Choose 1 (one) of the following pair of competing claims

Choose 1 (one) of the following pair of competing claims. Carefully reconstruct and critically evaluate the most important arguments the relevant philosophers use to support their claims and/or critique that of the other. Who gets the better of the dispute, and why?
When reconstructing, make sure: to focus only on the one specific claim indicated; to use your own words as much as possible; to clarify any technical, controversial, or ambiguous terms; to explicate the precise meaning of the claim if necessary; to clearly state each of the premises or reasons used by the author; to explain the support for each of the premises or reasons; and to explain any missing premises or reasons, and their support, that you have supplied.

The point of a critical evaluation is to reach an overall assessment of the cogency of an argument. Metaphorically, one can think of the process as poking and prodding both the premises and the reasoning supporting the conclusion with potential problems or objections, in order to see whether the argument will stand up to reasoned scrutiny. Make sure attend to the validity or strength of the reasoning, the clarity of the terms and concepts, and the truth of the premises. It is also important to consider plausible or potential objections to your own evaluation and show exactly how such concerns may be answered.
The essay should be no longer than 1500 words. Put a word count on your paper. Indicate the numbers of the claim the paper treats. The essays must not be handwritten. The assignment is Tuesday December 16, by 1:00 p.m., in my office, Wheatley 05-007.

1.Hardin claims that there is a “ratchet effect” (862) between population growth and food aid that creates an inherently “pejoristic” (863) system. Pojman claims that the relationship between food aid and population growth is not inherently pejoristic.

2.Singer claims that “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it” (889). Pojman claims that this principle is problematic, even when it is put forward in a weaker, qualified form.

3.Hardin claims that we should think of “the problem of the survival of the human species” (855) in terms of “the ethics of a lifeboat” (857). Murdoch & Oaten claim that Hardin’s lifeboat metaphor is “worthless—indeed detrimental—in discussions of food-population questions” (876).
 
4.Pojman claims that his “[m]oderate moral theory recognizes special responsibilities to family, friends, and neighbors” (910). Singer claims that “we cannot discriminate against someone merely because he is far away from us (or we are far way from him)” (889).