Unforeseen Bonds: Hardin's Rhetoric in "Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor"

In the article “Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor”, the author Garrett Hardin raised the question that whether the rich countries should help people suffer from poverty. He claimed that the supporting strategies for the developing countries, including the World Food Bank could result in more severe recourse inadequate issue and other disasters. In addition, a large number of immigrants flood in the US could ruin the natural environment and social balance. In that case, the author argued that regardless of the current situation, privileged nations should not provide aid to people trapped within difficulties of the underdeveloped nations. Even though, his

By presenting these arguments Hardin lets the reader come to the conclusion on their own, that they could let no one on. The use of the examples, arguments, and metaphors promoted Hardin’s purpose well. However, Hardin relied on his metaphor too much.

It should be obvious that this is a dubious metaphor. To begin with (and this will come up again) not all countries are either rich or poor. Furthermore, it is not as clear as Hardin assumes that we lack the resources to save everyone. And the argument from the safety factor may seem dubious. Couldn't we help some people -- even if we select them in a fairly arbitrary way?

In the essay Lifeboat Ethics by Garrett Hardin and the essay A Challenge to the Eco-Doomsters by Walter Benjamin, there are many things I agree and disagree with. Both essays make very good points with facts to back them up. But I can’t help but side with Hardin on his essay Lifeboat Ethics. In this essay I am going to compare and contrast some of the similarities and differences between Hardin and Benjamin’s essays about the aid the United States provides to poor nations all over the world by reducing pollution, controlling population growth, and the dependency of economical imports and exports.

At first Hardin’s ethics seem rude and selfish, but as you continue reading he makes it clear this may be the only way to save our world and have it become a better place. For instance, "on the average poor countries undergo a 2.5 percent increase in population each year; rich countries, about 0.8 percent. If the poor countries received no food from the out side, the rate of their population growth […]" (Hardin 4). Hardin continues his piece explaining why rich countries should not help poorer countries that are in need. He believes a poor country that needs support needs to learn the hard way, even if that means losing resources or people. His words like "rich countries", "no food" shows the use of a metaphor that Hardin is able to paint a visual illustration of his argument to his audience. This helps influence and persuade his readers because they are able to grasp the whole concept of Hardin’s argument. Hardin also spoke in his essay using the repetition of the words "we" and "us" is a language factor that persuades the audience to accept Hardin’s ideas because it implicates that he and his audience is of equal status. Here, the ethics he reveals in his essay have good reasoning. Helping someone in need has always been a moral in someone’s life. But now, Hardin proposes a new ethic, "lifeboat ethics". Singer, on the other hand, often refers to the fact that nearly one-third of Americans spend their income on luxuries that they “desire” instead of donating the

In Garrett Hardin’s essay, Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor, Hardin describes the wealthy population of the world as being in a single lifeboat that is almost filled until buckling while the poor population of the world treads water below. Hardin’s essay gets his readers to feel the natural instinct to survive. The lifeboat metaphor that Hardin uses relieves the wealthy population of their moral obligations to the less fortunate, but in addition, puts all of the blame and cause of the depletion of earth’s resources on the poor. As much as his argument may make sense,

      Logos is the logic, internal consistency, and clarity of the argument and it is split into claims, reasons, grounds, warrants, backing, and qualifiers. Hardin begins his essay by establishing his main claim, which is the idea that he believes is the most believable, that the world’s resources cannot be distributed equally, and any attempts to equally distribute current resources will ruin them. He does this by using the metaphor of the earth and its resources as a lifeboat. Only so many people may fit on this lifeboat, just as so many people may have access to the world’s very limited resources, and trying to fit too many people on this lifeboat will sink it. This phenomenon he calls “The Tragedy of the Commons”. He supports this claim with reasons and grounds; reasons being claims which support his initial claim, and grounds being supporting evidence that leads the audience to support the reasons. His warrant, or understood belief, is that spoiling resources and leading the world to ruin is not optimal,

Garrett Hardin describes about how the well-off states are in the lifeboat and the deprived states are swimming in the sea. He also tells about how the US facilitates other states. Hardin thinks that if the administration remains serving other states and letting citizens in then America will also sink. We must encourage them if we desire to save at least part of the world form ecological destroy. Why should I support the deprived states? Why should I let the migrants in? I notice no reason for serving somebody that is not an American. These non American care taking my diligent assets that they did not produce. I am exhausted of the USA giving my funds to the deprived states. The administration is giving these people my funds.

