Lifeboat ethics is a metaphor for resource distribution proposed by theecologistGarrett Hardin in two articles published in 1974, building on his earlier 1968 article detailing "Thetragedy of the commons". Hardin's 1974metaphor describes alifeboat bearing fifty people with room for ten more. The lifeboat is in an ocean surrounded by a hundred swimmers. Theethics of the situation stem from thedilemma of whether (and under what circumstances) swimmers should be taken aboard the lifeboat.
Hardin compared the lifeboat metaphor to theSpaceship Earth model of resource distribution, which he criticizes by asserting that a spaceship would be directed by a single leader which the Earth lacks. Hardin asserts that the spaceship model leads to thetragedy of the commons. In contrast, the lifeboat metaphor presents individual lifeboats asrich nations and the swimmers as poor nations.
Lifeboat ethics is closely related to issues inenvironmental ethics,utilitarianism, andresource depletion.
Hardin's 1968 "Tragedy of the Commons" article calls attention to the problem ofhuman overpopulation, and describes his perception of the current prevailing sentiment, which he asserts was influenced byAdam Smith'sinvisible hand concept of economics, leading to a general belief "that decisions reached individually will, in fact, be the best decisions for an entire society."[1]: 1244 Hardin rebutted that sentiment by citing an 1833 pamphlet written byWilliam Forster Lloyd, giving an example in which allowing herdsmen unfettered access to a shared resource (in this case, a commons or pasture ground) would result in each herdsman concluding it was in their best interest to add more animals to their herd, inevitably leading to the exhaustion of that finite resource. He concluded: "Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all."[1]: 1244
In the same 1968 article, he states the welfare state had created a situation that disrupted the natural state where "parents who bred too exuberantly would leave fewer descendants, not more, because they would be unable to care adequately for their children", and asked "how shall we deal with the family, the religion, the race, or the class (or indeed any distinguishable and cohesive group) that adopts overbreeding as a policy to secure its own aggrandizement?" He argued that "freedom to breed" coupled "with the belief that everyone born has an equal right to the commons [the world's resources]" would inevitably lead to disaster.[1]: 1246
In 1974, Hardin published two articles describing his view of "lifeboat ethics" inPsychology Today[2] andBioScience.[3] At the time, based on per-capitagross national product, Hardin asserted that approximately two-thirds of the world's population was "desperately poor" and the remaining one-third was "comparatively rich" before launching his metaphor of each rich country being in a full lifeboat, while poor countries were in "much more crowded lifeboats"; he described emigration as a continuous process where "the poor fall out of their lifeboats and swim for a while in the water outside, hoping to be admitted to a rich lifeboat, or in some other way to benefit from the 'goodies' on board" before asking what the rich lifeboat should do.[3]
To make the metaphor more concrete, Hardin adds the lifeboat's capacity (60), current status (50 on board, and 100 swimmers), and proposes three potential solutions:
Other issues which can be raised include:
The third point regarding low supply of food had happened in reality before. A British court, in the ruling ofR v Dudley and Stephens, ruled that necessity is not a defense of murder.
Hardin uses lifeboat ethics to questionpolicies such asforeign aid,immigration, andfood banks.