperately needy, overpopulated countries is morally wrong. He makes his case using several metaphors, the "lifeboat" being the most memorable.
Imagine, he says, that the affluent nations are lifeboats carrying rich people in a sea dotted with the desperately poor, many of them trying to clamber aboard or seize some of the passengers' supplies. Each lifeboat has a limited carrying capacity, just as each rich nation does. For safety's sake, a lifeboat should carry fewer passengers than it can actually accommodate, just as a country should have a population small enough to guarantee excess carrying capacity to offset emergencies such as droughts or crop failures. No lifeboat can take on more passengers or give handouts without risking disaster for everyone. If all those trying to climb aboard are taken into a boat, it will capsize and everyone will drown. If only some of the poor people are let on board-enough to fill the craft to maximum capacity-the safety factor is eliminated, and the boat will sink sooner or later. The third option, unthinkable to some, is to turn away all the poor. Many will perish, but the lucky few already on board will survive. Given these cruel realities, the morally right course for affluent nations is clear: Do not aid the people of desperately poor, overpopulated countries.
Hardin bolsters his argument with another metaphor, "the tragedy of the commons." The commons is any land or resource that is open to all to exploit. In any arrangement based on a commons system-such as public field where all shepherds can freely graze their sheep or a social system in which all goods are shared alike-it is in each member's self-interest to use the system's resources to the maximum. It is in each shepherd's interest, for example, to graze as many sheep as possible to support his family. There is no incentive for him to think about the common good, to act responsibly so the field is not overgrazed and ruined for everyone. The result is disaster; the field is destroyed. This is the tragedy of the commons: "mutual ruin" from a well-meaning system of sharing.
Hardin claims that in a world where all resources are shared and reproduction in the impoverished countries is uncontrolled, the tragedy of the commons is inevitable. The catastrophe will come when rich countries let the poor inundate their lifeboats or when a world food bank becomes an international commons that shares the Earth's food reserves.
-Hardin argues that aiding the poor will increase their suffering.

Question 8

In this article Hardin argues that the affluent should not aid the poor and starving people of the world because doing so will lead only to disaster for everyone, rich and poor. Helping desperately needy, overpopulated countries is morally wrong. He makes his case using several metaphors, the "lifeboat" being the most memorable.
Imagine, he says, that the affluent nations are lifeboats carrying rich people in a sea dotted with the desperately poor, many of them trying to clamber aboard or seize some of the passengers' supplies. Each lifeboat has a limited carrying capacity, just as each rich nation does. For safety's sake, a lifeboat should carry fewer passengers than it can actually accommodate, just as a country should have a population small enough to guarantee excess carrying capacity to offset emergencies such as droughts or crop failures. No lifeboat can take on more passengers or give handouts without risking disaster for everyone. If all those trying to climb aboard are taken into a boat, it will capsize and everyone will drown. If only some of the poor people are let on board-enough to fill the craft to maximum capacity-the safety factor is eliminated, and the boat will sink sooner or later. The third option, unthinkable to some, is to turn away all the poor. Many will perish, but the lucky few already on board will survive. Given these cruel realities, the morally right course for affluent nations is clear: Do not aid the people of desperately poor, overpopulated countries.
Hardin bolsters his argument with another metaphor, "the tragedy of the commons." The commons is any land or resource that is open to all to exploit. In any arrangement based on a commons system-such as public field where all shepherds can freely graze their sheep or a social system in which all goods are shared alike-it is in each member's self-interest to use the system's resources to the maximum. It is in each shepherd's interest, for example, to graze as many sheep as possible to support his family. There is no incentive for him to think about the common good, to act responsibly so the field is not overgrazed and ruined for everyone. The result is disaster; the field is destroyed. This is the tragedy of the commons: "mutual ruin" from a well-meaning system of sharing.
Hardin claims that in a world where all resources are shared and reproduction in the impoverished countries is uncontrolled, the tragedy of the commons is inevitable. The catastrophe will come when rich countries let the poor inundate their lifeboats or when a world food bank becomes an international commons that shares the Earth's food reserves.
-Hardin says that the tragedy of the commons is only a theoretical possibility.