Hardin’s lifeboat analogy proposes an interesting situation. If a lifeboat with 50 people on board and a capacity of 60 floated past 100 other people in the water, who would we take, if anyone? If we tried to take everyone, the boat would capsize and everyone would either become stranded or die. It would lead to “complete justice, complete catastrophe” (Hardin 1). If we took no one, we would constantly have to stave off desperate people climbing on board and those who claim entitlement. If we decide to push our lifeboat to its limits, and add 10 more people, how would we choose who to take? What I gather from this is that there’s no truly correct solution. If we take everyone, we all die. If we take no one, we get shamed and blamed for leaving others behind. If we take a select few, we get called out as biased by those who weren’t selected.

One strategy hardin uses is knowing that what he is talking about a topic that is not pleasant. When he acknowledges that he is talking about an unpleasant topic it makes him seem more trusting making more people consider his idea. Another strategy that he uses is when he makes a metaphor about the earth being lifeboat. He does this to show how the poverty cycle works.

The said lifeboat can easily seat 50 people, with an unsafe capacity of 60. While 50 lucky people are comfortably riding in the life boat, 100 other people are swimming in the water encompassing the lifeboat. The people riding the boat represent the rich countries and people of the world, while the people stranded in the water represent the poor countries and people. Should the lucky 50 people allow ten others to climb aboard, or should they maintain the “safety factor?” (291). Hardin proposes several questions concerning the former situation. “…which 10 do we let in? How do we choose? Do we pick the best 10?…And what do we say to the 90 we exclude?” Hardin clearly implies his standing by stating that not allowing any extra people on the boat is the only means of survival. Furthermore, he continues to explain how some people cannot morally accept simply staying inside the boat without guilt arising. The person who switched places with the guilty one would not be guilty himself, because if he had felt guilty then he would have stayed in the water. Lastly, Hardin states that the reproduction rates of the poor nations are more than doubled that of the rich nations, concluding that “…the world’s resources are dwindling, the difference in prosperity between the rich and the poor can only increase.”

Garrett Hardin’s excerpt from “Lifeboat Ethics” first appeared in Psychology Today in September 1974. In this essay, there is a metaphor that rich and poor are very different. I strongly disagree with Hardin’s metaphor even though he is truthful about his beliefs. The metaphor is only being seen in one point of view, when there are multiple ways of looking at it.

Since 1991, the southern half of Somalia, a poverty stricken African nation, has seen various tribal militias battle for dominance and power over individual regions of the country. Violence has plagued Mogadishu, the capital, since warlords ousted the former president. Mere months after the collapse of the government, men, women and children in torn clothes ran helplessly towards packages dropped from military planes towards the hot sand of their tiny village. This action was one of many attempts to help underdeveloped nations receive food by the United Nations' World Food Programme. Within his article titled "Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor", Garret Hardin, a well-known philosopher of ecology, analyzes the difficulty

ethics of a spaceship with those of a lifeboat.” this is the main thesis or claim Hardin makes, He is arguing against environments/utilitarianism’s spaceship earth metaphor. where everyone has an equal right for an equal share of the resources. first, he makes clear that earth is not like spaceship but it more likely a lifeboat. The differences being that spaceship has a captain and everyone has an equal rights for the resources. Earth is lucking the both. Also, he argues that it is not realistic because the population growth. Developed countries and undeveloped countries have not the growth rate, not even close. Therefore, equal rights to the very limits resources in not

Using the East Bengal humanitarian crisis that was, at the time, a current example, he argued from a moral and empirical premise. Morally, death by starvation is bad and that if we have the ability to stop bad things from happening without having to sacrifice important things or cause further harm, we should help. Specifically, he says, “without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance” (Singer, 1971), which is an indisputable and logical belief to have. The analogy he uses to solidify his point is of the drowning child. If you walk by a pond to see a child drowning, you are obliged to enter the pond and save the child. This would result in muddy clothes, however, that is a finite consequence as opposed to ignoring the child resulting in death, which is comparably much worse (Singer, 1971). The empirical side, similar to points expressed in The Singer Solution to World Poverty, is that you can save the life of someone less fortunate by donating money to charity. This idea would mean you would not lose anything of “comparable moral importance” (Singer, 1971) so you should do it. Further, it is not a difficult task for one to achieve, especially rich nations. Rich nations have the capacity to assist those in need, however, decisions made direct money to act for other things, which is unfortunate because “human beings can prevent this kind of suffering” (Singer,