Narveson discusses Hardin's concept of misguided charity, which proposes that feeding the hungry creates only a bigger problem ahead because we are unable to feed all that are starving, and we cannot help every time someone does not have access to food. This paradox of help not actually helping reminds me of a controversial presentation I attended. My high school hosted a trip to Ghana for community service and "cultural experience." A student, Amanda, that attended the trip decided to make her senior thesis focusing on the damages of short-term volunteering, and how our privilege blinds us from realizing this. Although the trip consisted of cooking food, spending time with the community and so forth, a week's worth of help ultimately had no long-term benefit on the Ghanan community. While the experience may have been unremarkable for some of the students and maybe a college essay topic, Amanda realized that yanking their help come time of their departure left the community to continue to struggle. I think Amanda and Hardin share a similar viewpoint on charity work, that is, if you cannot help until help is no longer needed, then your contribution is not significant and maybe even problematic. That is not to say our moral virtues do not have value, but how can we tackle this crucial issue? Is it even possible without forcing our principles into policies?