Tuesday, July 31, 2007

"Right," said Roger, the self-appointed captain of the lifeboat. "There are twelve of us on this vessel which is great because it can hold up to twenty. And we have more than enough rations to last until someone comes to save us, which won't be long. So I think this means that we can safely allow ourselves one extra biscuit and a shot of rum each. Any objections?"

"Much as I'll probably enjoy that extra biscuit," said one of the mates, "shouldn't our main priority now be to pick up those drowning people over there?" A few people looked down in embarrassment, while others shook their head in disbelief.

"I thought we had agreed," said Roger, "It's not our fault that they're drowning, and if we pick her up we won't be able to enjoy our extra rations. Why should we do something that we shouldn't need to do?"

"Because we can? If we don't she'd -"

"Life's not fair, okay," replied Roger. "If she dies, its not because we killed her or anything. Want an extra biscuit?"

-found this intriguing situation in a book i'm reading. The people in the lifeboat relates to the effluent west and the drowning people are like the other developing countries in need of aid. There are enough food for everyone if everyone puts in an effort, we can do it, but we don't. Why? Its not as if we'll really suffer or anything.

However, the people on the lifeboat cannot be considered as immoral can they? If they are, then we are too. We worked and earned our own wealth, and if i don't help, won't I be simply keeping what is rightfully mine? No one has a greater claim to my money than myself. Why should the others have an unfair claim? The answer: a life is a life, and we should do it...

Another scenario: If the boat represents the whole earth, and if we're denying others who are also on the same boat some food, are we being unfair?

feeling emo thats all. =)