Seth Taylor
Prof. Spencer
HNRS Writing 150
7 November 2011
The Paddle
The current of ethics and morality creates a river of life that can capsize the conscience at any given moment, and to sift through these waters proves to be an egregious task. It is not very difficult to choose a side when discussing ethics and morality; the problem arises when one must establish the reasoning behind choosing a side. In his “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor,” Garrett Hardin effectively establishes his reasoning on the ethics behind not helping impoverished nations to a general audience through his appeal to logos, personal anecdote, and extended metaphor.
Hardin's appeal to logos is scattered throughout the essay; However, he ties his logical argument together in his last paragraph when he says, “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” (Hardin 316). This is an appeal to logos, because he is trying to get his general audience to logically consider what they have to do to ensure future generations. He bases his entire argument on our duty to our posterity, to give them a world similar or better to that in which we live in. Hardin delivers hard statistics of growing populations in impoverished nations to show how, logically, we need to focus on pursuing our own national goals of maintaining a bright future, rather than allowing poorer nations to siphon resources from us, no matter how humanitarian it seems.
In addition to an appeal to logos, Hardin uses personal anecdote to back his reasoning further. When speaking of an experience in Hawaii, Hardin reflects:
“I had the ironic delight of hearing a speaker, who like most of his audience was of Japanese ancestry, ask how the country might practically and constitutionally close its doors to further immigration. One member of the audience countered 'How can we shut the doors now? We have many friends and relatives in Japan that we'd like to bring here some day […].' The Japanese-American speaker smiled sympathetically and answered: 'Yes, but we have children now, and someday we'll have grandchildren too. We can bring more people here from Japan only by giving away some of the land that we hope to pass on to our grandchildren some day. What right do we have to do that?'” (Hardin 315)
This anecdote backs Hardin's appeal to logos with the inclusion of sustaining a land for future generations. How is it more ethical to help impoverished nations, than to provide substance for your children or grandchildren? Hardin argues that it isn't. He shares this anecdote to emphasize to his general audience that sometimes people have to make a hard decision, to prevent harder decisions in the future. He argues that we must cherish our position being inside the lifeboat, rather than the swimmers begging for a way in.
The lifeboat is the extended metaphor Hardin uses throughout the essay. He says, “Suppose we decide to preserve our small safety factor and admit no more to the lifeboat. Our survival is then possible, although we shall have to be constantly on guard against boarding parties” (Hardin 309). The extended metaphor effectively backs Hardin's reasoning, through its ability to show his general audience that they are the ones in the lifeboat. No one in an impoverished nation is going to be reading this essay; therefore, by his audience being the passengers of the lifeboat, his argument becomes incredibly more effective. Once the metaphor is established and understood, he can present his argument: helping impoverished nations hinder our ability to ensure future stability. Hardin continually refers to the extended metaphor to periodically remind his general audience of their current circumstance; that he's on their side whether they believe they are on that side or not.
The current of ethics and morality continually push and pull from one side to the other; However, with ease Hardin effectively provides a paddle of logic, anecdote and metaphor to guide his general audience to his embankment.
Good job! I just have a few suggestions. . .
ReplyDeleteHow does he use logos? What tools does he use through logos? Be more specific.
The whole paragraph quote in the personal anecdote paragraph broke up the paper. It's a style choice, but I would consider shortening the quote or summarizing it.
Also, your arguments are good, but expand on them a little bit more.
But really good job! It was clear and very readable.
I really enjoyed how you introduced the topic in the first paragraph. I agree with your tools, and you have good transitions. I agree with the above comment: perhaps you should have summarized the large quote. I like how the concluding paragraph ties into the intro, but would have liked to have seen it a bit more fleshed out.
ReplyDeleteGood job!
I really liked your paper! It flowed well for me... I followed right along and understood what you were saying. I thought this article did good job of logically describing why we shouldn't focus helping those outside of our country. That innately sounds bad to us, but Hardin helps us to see past that. Although a few of his points went over my head, like the world food bank, I felt like his point was valid.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed this paper the only thing is that I think your introductory sentence could be remodelled... it seemed a little long and wordy.. perhaps it should be something that captures your audiences attention a little more.
ReplyDeleteI like your style of writing. :)
Thanks for sharing
Stefanie Morris
Hi! Great job! I noticed a few things that you could add to make your paper stronger. It's pretty good on it's own but it could use a little sprucing up.
ReplyDeleteThis was kind of mentioned in some of the earlier comments but in your second paragraph you said the author uses "hard statistics" with his appeal to logos. I would maybe give a few examples of those statistics because they are everywhere in the article; you don't have to look hard to find them.
As was said before, I thought your third paragraph had a lot of quote but not much explanation, so maybe even that ratio out a little bit.
Once again, great job!
Bergen Beesley
Awesome paper. You could explain the large quote a little more. Other than that, it's a great draft! Way to go!!
ReplyDeleteA little revision and smoothing out needed, but otherwise a brilliant paper! Just make the paper flow easier, and get rid of some nonessential elements
ReplyDelete