Jamie's Analysis of "Lifeboat Ethics"

Jamie Smith
Dr. Spencer
Honors 150 University Writing
26 September 2011
Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor

Through his use of a variety of analogies, extended sentences paired with blunt commentaries, and rhetorical questions that successfully convinces a more moderate audience against providing assistance to the those in poverty, author Garrett Hardin successfully argues in his work, “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor,” that the administration of relief to the poor does not fall within the responsibilities of more affluent and stable nations.

To illustrate this, Hardin uses a continual analogy throughout his argument which relates Earth to a spaceship. This provides a more personal mode through which readers can become a part of his work. Hardin asserts that the metaphor of Earth as a spaceship is one that has been implemented by environmentalists to “persuade countries, industries, and people to stop wasting and polluting our natural resources” while they argue against him, saying that “no single person or institution has the right to waste more than a fair share of its resources” (308). He counters with his position that “ the spaceship metaphor can be dangerous when used by misguided idealists to justify suicidal policies for sharing our resources through uncontrolled immigration and foreign aid” and that the only way such an analogy could be remotely plausible would be if Spaceship Earth was piloted by a captain. Hardin continues by arguing 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). By providing this valid counter to the arguments offered by the “kindhearted liberal” portion of his readers, he successfully legitimizes the foundation for his idea that attempting to assist those in need will only lead to the undermining of stable nations (312).

Not only does Hardin dispel the arguments of critics, but he additionally offers a new, more realistic analogy—one that he continues to refer to throughout the rest of his work. The analogy of the lifeboat puts the true nature of helping the poor into perspective, in that it forces Hardin’s audience to visualize themselves in a survival situation which ultimately conveys the author’s reasoning. Using the idea that those who feel guilty about remaining secure in a lifeboat that seats fifty, while there are hundreds drowning in the sea around them, Hardin encourages readers to simply, “Get out and yield your place to others” should they feel guilty, as survival is only possible so long as people are “constantly on guard against boarding parties” (309). Such an analogy successfully dispels concerns that an audience who may have felt sympathetic to this cause would share. Because this comparison faces them with a critical life or death situation, it allows readers to reevaluate how passionately they believe in helping those less fortunate when the consequences of such actions will surely put their own existence in jeopardy.

In addition, the author utilizes a distinct style of complex arguments followed by straightforward statements throughout “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor.” Following the analogy of a group of survivors in a lifeboat of fifty, Hardin is quick to dispel the “Christian ideal of being ‘our brother’s keeper’” (309). His clear-cut rationality is clearly illustrated while revealing that “ the needs of all in the water are the same, and since they can all be seen as ‘brothers’ we could take them all into our boat, making a total of 150 in a boat designed for sixty. The boat swamps, everyone drowns” (309). Such a phrase not only provides support for his analogies and arguments, but additionally explicitly states the harsh reality of what would inevitably occur should wealthier countries take upon them the burden of helping the poor. Rather than remain optimistic about the assistance that can be provided to lesser countries like his intended audience, short and direct sentences provide not only the realism of how inhibiting this mindset is, but strikes readers who may wish to do the same with self-evident truths that are the backbone to Hardin’s successful convincing throughout this work. Ultimately, it is through this distinct structure that the author both illustrates and appeals to his broad audience that “rescuing” the impoverished will only lead to the economic failure of the affluent countries that are providing relief.

Hardin furthermore uses rhetorical questions to not only keep his audience engaged in his argument, but to make them realize the inherent flaws that accompany supporting less developed countries. By encouraging his audience to think, “Which ten do we let in? How do we choose? Do we pick the best ten, the first come, first served? And what do we say to the ninety we exclude?” in his analogy of the lifeboat, Hardin not only dispels the counterarguments of other, but reinforces the strength of his hypothetical situation and rationality behind his ideas (308).

“Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor” successfully utilizes the deeper connection an audience makes through analogies, direct hypothetical situations, and varied syntax to convey the often overlooked reality of providing assistance to those living in poverty.