Lifeboat

Here's an interesting piece I wanted to share, in my own words:

Say you're on a lifeboat with 10 other people after the luxury cruiseliner you were on sank due to a fire on board. Taking helm of captain of the boat, you say 'Everyone, this boat was made for 20 people and is stocked with more than enough rations. I say we each have an extra biscuit or 2 since these rations will last us well along until we're rescued, which should be in 24 hours. What say you?'. A lady pipes up and says, 'A biscuit or 2 more will certainly be welcome, but shouldn't we rescue that woman there in the water who has been calling out to us for the past hour?'.  Some of the people on board look embarassed, others look indignant. 'Why should we?", you reply. "We agreed that it's not us who killed her. It's certainly not our fault she's not on board". "If we don't save her, she'll die", says the lady. "Well, life's not fair and there's no free lunch", you reply. "Who wants another biscuit?".

This analogy represents the real world where some people in developed nations are not willing to give up their extra 'biscuits' to help those dying or severely disadvantaged in developing nations where malnutrition, lack of access to basics like clean water and medicine are taking the lives of people on a daily basis. In a local context, it represents the upper/middle class and those below the poverty line. Seen in this light, it's certainly shocking and seemingly immoral to deny help to others when we are able to give our extra biscuits. Yet does this analogy stand in reality?

It can be argued that we work hard to maintain ourselves, our families, our loved ones, and therefore we deserve the extra biscuits that we can get by principle of ownership. Yet, if we're to alter the analogy so that the items on the boat are owned by the occupants, does it make it alright?

The article halts it's analysis here and implies not giving is immoral. But I have a few extra thoughts on the issue. In the analogy, the estimated time of arrival of help is known, 24 hours. So the extra capacity and the exact use of the resource is known, hence it's immoral to deny help to another person when the ship has excess capacity. In real life, we have no way of really knowing how much resources is enough. Inflation eats away at our spending power, drawing us ever closer to poverty unless we struggle to keep afloat. To give away wealth without knowing the future for certain would be risky. If we alter the analogy so that it is unknown when help will arrive, so much so that those on board take their rationing seriously, then it becomes more ambiguous if it's immoral to deny others help in the interest of the group, particularly if they hold ownership of the items on board.  

Perhaps then, it's immoral if one knows for certain that he or she has enough but refuses to help those who are dying from the lack of resources. Personally, I think the best time to give help is in your will. That's the time you're pretty sure you won't need most of what you've earned, after you've covered your dependents, that is. What do you think? Is it immoral not to give up your luxuries in life to help others?