Sydney Dymond
Ta’Von Johnson
Arman Ali
Analysis of “Lifeboat Ethics”
The concept of generosity and compassion through resource sharing fundamentally entrench themselves onto many of the world’s major religions, political systems, and moral foundations. Many would agree, “Do unto others as you would unto yourself” (Confucius), as a common moral adage suggests, or that “when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?” (Isaiah 58:7). Although many would agree that generosity and compassion through resource sharing is just, is it realistic? Garrett Hardin in his essay “Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor” argues that not only is resource sharing is unrealistic, but that it is also detrimental since it stretches the few finite resources available to the point of ruin. He does this through rhetoric, or the use of logos, ethos, and pathos, the rhetorical appeals, to persuade his audience of his argument (Ramage, Bean, and Johnson, 62). In this essay, we will define logos, ethos, and pathos, analyze how Hardin’s uses these rhetorical appeals in his essay, and conclude how effective he was using these appeals to persuade his audience.
Logos is the logic, internal consistency, and clarity of the argument (62) and, under the Toolman system, 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 (68), 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 (657). Only so many people may fit on this lifeboat, just as so many people may have access to the world’s finite 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 (62). His warrant, or understood assumption (77), is that spoiling resources and leading the world to ruin is not optimal, while his backing, or evidence for the warrant, is that things that are not optimal should be avoided. He gives three reasons and grounds in the form of real world examples of “The Tragedy of the Commons” to support his claim.
The first example Hardin gives of the “Tragedy of the Commons” is the World Food bank. The World Food Bank is an international depository where nations may contribute money to help feed the hungry. Hardin reasons that giving to the Food Bank and consequently giving to the hungry in poor nations, will perpetuate the cycle of hunger and deplete the world’s reserve of food, creating a “Tragedy of the Commons”. He supports this with the grounds that poor nations grow faster than rich ones, and will continue to grow and need more food even if aid is given, supporting his argument. Hardin additionally provides a qualifier, or limiting statement (81), to this example saying that this conclusion may only be reached if current population growth forecasts hold.
A second example Hardin gives of the “Tragedy of the Commons” is environmental overload in India. Even in the abundance of food as provided for by many aid agencies, environmental overload is inevitable, Hardin argues. Although India’s population has surged due to sufficient food and continues to surge, there is increasingly limited clean beaches, unspoiled forests, solitude, medical supplies, and other essentials. This in turn lowers the quality of life for every Indian born. Every Indian saved through food donated through aid agencies increases the costs of crowding and lowers the quality of life for the rest, leading to another “Tragedy of the Commons” situation and supporting his original claim.
The third example Hardin gives of the “Tragedy of the Commons” is the under moderation of immigration into rich countries. He reasons that the United States is a victim of this phenomenon, and uses the grounds that an overabundance of immigrants provides cheap labor, lower wages, and take resources while accelerating the deterioration of the environment and quickening its progress toward ruin. He also addresses how the phenomenon continues because citizens will not demand new immigration laws in the fear of being deemed bigots. This intern creates a “Tragedy of the Commons” situation, and supports his claim.
In addition to logos, Hardin also utilizes ethos to persuade the audience of his argument. Ethos involves bolstering the credibility of the writer as a function of the writer’s reputation for honesty, expertise, or fairness in considering alternate views (62). Hardin appeals to ethos by demonstrating his expertise and frequently citing statistical and quantitative data to validate his arguments. For example, Hardin cites that the populations of poor countries increase at a rate 2.5% per year while the taxpayers of developed countries spend billions of dollars on welfare programs to sustain the consistent population increase of underdeveloped nations (660). When Hardin tells readers that the population of India reached 1.2 billion people in 28 years (661), the reader feels a strong sense of the authority and credibility of the writer. He has done a lot of research and uses it to show that the current trend is unsustainable. Hardin also uses personal anecdotes to appeal to the ethos of the readers, such as his presence at a prestigious meeting in Hawaii where Japanese descended citizens of Hawaii discussed the problem of immigration (662). His presence at such a prestigious and privileged meeting suggests to the readers that the writer is an important person in immigration policy and so his arguments gain more weight because of this.
