The Responsibility to Relieve the Suffering Essay

The Responsibility to Relieve the Suffering - Essay Example Majority of the people hate to see others suffering. They want to do something that will end suffering. It is unfortunate that most of the strategies they adopt to relieve the suffering of others are not justified. In other cases, some people relent to relieve the suffering of others when they have the potential. This implies that there are different circumstances and realities that determine the willingness of an individual to respond. There are times when people relent to help and in some way, it is justified. These people count the cost and sometimes the price to pay is too high for them. According to Hardin, he highlights how thirty-seven people failed to save a woman, who was their neighbor, from an attack (779). Hardin explains how the onlookers failed to make a phone call to the police immediately they heard her cries and saw the assailant. It is not clear why these people did not want to make a move that would have saved their neighbor. Probably some of them were ignorant but it is clear that they wanted to stay clear of the story. Analysis of this story leaves one wondering why these people were so afraid of making a phone call. They wanted to help but a certain fear prevented them from doing so. From the perspective of Hardin, sometimes we do not have to help people undergoing suffering because we want them to learn things the hard way. He illustrates a classic example of how poor countries depend on aids from richer countries. Poor countries have challenges handling natural calamities such as hunger due to climate changes, diseases, earthquake, and floods. They rely on rich countries for help. The rich countries have a choice to make on how they respond to their cries. One option would be to educate the rest of the world on better strategies of planning and budgeting as well as disaster preparedness. They can also choose to donate part of their surplus to feed the hungry nations. It is clear in his reasoning that a lifeboat survives only if critical measures are put into place. Poor countries must learn how to budget and plan. They should adopt strategies that will ensure they are independent (Hanh and Weisman 18). In addition, it is essential to learn how to control their population so that it can survive on the available resources. If rich countries continue relieving their suffering without their own initiative of finding long-term solutions, then the lifeboat will sink. Poor countries multiply so fast and similar trends of population increase are predictable in the future. On the contrary, rich countries portray a more controlled population growth. There will be more dependents in society and the rich will exhaust their resources. Overpopulation in poor counties will rise to levels that the environment cannot sustain. People from poor countries will want to immigrate to rich countries to get easier access to a better life. This immigration will lead to environmental strain in rich countries. In both cases, the lifeboat will capsize. From the analysis of Hardin’s point of view, it is evident that it is justified to withhold help with good intentions. The rich countries are not selfish; they want the poor countries to take the first responsibility in eliminating their suffering. Poor countries should learn to be more responsible in terms of both governance and planning. If rich countries always choose to relieve the suffering of the poor countries by giving those aids, they will cause devastating effects both to themselves and to the rest of the