Question 9

In this article Hardin argues that the affluent should not aid the poor and starving people of the world because doing so will lead only to disaster for everyone, rich and poor. Helping desperately needy, overpopulated countries is morally wrong. He makes his case using several metaphors, the "lifeboat" being the most memorable.
Imagine, he says, that the affluent nations are lifeboats carrying rich people in a sea dotted with the desperately poor, many of them trying to clamber aboard or seize some of the passengers' supplies. Each lifeboat has a limited carrying capacity, just as each rich nation does. For safety's sake, a lifeboat should carry fewer passengers than it can actually accommodate, just as a country should have a population small enough to guarantee excess carrying capacity to offset emergencies such as droughts or crop failures. No lifeboat can take on more passengers or give handouts without risking disaster for everyone. If all those trying to climb aboard are taken into a boat, it will capsize and everyone will drown. If only some of the poor people are let on board-enough to fill the craft to maximum capacity-the safety factor is eliminated, and the boat will sink sooner or later. The third option, unthinkable to some, is to turn away all the poor. Many will perish, but the lucky few already on board will survive. Given these cruel realities, the morally right course for affluent nations is clear: Do not aid the people of desperately poor, overpopulated countries.
Hardin bolsters his argument with another metaphor, "the tragedy of the commons." The commons is any land or resource that is open to all to exploit. In any arrangement based on a commons system-such as public field where all shepherds can freely graze their sheep or a social system in which all goods are shared alike-it is in each member's self-interest to use the system's resources to the maximum. It is in each shepherd's interest, for example, to graze as many sheep as possible to support his family. There is no incentive for him to think about the common good, to act responsibly so the field is not overgrazed and ruined for everyone. The result is disaster; the field is destroyed. This is the tragedy of the commons: "mutual ruin" from a well-meaning system of sharing.
Hardin claims that in a world where all resources are shared and reproduction in the impoverished countries is uncontrolled, the tragedy of the commons is inevitable. The catastrophe will come when rich countries let the poor inundate their lifeboats or when a world food bank becomes an international commons that shares the Earth's food reserves.
-Hardin believes that the problems of poverty and starvation are due to uncontrolled population growth.

Question 10

In this article Hardin argues that the affluent should not aid the poor and starving people of the world because doing so will lead only to disaster for everyone, rich and poor. Helping desperately needy, overpopulated countries is morally wrong. He makes his case using several metaphors, the "lifeboat" being the most memorable.
Imagine, he says, that the affluent nations are lifeboats carrying rich people in a sea dotted with the desperately poor, many of them trying to clamber aboard or seize some of the passengers' supplies. Each lifeboat has a limited carrying capacity, just as each rich nation does. For safety's sake, a lifeboat should carry fewer passengers than it can actually accommodate, just as a country should have a population small enough to guarantee excess carrying capacity to offset emergencies such as droughts or crop failures. No lifeboat can take on more passengers or give handouts without risking disaster for everyone. If all those trying to climb aboard are taken into a boat, it will capsize and everyone will drown. If only some of the poor people are let on board-enough to fill the craft to maximum capacity-the safety factor is eliminated, and the boat will sink sooner or later. The third option, unthinkable to some, is to turn away all the poor. Many will perish, but the lucky few already on board will survive. Given these cruel realities, the morally right course for affluent nations is clear: Do not aid the people of desperately poor, overpopulated countries.
Hardin bolsters his argument with another metaphor, "the tragedy of the commons." The commons is any land or resource that is open to all to exploit. In any arrangement based on a commons system-such as public field where all shepherds can freely graze their sheep or a social system in which all goods are shared alike-it is in each member's self-interest to use the system's resources to the maximum. It is in each shepherd's interest, for example, to graze as many sheep as possible to support his family. There is no incentive for him to think about the common good, to act responsibly so the field is not overgrazed and ruined for everyone. The result is disaster; the field is destroyed. This is the tragedy of the commons: "mutual ruin" from a well-meaning system of sharing.
Hardin claims that in a world where all resources are shared and reproduction in the impoverished countries is uncontrolled, the tragedy of the commons is inevitable. The catastrophe will come when rich countries let the poor inundate their lifeboats or when a world food bank becomes an international commons that shares the Earth's food reserves.
-In the field of practical demography, Hardin thinks that the wisest course is to rely on Adam Smith's notion of the power of the "invisible hand."