Lastly, Hardin employs pathos, or the focus on the values, beliefs, or emotional sympathies of the audience (63). One way he employs pathos is through decorative language. While arguing his points, Hardin uses emotionally intense words such as “suicidal” and “complete catastrophe” and other words that carry strong negative connotations. These words incite fear in the reader, leading them to believe that their very existence is in danger if developed countries continue to help undeveloped countries. This may lead the audience to agree with Hardin out of outrage. Hardin also appeals to the reader’s pathos by talking about the future of Earth and of the reader. Hardin argues that if we maintain the current trend of aid, we will leave a ruined world for our future generations. This leads the audience to think of his or her children and fear for their safety. This leads the audience to agree with Hardin out of fear.
Although Hardin could have used visual aids such as charts, graph, or even comics to give his predictions a physical representation and provide the reader with an object that shows the seriousness of the situation, the argument presented by Hardin is certainly persuasive. He unpacks his lifeboat metaphor through strict logic, paints his view on food banks through statistics and data, and incites a sense of urgency to keep the audience thinking about what he has presented. The amount of statistics and data given in the essay is sufficient for the reader to get a good idea of the problem, and the examples provided are sufficient to get his major point across, that the planet’s resources are limited and cannot be evenly distributed. Any attempt to evenly distribute resources may lead to a “Tragedy of the Commons”. Hardin uses evidence convincingly and relevantly to argue that aid programs hurt both the giver and the receiver. When developed nations give away their stockpiled food to poorer nations, poorer nations get into the habit of meeting their food demand through the food bank while their own population keeps growing and their resources keep decreasing. The richer countries continuously dedicate more of their resources to sustain the growth of poorer countries, and risk being unable to maintain their own population. A better practice would be for the richer countries to behave as lifeboats for poor individuals as Hardin suggests. Richer countries should prioritize their own needs and grow and sustain their own population. This incentivises poorer individuals from other countries to create their own resources and become self-sustainable. By successfully incorporating all three elements of the logos, pathos and ethos in his essay, Hardin presents a strong case as to why foreign aid is a bad idea.
Works Cited
Confucius, Analects XV.24, Trans. David Hinton.
King James Bible “Authorized Version”, Cambridge Edition. 1611. Print.
Bean, John, John Ramage, and June Johnson. "The Core of an Argument." Inventing
Arguments. 9th ed. Boston Massachusetts: PEARSON, 2014. Print.
Ta’Von Johnson
Arman Ali
Analysis of “Lifeboat Ethics”
The concept of generosity and compassion through resource sharing fundamentally entrench themselves onto many of the world’s major religions, political systems, and moral foundations. Many would agree, “Do unto others as you would unto yourself” (Confucius), as a common moral adage suggests, or that “when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?” (Isaiah 58:7). Although many would agree that generosity and compassion through resource sharing is just, is it realistic? Garrett Hardin in his essay “Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor” argues that not only is resource sharing is unrealistic, but that it is also detrimental since it stretches the few finite resources available to the point of ruin. He does this through rhetoric, or the use of logos, ethos, and pathos, the rhetorical appeals, to persuade his audience of his argument (Ramage, Bean, and Johnson, 62). In this essay, we will define logos, ethos, and pathos, analyze how Hardin’s uses these rhetorical appeals in his essay, and conclude how effective he was using these appeals to persuade his audience.
Logos is the logic, internal consistency, and clarity of the argument (62) and, under the Toolman system, 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 (68), 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 (657). Only so many people may fit on this lifeboat, just as so many people may have access to the world’s finite 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 (62). His warrant, or understood assumption (77), is that spoiling resources and leading the world to ruin is not optimal, while his backing, or evidence for the warrant, is that things that are not optimal should be avoided. He gives three reasons and grounds in the form of real world examples of “The Tragedy of the Commons” to support his claim.
The first example Hardin gives of the “Tragedy of the Commons” is the World Food bank. The World Food Bank is an international depository where nations may contribute money to help feed the hungry. Hardin reasons that giving to the Food Bank and consequently giving to the hungry in poor nations, will perpetuate the cycle of hunger and deplete the world’s reserve of food, creating a “Tragedy of the Commons”. He supports this with the grounds that poor nations grow faster than rich ones, and will continue to grow and need more food even if aid is given, supporting his argument. Hardin additionally provides a qualifier, or limiting statement (81), to this example saying that this conclusion may only be reached if current population growth forecasts hold.
