The answer:I am interested in the connections between Nagel's moral realism and Garrett Hardin's lifeboat ethics
This is the moral challenge we face as a society, and as individuals. It looks like an unresolvable conflict, but I think that is an illusion. The truth is much more disturbing, and that is that both of them are right. Nagel is correct that, upon rational reflection, we can indeed come to answers about moral questions that any rational, conscious being should agree with. But Hardin is also right that in the case of the global ecological collapse that is coming, the rational conclusion they should come to is that those outside the lifeboats should be left to drown. We then end up with a moral realist account of why eventually the boats should be stopped with machine guns. In other words, even the people in the boats (those who are "swimming" in Hardin's analogy) ought to accept the those on the lifeboat have a moral right to shoot them. They would do exactly the same thing if they magically switched places.Connecting Thomas Nagel's moral realism with Garrett Hardin's lifeboat ethics involves examining how Nagel’s philosophical stance on objective morality interacts with Hardin's pragmatic and controversial view on resource distribution and population ethics.
Nagel's Moral Realism
Thomas Nagel is a proponent of moral realism, which posits that there are objective moral truths independent of human opinions or beliefs. According to Nagel, these moral truths are accessible through rational reflection, and they apply universally, regardless of individual or cultural differences. Nagel’s moral realism emphasizes the idea that morality is not merely subjective or relative but instead grounded in a reality that can be reasoned about and understood objectively.
Nagel argues that certain moral principles, such as fairness, respect for persons, and the consideration of others' interests, have a basis in reason. These principles are not just social constructs or personal preferences but are instead rooted in the fabric of reality itself. For Nagel, moral obligations extend to all individuals, implying that everyone is deserving of moral consideration simply because they are rational beings.
Hardin's Lifeboat Ethics
Garrett Hardin's "lifeboat ethics" is a metaphor for resource distribution in a world with limited resources and a growing population. In his famous essay, Hardin argues against the idea of unlimited sharing of resources, especially with those in poverty-stricken areas, using the lifeboat as a metaphor for wealthy nations. The lifeboat (representing wealthy nations) has limited capacity, and adding more people (representing impoverished populations) could cause it to sink, resulting in the loss of all. Hardin suggests that the ethical approach is to maintain the lifeboat's safety by limiting the number of people allowed on board, even if this means leaving others to fend for themselves or perish.
Hardin’s position is deeply consequentialist, prioritizing the survival and well-being of those already in the lifeboat (i.e., those within a wealthier, more resource-secure environment). He opposes the idea of a shared responsibility for all humanity, arguing that attempting to save everyone could lead to the collapse of all systems, resulting in universal disaster.
Connections and Tensions
Moral Universality vs. Pragmatic Survival: Nagel’s moral realism, with its emphasis on universal moral obligations, appears to clash with Hardin’s lifeboat ethics. Nagel would likely argue that moral obligations do not cease to exist just because the situation is dire. For instance, if fairness and the well-being of others are objective moral truths, then they should still guide action, even in a lifeboat scenario. On the other hand, Hardin’s focus is on survival, which may require making morally difficult choices that contradict universal principles.
Objective Moral Duties vs. Contextual Ethics: Nagel's view implies that moral duties are not contingent on context but apply universally. In contrast, Hardin’s lifeboat ethics suggest that ethical decisions should be made based on the context of survival and resource scarcity. Hardin's approach might be seen as a challenge to Nagel's moral realism, as it posits a situation where adhering to universal moral principles could lead to catastrophe.
Rationality and Ethics: Both Nagel and Hardin emphasize rationality, but they apply it differently. Nagel uses rationality to derive objective moral truths that should guide our actions. Hardin uses rationality to advocate for what he sees as the most practical and survival-oriented strategy, even if it contradicts what might be considered morally universal. This difference raises questions about whether moral rationality must always align with practical rationality, or if there are cases where they diverge, as Hardin suggests.
Moral Realism and Global Responsibility: Nagel’s moral realism might support a form of global responsibility that transcends borders and includes considerations for all humanity. In contrast, Hardin’s lifeboat ethics advocate for a more limited scope of moral responsibility, constrained by practical limits. This could lead to a debate over whether Nagel’s moral realism can accommodate real-world challenges like those posed by overpopulation and resource scarcity, or if it demands a level of moral obligation that is unsustainable in practice.
Conclusion
The connection between Nagel’s moral realism and Hardin’s lifeboat ethics presents a complex interplay between objective moral principles and practical ethical dilemmas. While Nagel’s moral realism insists on universal moral duties, Hardin’s lifeboat ethics challenges this by prioritizing survival and practical outcomes, even if it means forsaking those who are outside the lifeboat. The tension between these perspectives invites deeper reflection on whether and how universal moral principles can be reconciled with the pressing practicalities of real-world ethical challenges.
I believe that we all intuitively understand this argument, and indeed its devastating conclusion. But I also see no point in denying that it is true, because this isn't just some theoretical moral dilemma -- it's actually going to happen. It's already the beating heart of the "populist right".