Question 11

In this article Hardin argues that the affluent should not aid the poor and starving people of the world because doing so will lead only to disaster for everyone, rich and poor. Helping desperately needy, overpopulated countries is morally wrong. He makes his case using several metaphors, the "lifeboat" being the most memorable.
Imagine, he says, that the affluent nations are lifeboats carrying rich people in a sea dotted with the desperately poor, many of them trying to clamber aboard or seize some of the passengers' supplies. Each lifeboat has a limited carrying capacity, just as each rich nation does. For safety's sake, a lifeboat should carry fewer passengers than it can actually accommodate, just as a country should have a population small enough to guarantee excess carrying capacity to offset emergencies such as droughts or crop failures. No lifeboat can take on more passengers or give handouts without risking disaster for everyone. If all those trying to climb aboard are taken into a boat, it will capsize and everyone will drown. If only some of the poor people are let on board-enough to fill the craft to maximum capacity-the safety factor is eliminated, and the boat will sink sooner or later. The third option, unthinkable to some, is to turn away all the poor. Many will perish, but the lucky few already on board will survive. Given these cruel realities, the morally right course for affluent nations is clear: Do not aid the people of desperately poor, overpopulated countries.
Hardin bolsters his argument with another metaphor, "the tragedy of the commons." The commons is any land or resource that is open to all to exploit. In any arrangement based on a commons system-such as public field where all shepherds can freely graze their sheep or a social system in which all goods are shared alike-it is in each member's self-interest to use the system's resources to the maximum. It is in each shepherd's interest, for example, to graze as many sheep as possible to support his family. There is no incentive for him to think about the common good, to act responsibly so the field is not overgrazed and ruined for everyone. The result is disaster; the field is destroyed. This is the tragedy of the commons: "mutual ruin" from a well-meaning system of sharing.
Hardin claims that in a world where all resources are shared and reproduction in the impoverished countries is uncontrolled, the tragedy of the commons is inevitable. The catastrophe will come when rich countries let the poor inundate their lifeboats or when a world food bank becomes an international commons that shares the Earth's food reserves.
-Hardin endorses the notion of a freedom to breed.

Question 12

In this article Hardin argues that the affluent should not aid the poor and starving people of the world because doing so will lead only to disaster for everyone, rich and poor. Helping desperately needy, overpopulated countries is morally wrong. He makes his case using several metaphors, the "lifeboat" being the most memorable.
Imagine, he says, that the affluent nations are lifeboats carrying rich people in a sea dotted with the desperately poor, many of them trying to clamber aboard or seize some of the passengers' supplies. Each lifeboat has a limited carrying capacity, just as each rich nation does. For safety's sake, a lifeboat should carry fewer passengers than it can actually accommodate, just as a country should have a population small enough to guarantee excess carrying capacity to offset emergencies such as droughts or crop failures. No lifeboat can take on more passengers or give handouts without risking disaster for everyone. If all those trying to climb aboard are taken into a boat, it will capsize and everyone will drown. If only some of the poor people are let on board-enough to fill the craft to maximum capacity-the safety factor is eliminated, and the boat will sink sooner or later. The third option, unthinkable to some, is to turn away all the poor. Many will perish, but the lucky few already on board will survive. Given these cruel realities, the morally right course for affluent nations is clear: Do not aid the people of desperately poor, overpopulated countries.
Hardin bolsters his argument with another metaphor, "the tragedy of the commons." The commons is any land or resource that is open to all to exploit. In any arrangement based on a commons system-such as public field where all shepherds can freely graze their sheep or a social system in which all goods are shared alike-it is in each member's self-interest to use the system's resources to the maximum. It is in each shepherd's interest, for example, to graze as many sheep as possible to support his family. There is no incentive for him to think about the common good, to act responsibly so the field is not overgrazed and ruined for everyone. The result is disaster; the field is destroyed. This is the tragedy of the commons: "mutual ruin" from a well-meaning system of sharing.
Hardin claims that in a world where all resources are shared and reproduction in the impoverished countries is uncontrolled, the tragedy of the commons is inevitable. The catastrophe will come when rich countries let the poor inundate their lifeboats or when a world food bank becomes an international commons that shares the Earth's food reserves.
-Hardin believes that we can control the long-term breeding of mankind by an appeal to conscience.

Question 13

In this article Hardin argues that the affluent should not aid the poor and starving people of the world because doing so will lead only to disaster for everyone, rich and poor. Helping desperately needy, overpopulated countries is morally wrong. He makes his case using several metaphors, the "lifeboat" being the most memorable.
Imagine, he says, that the affluent nations are lifeboats carrying rich people in a sea dotted with the desperately poor, many of them trying to clamber aboard or seize some of the passengers' supplies. Each lifeboat has a limited carrying capacity, just as each rich nation does. For safety's sake, a lifeboat should carry fewer passengers than it can actually accommodate, just as a country should have a population small enough to guarantee excess carrying capacity to offset emergencies such as droughts or crop failures. No lifeboat can take on more passengers or give handouts without risking disaster for everyone. If all those trying to climb aboard are taken into a boat, it will capsize and everyone will drown. If only some of the poor people are let on board-enough to fill the craft to maximum capacity-the safety factor is eliminated, and the boat will sink sooner or later. The third option, unthinkable to some, is to turn away all the poor. Many will perish, but the lucky few already on board will survive. Given these cruel realities, the morally right course for affluent nations is clear: Do not aid the people of desperately poor, overpopulated countries.
Hardin bolsters his argument with another metaphor, "the tragedy of the commons." The commons is any land or resource that is open to all to exploit. In any arrangement based on a commons system-such as public field where all shepherds can freely graze their sheep or a social system in which all goods are shared alike-it is in each member's self-interest to use the system's resources to the maximum. It is in each shepherd's interest, for example, to graze as many sheep as possible to support his family. There is no incentive for him to think about the common good, to act responsibly so the field is not overgrazed and ruined for everyone. The result is disaster; the field is destroyed. This is the tragedy of the commons: "mutual ruin" from a well-meaning system of sharing.
Hardin claims that in a world where all resources are shared and reproduction in the impoverished countries is uncontrolled, the tragedy of the commons is inevitable. The catastrophe will come when rich countries let the poor inundate their lifeboats or when a world food bank becomes an international commons that shares the Earth's food reserves.
-To deal with human population growth, Hardin says, we must above all not rely on mutual coercion.