A second example Hardin gives of the “Tragedy of the Commons” is environmental overload in India. Even in the abundance of food as provided for by many aid agencies, environmental overload is inevitable, Hardin argues. Although India’s population has surged due to sufficient food and continues to surge, there is increasingly limited clean beaches, unspoiled forests, solitude, medical supplies, and other essentials. This in turn lowers the quality of life for every Indian born. Every Indian saved through food donated through aid agencies increases the costs of crowding and lowers the quality of life for the rest, leading to another “Tragedy of the Commons” situation and supporting his original claim.
The third example Hardin gives of the “Tragedy of the Commons” is the under moderation of immigration into rich countries. He reasons that the United States is a victim of this phenomenon, and uses the grounds that an overabundance of immigrants provides cheap labor, lower wages, and take resources while accelerating the deterioration of the environment and quickening its progress toward ruin. He also addresses how the phenomenon continues because citizens will not demand new immigration laws in the fear of being deemed bigots. This intern creates a “Tragedy of the Commons” situation, and supports his claim.
In addition to logos, Hardin also utilizes ethos to persuade the audience of his argument. Ethos involves bolstering the credibility of the writer as a function of the writer’s reputation for honesty, expertise, or fairness in considering alternate views (62). Hardin appeals to ethos by demonstrating his expertise and frequently citing statistical and quantitative data to validate his arguments. For example, Hardin cites that the populations of poor countries increase at a rate 2.5% per year while the taxpayers of developed countries spend billions of dollars on welfare programs to sustain the consistent population increase of underdeveloped nations (660). When Hardin tells readers that the population of India reached 1.2 billion people in 28 years (661), the reader feels a strong sense of the authority and credibility of the writer. He has done a lot of research and uses it to show that the current trend is unsustainable. Hardin also uses personal anecdotes to appeal to the ethos of the readers, such as his presence at a prestigious meeting in Hawaii where Japanese descended citizens of Hawaii discussed the problem of immigration (662). His presence at such a prestigious and privileged meeting suggests to the readers that the writer is an important person in immigration policy and so his arguments gain more weight because of this.
Lastly, Hardin employs pathos, or the focus on the values, beliefs, or emotional sympathies of the audience (63). One way he employs pathos is through decorative language. While arguing his points, Hardin uses emotionally intense words such as “suicidal” and “complete catastrophe” and other words that carry strong negative connotations. These words incite fear in the reader, leading them to believe that their very existence is in danger if developed countries continue to help undeveloped countries. This may lead the audience to agree with Hardin out of outrage. Hardin also appeals to the reader’s pathos by talking about the future of Earth and of the reader. Hardin argues that if we maintain the current trend of aid, we will leave a ruined world for our future generations. This leads the audience to think of his or her children and fear for their safety. This leads the audience to agree with Hardin out of fear.
Although Hardin could have used visual aids such as charts, graph, or even comics to give his predictions a physical representation and provide the reader with an object that shows the seriousness of the situation, the argument presented by Hardin is certainly persuasive. He unpacks his lifeboat metaphor through strict logic, paints his view on food banks through statistics and data, and incites a sense of urgency to keep the audience thinking about what he has presented. The amount of statistics and data given in the essay is sufficient for the reader to get a good idea of the problem, and the examples provided are sufficient to get his major point across, that the planet’s resources are limited and cannot be evenly distributed. Any attempt to evenly distribute resources may lead to a “Tragedy of the Commons”. Hardin uses evidence convincingly and relevantly to argue that aid programs hurt both the giver and the receiver. When developed nations give away their stockpiled food to poorer nations, poorer nations get into the habit of meeting their food demand through the food bank while their own population keeps growing and their resources keep decreasing. The richer countries continuously dedicate more of their resources to sustain the growth of poorer countries, and risk being unable to maintain their own population. A better practice would be for the richer countries to behave as lifeboats for poor individuals as Hardin suggests. Richer countries should prioritize their own needs and grow and sustain their own population. This incentivises poorer individuals from other countries to create their own resources and become self-sustainable. By successfully incorporating all three elements of the logos, pathos and ethos in his essay, Hardin presents a strong case as to why foreign aid is a bad idea.
Works Cited
Confucius, Analects XV.24, Trans. David Hinton.
King James Bible “Authorized Version”, Cambridge Edition. 1611. Print.
Bean, John, John Ramage, and June Johnson. "The Core of an Argument." Inventing
Arguments. 9th ed. Boston Massachusetts: PEARSON, 2014. Print.