In “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor” I find the counterclaim to be unreasonable. The counterclaim is that the government should not help the poor because of its limited resources. It's not reasonable. I think the government should give its resources to the poor instead of using them for things we don't need. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayIt wouldn't hurt to set aside a few things to help the poor. In “The Ethics of Lifeboats: The Case Against Helping the Poor,” this is not the case. The text states: "To be generous, let's assume it has room for 10 more, for a total capacity of 60 people. Let's say the 50 of us in the lifeboat see 100 more swimming in the water outside, demanding admission to our boat ". or for alms." which is immediately followed by “But which 10 do we let in? How do we choose? We choose the best 10-inch statements after this, including how this is an example of America. Here's the problem. There's a way possible to determine which 10. Think about it, what if there were people who already have illnesses, or are old and are not that far from death Maybe there are adults who can find the earth they have their whole lives ahead of them and are too young to find a solution. We might prefer children and newborns to older ones: not because we are in favor, but because young people need more help than others. We might also prefer the poor to the rich give the poor more than the rich; Not because we are for it, but because the poor need help more than the rich. The essay also includes information on the Food for Peace program. Garrett Hardin is against it proposed and defended in public the Food for Peace program have rarely mentioned its importance to any of these special interests.” Garrett clearly states that the program is not a good idea. This is not true. The program has many benefits and it's honestly a little selfish to say it's a bad idea. Most people are educated about the program and do not stress its importance simply because the program speaks for itself. The program aims to give food to the poor. Garrett pushes back, saying the government is giving away our food supplies. He makes this convincing by saying: “The combination of quiet self-interest and highly vocal humanitarian apologists has created a powerful and successful lobby to extract money from taxpayers. We can expect the same lobby to now push for the creation of a World Food Bank.” The “World Food Bank” was a perfect demonstration of what Garrett thinks about the government helping the poor. It makes it seem like the world revolves around the poor, which leads to the rich not getting any recommendations. What he doesn't understand is that people's lives matter more than being recognized more than others. Garrett also includes information about how people donate out of pity. The text reads: “'But it's not their fault!' Some good-hearted liberals argue. «How can we blame the poor who find themselves in an emergency situation? Why must they suffer for the sins of their governments?' The concept of guilt is simply not relevant here. The real question is: what are the operational consequences of creating a global food bank?” He makes it sound really convincing by saying what the real question is here, but let's get back to the claims he said others are saying. It's true that some can't do without it. Garrett says there are bigger concerns. What..