Mariah's Analysis of "Lifeboat Ethics"

Mariah Smith
Dr. Kerry Spencer
Critical Analysis
November 7, 2011
Lifeboat Ethics: Charity vs. Survival

Life is a cruise ship...or at least it is until the engine blows up and the oasis of luxury sinks. You are among the lucky ones in one of its few life rafts, surrounded by hundreds of others who are left treading water in the ocean. They beg to be allowed aboard, but you know you neither have the space nor supplies to do so without harming yourself. Time passes and you observe some of the passengers begin to drown and get eaten by sharks who have clearly discovered a buffet. You are more grateful than ever to be in your life boat, thinking philosophical thoughts, and eventually the question comes up: “Does everyone on earth have an equal right to an equal share in its resources?” (308) This is the question Garrett Hardin uses to introduce his essay, Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor. Using the metaphor of the earth being a lifeboat while appealing to logos, pathos and ethos in his audience, he answers this question.

The dominating metaphor of Hardin’s essay is one comparing the condition of wealthy nations to that of a lifeboat. He begins by kindly acknowledging environmentalists’ efforts to fit the world into a spaceship metaphor where there are limited, nonrenewable resources and as such need to be carefully and equally rationed. Then he turns around and attacks the metaphor, asserting that the human race is not in a spaceship scenario. His primary arguments are that a spaceship is a single member ruled by an individual, and that spaceships do not struggle with a constant influx of needy immigrants, as outer space is a dark void, and life simply can not and does not exist in such a void. Hardin uncovers the lifeboat metaphor. “If we divide the world crudely into rich nations and poor nations, two thirds of them are desperately poor, and only one third comparatively rich, with the United States the wealthiest of all. Metaphorically each nation can be seen as a lifeboat full of comparatively rich people. In the ocean outside each lifeboat swim the poor of the world, who would like to get in, or at least to share some of the wealth...” (308) Aware of his educated audience, Hardin draws upon statistics and facts to supplement his lifeboat metaphor and thus strengthen his point. He points out that wealthy nations double in population approximately every 87 years, while the less affluent nations double near every 35 years. This appeal to logos through population contrast prompts readers to come to a realization that poor countries, already suffering from insufficient resources, are completely unable to support their expanding populations and will most likely remain in such a condition forever.

...Unless they receive some kind of aid. Enter the international food bank. Hardin hates the food bank and wants his audience to feel the same way, so he pulls another statistic: “Between 1960 to 1970, U.S. taxpayers spent a total of $7.9 billion on the Food for Peace program.” (311) His audience members may shrug to themselves about this, since after all, the United States government runs the program and it has to get its money from somewhere. And at least the tax money is going to a good cause...so they think until Hardin pulls that rug from underneath their feet with a statement which implies that much of that money is actually lining the pockets of special interest groups involved in the program. Pathos is awake. The audience has been roused from their stupor of ignorance, is indignant, and primed for persuasion.

For the final push, Hardin employs an appeal to ethos through a reference to a well-known story from a well-trusted source: the story of Joseph of Egypt from the Holy Bible. Joseph was placed in charge of a country which faced first a wonderful seven years of unprecedented bounty before it would plunge into seven years of most desperate famine. Storehouses were erected to insure Egypt’s survival during the famine through reliance on stored surplus from the period of plenty and Egypt did survive, continuing to be a mighty nation. “A wise and competent government saves out of the production of the good years in anticipation of bad years to come,” (312) states Hardin. He uses this example to soothe his readers’ natural fears and concerns for the welfare of those in poorer nations if aid were to be withdrawn. “They can learn from experience.” (312) And Hardin has made a valid point. Many nations of old such as Greece and Rome survived and thrived without aid though either their own experience or the experiences of other nations.

The question is answered and the reader has been reconciled to at least an understanding of author Garrett Hardin’s perspective. They have been bent gradually and perhaps not-so-gently by a barrage of strong metaphor and appeals to logos, pathos and ethos. Feeding the poor, they realize, is well-meant, but if it is continued in the way that it is it could very well be laying the framework for the demise of the human race. So the answer to the original question is no: “For the foreseeable future, our survival demands that we govern our actions by the ethics of a lifeboat, harsh though they may be. Posterity will be satisfied with nothing less.” (316)