“Each according to his needs”: Morals in “Lifeboat Ethics”

Garrett Hardin’s “Lifeboat Ethics” presents a starkly challenging and moral scenario. As a metaphor, he produces the dilemma of a lifeboat designed for fifty people, having room for ten more but facing one hundred drowning swimmers. Hardin discusses three options that he thinks are available in the situation. Despite being only a metaphor, “Lifeboat Ethics” provides a view of current global affairs concerning migration issues, however, it can only provide a corner of the situation and cannot completely represent global affairs.

Hardin’s essay covers three kinds of options, each respectively connected to different ideals. The first one is the Christian ideal of being “our brother’s keeper”, where all swimmers are treated alike, ensuring fairness and considered to be conscientious. However, because the limit of the lifeboat is exceeded, 150 potential survivors drown. The second option takes an average between the first and third options. The lifeboat fills up to sixty people and the leftover ninety are left to die. However, who chooses which people to leave? And if the extra ten are allowed into the lifeboat, the “safety factor” would be lost, which is quite dangerous. But in the end, only 90 will drown. The third option is to preserve the safety factor and admit no more swimmers onto the lifeboat - the Marxist ideal of “to each according to his needs.” The survival of the original fifty is ensured but 100 who could have saved will instead drown. Hardin refers to this last solution as “clearly… the only means of our survival.” He justifies his preference for the third option. He first acknowledges the qualms that some of the people in the lifeboat will have about this solution and might “feel guilty about their good luck.” Hardin replies that they should “[g]et out and yield your place to others” because the ones who are trying to board the boat will not feel guilty about his good luck. If he did, he would not have tried to climb aboard to risk the death of others. Hardin explains that the result of the conscience-stricken giving up their “unjustly held seats” is the elimination of conscience from the lifeboat because the others who climb onto the boat have no such worries. However, the metaphor is not quite true. In a real-life situation, the swimmers could simply grab onto the boat, and with the effect of buoyancy, they would be kept afloat in the ocean and the boat would not swamp. Thus, the metaphor is not completely correct.

Hardin’s essay connects to the migration issues in the Americas. In previous years, former President Donald Trump stated that he “…will build a great, great wall on our southern border. And [he] will have Mexico pay for that wall.” The reason for Trump wanting a wall was because of illegal Mexican migrants coming into the US from its southern border. When compared to the metaphor, Trump and the US citizens represent those fifty in the lifeboat, and the immigrants represent the drowning swimmers. Trump has chosen to take the third method - admit no more to the lifeboat. Hardin refers to this solution as “the only means of our survival.” However, by analysing the situation, it is clear that Trump need not be “constantly on guard against boarding parties”. In December 2018, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen acknowledged the number of illegal immigrants was around 11 million, and in 2016 the nonpartisan Pew Hispanic Center estimated that 10.7 million immigrants were living in the U.S. illegally in 2016. In 2007 there had been a height of 12.2 million immigrants, about only 4% of the US population. So, it is clear that, even without a wall, the immigrant population did not change much and America’s economy was by no means damaged. Hardin’s metaphor only goes so far as to represent a situation where if others are let aboard the original inhabitants are harmed. However, in the Mexican-American immigration issue, the Americans’ lives will not be significantly affected. Thus, Hardin’s metaphor is insufficient in real life.

Hardin introduces the concept of a safety factor to illustrate the limited resources available to support human populations. He argues that the Earth can be likened to a lifeboat with a finite carrying capacity, and exceeding this capacity would lead to disaster. This notion plays a crucial role in real-world decisions about environmental conservation and human migration. Environmental conservation requires us to carefully manage resources and consider the ecological safety factor to prevent overexploitation and preserve biodiversity. The Amazon Rainforest faces deforestation at an alarming rate, largely due to agriculture and logging. The safety factor here relates to determining the maximum extent of land use and logging that can occur without irreversible damage to the rainforest's biodiversity and its role in regulating the global climate. Many countries in the Middle East, such as Jordan, face severe water scarcity issues. Here, the ecological safety factor is about balancing water use for agriculture, industry, and domestic purposes while ensuring the sustainable management of water resources to prevent ecological damage and conflict. Likewise, in the context of human migration, policymakers must balance humanitarian concerns with the practical limits of host countries, taking into account their capacity to absorb and support new populations without compromising the safety and well-being of their existing inhabitants. The safety factor thus serves as a critical guideline for responsible decision-making in both environmental and migration contexts.

Ultimately, Hardin’s essay “Lifeboat Ethics” presents a somewhat accurate view of the current global environment and migration issues. The ethical principles he explores are present in decision-making, as decision-makers sometimes have to forsake the minority for the majority, just like in the lifeboat. However, as the metaphor is not completely representative of these complex issues, it cannot provide much guidance or insight in decision-making.