Venice's Analysis of "Lifeboat Ethics"

Venice Jardine
Writing 150
Critical Analysis
November 7th 2011
Venice’s Critique on “Lifeboat Ethics” by Garrett Hardin

There is no denying the magnitude of the United States’ currently devastated economy. Politicians and economists alike are constantly taunted by the dark cloud that hangs over the American public, threatening the worst, and though many have stepped in to assist in or offer possible solutions to this overlying predicament, we have not yet come to terms with an effective plan. One such attempted suggestion, by Garrett Hardin, is illustrated in his essay “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor.” Though he gives extensive examples supporting his viewpoint, he is still unable to convince his readers to adopt the ideals of his contrivance. This failure to gain the confidence of his American middle-class audience is wrought by his ineffective employment of euphemism, archetype, and appeal to pathos.

Throughout the essay, Hardin attempts to use euphemism in order to mask the otherwise potentially offensive argument against helping the poor. If done effectively, this tool has the ability to lead the reader to inevitably conclude that the author is correct in his assumptions, however the approach taken by Hardin to do so is feeble and therefore ineffective. When speaking of the epidemic of hunger and the possibility of a world food bank he states, “those who propose the food bank usually refer to a current ‘emergency’ or ‘crisis’ in terms of world food supply. But what is an emergency? Although they may be infrequent and sudden, everyone knows that emergencies will occur from time to time. A well-run family, company, organization or country prepares for the likelihood of accidents and emergencies. It expects them, it budgets for them, it saves for them.” (Hardin, 311) Here he tries to settle the murky waters of his self-created waves by assuring the audience that world hunger is a daily occurrence undeserving of the title “emergency”, but by thus stating gives his audience opportunity to question his validity. Hardin makes the effort to support his rationale by placing the façade of euphemism before it, yet this very façade is transparent. The reader is not only dissuaded of Hardin’s opinion but suffer a reverse of the desired effect—he comes to terms with Hardin’s opposition which inevitably seems far more appealing and sensible. Hardin’s attempt at rationalizing his unwillingness to give to the poor therefore falls flat on its face, leading the reader to sympathize more with Hardin’s opposition than Hardin himself.

Next, his flawed use of archetype further dissuades his reader from siding with him. Hardin unknowingly falls into the trap of stereotyping the poor as desperate, clinging bodies of greed without the least bit of sympathy for their fellow human beings. He warns that they will not give back and will be ungrateful for what we give them, thus we must be constantly on the watch to protect our society from their merciless need, suggesting we protect the morality of our humble society by forsaking them altogether. Explaining our predicament using the lifeboat analogy, he says, “The needy person to whom the guilt-ridden person yields his place will not himself feel guilty about his good luck… The net result of conscience-stricken people giving up their unjustly held seats is the elimination of that sort of conscience from the lifeboat.” This archetype of the poor—that they are completely void of conscience and concerned only with themselves is entirely false, and the idea that we will only protect the conscience of our society by not helping others in dire circumstances is completely contradictory. The reader, once again, sees straight through his use of archetype, recognizing that he is applying the stereotype far too liberally, further convincing him that he should not take part in Hardin’s opinion at all.

Finally, Hardin’s attempt to appeal to pathos to influence his readers in the direction of his ideals falls flat as well. His overarching goal is to convince the reader of the dangers of yielding himself to service of those in need—that the only way to save our own society is to focus solely on that. Though a thought-provoking argument in and of itself, Hardin does not present it in a way that would lead one to follow its ideals. Hardin speaks of the 60 people able to fit in the lifeboat and the hundreds of others floating about, “who would like to get in, or at least to share some of the wealth,” when truthfully they are only wanting to survive, not to be hopelessly wealthy. Yes, the lifeboat may be meant for only sixty, but being an American boat it seems fitting that there be a cozy suite for each, and since we are unwilling to give all of it, we do not give any. Exerting his efforts to appeal to pathos, he tries to reel in the portion of the American public that wishes to hoard what we have, yet this has the opposite effect. He once again gives opportunity for the audience to be put on the defensive, reversing the desired outcome.

Though all are considered highly effective tools, Hardin employed euphemism, archetype, and appeal to pathos poorly and half-heartedly, leading audience to not only be unconvinced but to be convinced of his opposition’s opinions more readily. His feeble attempt to justify his own negligence inevitable fails.