Here’s a classic piece by Garrett Hardin that offers something of a response to the podcast by the two philosophy grad students we discussed in class yesterday. Hardin contrasts their ‘pure justice’ approach to what he calls the ‘reality’ of lifeboat ethics. What do you think about his argument and the debate between positions like his and those like that of the two grad students?
Garrett Hardin makes an eloquent argument, and I agree with him. He argues against the two philosophy grad students by saying that it’s arguable, but it needs to be viewed from a wider lense. According to the grad students, countries do not have the right to refuse refugees because it is unjust, the same way it’s not right to refuse a homeless person seeking a place to stay. Hardin understands that it’s unjust but argues that the injustice is outweighed by the “infinite regression to absurdity.” These actions of injustice are bad, but the outcome and the future would look much worse for later generations. Pure justice seems very admirable, but the long-term outcome of it is not.