Andrew's analysis of "Lifeboat Ethics"

Andrew Orme
Professor SWILUA
Writing 150 H---Fall 2011

Spaceship Earth; We Have a No-Go for Metaphor…

The planet Earth is often referred to as a spaceship. It is, after all, a self sustaining sphere in the vastness of space. Humanitarians particularly like this metaphor because it dictates that all people must equally share the resources available. This idea appeals to their conscience and sense of morality. Despite the good feelings behind the spaceship metaphor, it cannot prove effective in modern times. A different metaphor is needed to dictate efforts with humanitarian aid. In “Lifeboat Ethics” Garrett Hardin explains to an affluent American audience that Earth is better represented in metaphor as a lifeboat than as a spaceship through use of various poetic devices which effectively appeal to the audience’s sense of logos, ethos, and pathos.

Hardin appeals to his audience’s sense of logos first by dissecting and analyzing common metaphors associated with planet Earth. One instance of this occurs in the opening of his essay where he discusses the “Earth as a spaceship” metaphor. For a spacecraft to function effectively, it needs a captain to lead it. He points out that, “Spaceship Earth certainly has no captain; the United Nations is merely a toothless tiger, with little power to enforce any policy upon its bickering members” (308). Earth lacks the essential mortal commander needed to direct policies and ethics. He also explains that in general, “The spaceship metaphor can be dangerous when used by misguided idealist to justify suicidal policies for sharing our resources” (308). As he delves deeper into the spaceship metaphor and points out its flaws, his audience clearly realizes its shortcomings. His discussion reveals that the metaphor is logically unstable in the current situation of the world.

Another example of Hardin appealing to logos through dissection of metaphor occurs when he introduces the idea of Earth being a lifeboat, which he proposes “is the basic metaphor within which we must work out our solutions” (309). He theorizes that, “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” (308). He continues by examining this metaphor from the perspective of those in the lifeboat, who are the rich of society. Since his audience is also rich, they make connections with the metaphor and with the ethics Hardin proposes in his exploration. His thorough discussion of the metaphor convinces his audience of its validity and pertinence to the world’s current situation.

The structure of Hardin’s essay also appeals to the logos of his audience. He follows a clear progression which develops and validates his ideas concerning humanitarian assistance in modern times. A discussion of a potential world food bank illustrates the logical structure Hardin uses. He begins by discussing the concept and ideas behind the food bank, which are connected to the spaceship metaphor, and what it is meant to accomplish. He then discusses the failures of a historical program similar to the proposed food bank. This program is referred to as the “Food for Peace” program (311). He states that it “required the creation of a vast Government bureaucracy, which then acquired its own vested interest in continuing the program regardless of its merits” (311). He continues by discussing future situations that would lead to the failure of the program. As Hardin follows this logical structure, his audience clearly sees the reasoning behind abandoning programs which follow the spaceship metaphor.

Hardin appeals to his audience’s sense of ethos through his selection of statistical and quantitative evidence. As he discusses statistics like populations “increasing at a rate of 3.3 percent per year” (309), taxpayers spending 7.9 billion dollars on welfare programs in the US (311), and India’s population reaching 1.2 billion in 28 years, his audience receives a very strong sense of authority. Hardin has done his research and uses it to back up his argument that the Earth is not a spaceship for all to take advantage of. The statistical evidence used portrays Hardin as an expert on the subject, which greatly strengthens the credibility of his theory in his audience’s eyes.
Hardin also appeals to his audience’s sense of ethos by relating personal experiences which project him as an important figure. While discussing immigration ethics, he relates an experience he had while visiting Hawaii. He relates “At a recent meeting of Hawaiian government officials in Honolulu, I had the ironic delight of hearing a speaker…ask how the country might practically and constitutionally close its doors to further immigration” (315). Having the opportunity to sit in on a government meeting is not a privilege granted to all people. His presence in the meeting suggests that he is important in some way or another and because the meeting was about immigration, his presence suggests he is an important figure in immigration policy. The importance portrayed by this experience strengthens the validity of his ideas.

Hardin uses blunt diction to appeal to the audience’s sense of pathos. As he describes various implementations of the spaceship metaphor, he portrays it as “suicidal,” (308) “complete catastrophe,” (309) “misguided,” (314) and “impossible” (316). These words carry strong negative connotations which effectively appeal to pathos. This leads the audience to agree with Hardin that the spaceship metaphor is no good.

Hardin also appeals to pathos by talking about the audience’s posterity. He argues that living the spaceship metaphor “would guarantee that our grandchildren, and everyone else’s grandchildren, would have only a ruined world to inhabit” (315). Affluent Americans, which make up Hardin’s audience, generally care about their posterity. The thought of leaving posterity an exhausted world appalls them. Connecting the spaceship metaphor to a ruined future effectively convinces his audience to abhor the metaphor’s principles.

Hardin’s strong appeals to logos, ethos, and pathos build a powerful and convincing argument which effectively persuades affluent Americans that while the sharing ethics of the spaceship metaphor seem good, the ethics of the lifeboat metaphor are much better. The lifeboat ethics may not appear as nice as those of the spaceship, but they are needed to preserve the Earth for posterity. If provided with the resources necessary, future generations may be able to build a society in which a common leader guides the world. In that time, society might overcome the flaws preventing us from referring to our planet as Spaceship Earth.


Works Cited

Hardin, Garrett. “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against
Helping the Poor.” Readings for Intensive
Writers. 5th ed. Comp Susan Jorgensen. Provo: BYU Academic Publishing, 2007. 308-316. Print.