Question 14

In this article Hardin argues that the affluent should not aid the poor and starving people of the world because doing so will lead only to disaster for everyone, rich and poor. Helping desperately needy, overpopulated countries is morally wrong. He makes his case using several metaphors, the "lifeboat" being the most memorable.
Imagine, he says, that the affluent nations are lifeboats carrying rich people in a sea dotted with the desperately poor, many of them trying to clamber aboard or seize some of the passengers' supplies. Each lifeboat has a limited carrying capacity, just as each rich nation does. For safety's sake, a lifeboat should carry fewer passengers than it can actually accommodate, just as a country should have a population small enough to guarantee excess carrying capacity to offset emergencies such as droughts or crop failures. No lifeboat can take on more passengers or give handouts without risking disaster for everyone. If all those trying to climb aboard are taken into a boat, it will capsize and everyone will drown. If only some of the poor people are let on board-enough to fill the craft to maximum capacity-the safety factor is eliminated, and the boat will sink sooner or later. The third option, unthinkable to some, is to turn away all the poor. Many will perish, but the lucky few already on board will survive. Given these cruel realities, the morally right course for affluent nations is clear: Do not aid the people of desperately poor, overpopulated countries.
Hardin bolsters his argument with another metaphor, "the tragedy of the commons." The commons is any land or resource that is open to all to exploit. In any arrangement based on a commons system-such as public field where all shepherds can freely graze their sheep or a social system in which all goods are shared alike-it is in each member's self-interest to use the system's resources to the maximum. It is in each shepherd's interest, for example, to graze as many sheep as possible to support his family. There is no incentive for him to think about the common good, to act responsibly so the field is not overgrazed and ruined for everyone. The result is disaster; the field is destroyed. This is the tragedy of the commons: "mutual ruin" from a well-meaning system of sharing.
Hardin claims that in a world where all resources are shared and reproduction in the impoverished countries is uncontrolled, the tragedy of the commons is inevitable. The catastrophe will come when rich countries let the poor inundate their lifeboats or when a world food bank becomes an international commons that shares the Earth's food reserves.
-The only way we can preserve and nurture other freedoms, Hardin says, is by relinquishing the freedom to breed.

Question 15

In this article Hardin argues that the affluent should not aid the poor and starving people of the world because doing so will lead only to disaster for everyone, rich and poor. Helping desperately needy, overpopulated countries is morally wrong. He makes his case using several metaphors, the "lifeboat" being the most memorable.
Imagine, he says, that the affluent nations are lifeboats carrying rich people in a sea dotted with the desperately poor, many of them trying to clamber aboard or seize some of the passengers' supplies. Each lifeboat has a limited carrying capacity, just as each rich nation does. For safety's sake, a lifeboat should carry fewer passengers than it can actually accommodate, just as a country should have a population small enough to guarantee excess carrying capacity to offset emergencies such as droughts or crop failures. No lifeboat can take on more passengers or give handouts without risking disaster for everyone. If all those trying to climb aboard are taken into a boat, it will capsize and everyone will drown. If only some of the poor people are let on board-enough to fill the craft to maximum capacity-the safety factor is eliminated, and the boat will sink sooner or later. The third option, unthinkable to some, is to turn away all the poor. Many will perish, but the lucky few already on board will survive. Given these cruel realities, the morally right course for affluent nations is clear: Do not aid the people of desperately poor, overpopulated countries.
Hardin bolsters his argument with another metaphor, "the tragedy of the commons." The commons is any land or resource that is open to all to exploit. In any arrangement based on a commons system-such as public field where all shepherds can freely graze their sheep or a social system in which all goods are shared alike-it is in each member's self-interest to use the system's resources to the maximum. It is in each shepherd's interest, for example, to graze as many sheep as possible to support his family. There is no incentive for him to think about the common good, to act responsibly so the field is not overgrazed and ruined for everyone. The result is disaster; the field is destroyed. This is the tragedy of the commons: "mutual ruin" from a well-meaning system of sharing.
Hardin claims that in a world where all resources are shared and reproduction in the impoverished countries is uncontrolled, the tragedy of the commons is inevitable. The catastrophe will come when rich countries let the poor inundate their lifeboats or when a world food bank becomes an international commons that shares the Earth's food reserves.
-Hardin asserts that there is no prosperous population in the world today that has a growth rate of zero.

