There are different thought processes about the individual's responsibility in relation to their position in society. One might support the survival of the fittest while another takes on the yoke of the burden his brother carries as his own weighted responsibility. This timeless debate has been the focus of essays, books and heated discussions. Two authors, Garret Hardin and Nobel Prize winner Muhammed Yunus, show juxtapositions on the topic and merit examination of their opposing views. Hardin forcefully defends the idea of ​​helping the poor in his essay titled “The Ethics of Lifeboats: The Case Against Helping the Poor.” Yunus has a completely different point of view in his writings and shows the merits of reaching the poor and providing the necessary things to improve their position in life. While there is never a clear solution to any problem humanity faces, there are still heavily weighted and favorable outcomes for both philosophies. Despite Hardin's argument against it, he states that the world has limited space and resources and believes that ethics does not dictate sharing these limited resources. He also complains that poorer nations reproduce more often, increasing the ratio of poor to rich each year and consuming even more of the Earth's natural resources each year. This is a very limited argument for selfish self-preservation. Lacks vision in finding creative solutions. The first and most obvious counter to his position is to simply build more lifeboats. The poor do not want to get into another's lifeboat; they want a lifeboat of their own. While Hardin may justify limiting the immigration of the poor to the United States in order to preserve our resources, his argument does not examine the fact that third world nations have resources of their own.