Question 16

What is the definition of the following term:
-absolutism, political :

Question 17

What is the definition of the following term:
-agent causation :

Question 18

What is the definition of the following term:
-agnostic :

Question 19

What is the definition of the following term:
-anarchism :

Question 20

What is the definition of the following term:
-appeal to ignorance :

Question 21

What is the definition of the following term:
-appeal to the person :

Question 22

What is the definition of the following term:
-appeal to popularity :

Question 23

What is the definition of the following term:
-a posteriori argument :

Question 24

What is the definition of the following term:
-a posteriori knowledge :

Question 25

What is the definition of the following term:
-a priori argument :

Question 26

What is the definition of the following term:
-a priori knowledge :

Question 27

What is the definition of the following term:
-argument :

Question 28

What is the definition of the following term:
-argument from evil :

Question 29

What is the definition of the following term:
-atheist :

Question 30

What is the definition of the following term:
-axiology :

Question 31

What is the definition of the following term:
-begging the question :

Question 32

What is the definition of the following term:
-cognitive realism :

Question 33

What is the definition of the following term:
-cognitive relativism :

Question 34

What is the definition of the following term:
-compatibilism :

Question 35

What is the definition of the following term:
-composition :

Question 36

What is the definition of the following term:
-conclusion :

Question 37

What is the definition of the following term:
-cosmological argument :

Question 38

What is the definition of the following term:
-cultural relativism :

Question 39

What is the definition of the following term:
-deductive argument :

Question 40

What is the definition of the following term:
-democracy :

Question 41

What is the definition of the following term:
-determinism :

Question 42

What is the definition of the following term:
-dialectic :

Question 43

What is the definition of the following term:
-distributive justice (or social justice) :

Question 44

What is the definition of the following term:
-division :

Question 45

What is the definition of the following term:
-dualism :

Question 46

What is the definition of the following term:
-dualism, property :

Question 47

What is the definition of the following term:
-dualism, substance :

Question 48

What is the definition of the following term:
-epistemology :

Question 49

What is the definition of the following term:
-equivocation :

Question 50

What is the definition of the following term:
-ethical egoism :

Question 51

What is the definition of the following term:
-ethical relativism :

Question 52

What is the definition of the following term:
-ethics :

Question 53

What is the definition of the following term:
-ethics of care :

Question 54

What is the definition of the following term:
-evidentialism :

Question 55

What is the definition of the following term:
-fallacy :

Question 56

What is the definition of the following term:
-false dilemma :

Question 57

What is the definition of the following term:
-functionalism :

Question 58

What is the definition of the following term:
-genetic fallacy :

Question 59

What is the definition of the following term:
-hard determinism :

Question 60

What is the definition of the following term:
-idealism, philosophical :

Question 61

What is the definition of the following term:
-identity theory :

Question 62

What is the definition of the following term:
-incompatibilism :

Question 63

What is the definition of the following term:
-indicator words :

Question 64

What is the definition of the following term:
-inductive argument :

Question 65

What is the definition of the following term:
-inference :

Question 66

What is the definition of the following term:
-inference to the best explanation :

Question 67

What is the definition of the following term:
-liberalism, political :

Question 68

What is the definition of the following term:
-libertarianism :

Question 69

What is the definition of the following term:
-libertarianism, political :

Question 70

What is the definition of the following term:
-logic :

Question 71

What is the definition of the following term:
-metaphysics :

Question 72

What is the definition of the following term:
-moral absolutism :

Question 73

What is the definition of the following term:
-moral objectivism :

Question 74

What is the definition of the following term:
-moral relativism :

Question 75

What is the definition of the following term:
-ontological argument :

Question 76

What is the definition of the following term:
-philosophy :

Question 77

What is the definition of the following term:
-premise :

Question 78

What is the definition of the following term:
-problem of free will :

Question 79

What is the definition of the following term:
-property dualism :

Question 80

What is the definition of the following term:
-propositional knowledge :