Katie Richards
11/14/11
Critical Analysis
“The Real Mother Eve”
In Beverly Campbell’s article, “Mother Eve, Mentor for Today’s Woman: A Heritage of Honor,” Eve’s role in God’s plan is thoroughly questioned, examined, and expounded upon. As the modern Christian paradigm of Eve is often skewed, Campbell thought it her duty to convince LDS readers, especially LDS women, of Mother Eve’s wisdom in partaking of the forbidden fruit. Through the effective use of appeals to all three tools of rhetoric—logos, pathos, and ethos—Campbell changes her audience’s notion of Eve from an ignorant sinner to an honorable servant.
It is difficult to argue with logic, and Beverly Campbell uses this to her advantage in her article. She does this best with her extensive comparisons of the translated words in our scriptures to their original Hebrew. After all, “an examination of the word itself yields an altogether different meaning.” Campbell sheds light on the meanings of many words and phrases commonly identified with Eve and her wickedness or her lack of knowledge. To say that she was “beguiled” really means she had an intense psychological experience; to declare her a “helpmeet” actually makes her a rescuer or savior, equal with Adam; when the Lord vowed that He would “multiply [Eve’s] sorrow and conception,” He really meant that Eve would bring children into the world many times, and that it would not be easy. Informing the audience of these linguistic details does wonders to enlighten their understanding of Mother Eve and her motives. Another logical tactic employed is the allusion to understandable and relatable situations. Examples of orders given to small children to keep them safe help the reader to better comprehend God’s apparently conflicted commandment to Adam and Eve. References to such real-world situations, and their connections to the story of the Fall, are straightforward and make sense. Campbell argues many of her points by appealing to the reader’s intellectual understanding.
As much as we would like to think we are purely logical beings, most humans are most affected and influenced by their emotions. The author successfully appeals to this part of human nature by working on our emotions—in both a positive and a negative fashion. She is especially successful in understanding and speaking to females. She begins with a portrayal the world’s distorted and detrimental view of women, and the possible origins of this view that trace back to Eve. She states that in much of the histories/literature she has found that mention women, there is an “undercurrent of apology, as though there were something not quite ‘all right’ about being a woman.” This immediately puts any woman who has ever been slighted by the world on the author’s terms, and incites empathy and indignation from said woman. Campbell goes as far as to blame all men’s problems on Eve, for “to the unenlightened the phrase ‘Adam fell that men might be’ has come to mean ‘poor dear man had to fall because of Eve’s foolish choice.’” Such a blatant and dramatic expression pricks the feminist fibers in all women. However, as Campbell continues, the reader learns of Eve’s divinity and of God’s love for His precious daughter, and all is made right. The remedy is so powerful because all women, no matter their circumstances, can put themselves into Eve’s place and feel somewhat of the burden and responsibility she carried. This leads to another of Campbell’s emotional devices: placing the reader within the text. By inviting the reader to imagine how it must have felt to watch the great drama of the Fall unfold, or how Satan must have felt when he realized he had triggered the plan of mortality, she allows the reader to explore themselves emotionally. The encouragement of such an emotional journey is a key factor of the effectiveness of this article.
By citing apostles, college professors, and other authoritative figures, Campbell relies heavily on the appeal to ethos to educate and persuade her audience. In one of the many examples of this tool, Campbell quotes Brigham Young in the hopes of convincing readers of the foreordination of the Fall: “The Lord knew that they [Adam and Eve] would do this, and had designed that they should.” Most of the LDS faith are more likely to believe and less likely to challenge the words of the Lord’s apostles and prophets, whether in simple explanations or profound declarations. Along with these quotes, Campbell cites scriptural references to put facts into context or to further back her claims. She also cites professors and colleagues who assisted in the Hebrew translations and other insights. Some may claim that Campbell relies too heavily on the statements of others and not enough on her own opinions; however, the author’s many citations provide informed insights from a number of different sources, and only add credibility to the information she is presenting and the point she is trying to prove. The quotes chosen for the article are clear and relevant, and the reputations of their orators add weight to the article’s message.
After dozens of quotes, a multitude of supporting arguments, and 15 basic points explained, Beverly Campbell did all in her power to elevate Eve’s position in the minds of her readers. Even more noteworthy is the renewed confidence and self-worth she endeavored to instill in every LDS woman. By appealing to the senses of logos, pathos, and ethos, Campbell reminded the world that because of Mother Eve’s divine decision, we are here today and are able to take part in God’s great plan.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Emily's Analysis of "Mother Eve"
Emily Barnett
11-14-11
RFIW Critical Analysis
Mother Eve Mentor for Today’s Women
Written By: Beverly Campbell
In society today we see the way that women are treated, many times we see women displayed as objects, or as being “dumb”, other times we see that women are subject to men. How did we get this idea and identity of women stuck in our culture? Why are people’s views so wrong? The answer to this for many can lead all the way back to the time of Adam and Eve. In Mother Eve Mentor for Today’s Women, Beverly Campbell uses logical appeals, emotional appeals and ethical appeals to effectively argue in the favor that Eve is a role model for Women and should be revered as a Mentor instead of a sinner and a failure as the first mother.
The first instance of a logical appeal in this work is when Campbell defines Eve as a power equal to her counterpart Adam, Campbell uses a logical tool in defining the word “help meet” as “as a savior” the second word means “equal” so thus through defining these words we see that Eve is a majestic saving power equal to that of Adam. Campbell’s argument that they are all the same and that women should be treated with respect because the scriptures state that men and women were made equal, many people do not understand this relationship because they misinterpret the meaning of the meaning of many of the things in the first chapters in Genesis. Eve is not subordinate; she has the same capabilities as Adam to make decisions and to be treated as an equal. Campbell then asks the question if Adam and eve are equal then why are women in general not treated equal as well. With the use of logical appeals Campbell is able to bring this point into perspective with real ideas of what the passage really meant not some interpretation by people in general.
the second instance used in this article is an emotional appeal, Campbell talks about her sister in law and how she had an emotional realization that if Eve was created equal to all men then so are other women, she then goes on to state that many other women will have this same emotion when they find out that Eve is equal. The clarification of this is supposed to show women that they have more worth then society and the world tells them they do because of misunderstanding of their worth. In this section of the work we also see that the main audience of this writing is the female population of the church who often have the feeling of low worth because men have the priesthood and are said to be above women in authority and in intelligence. We see through this argument though that women do not need to feel less then their counterparts because they are just as capable and as strong if not stronger then men.
The third instance we see that Campbell uses many ethical appeals to persuade her audience of the validity of her argument. She uses many references from the scriptures, prophets and other people in history and High leadership positions to prove her point to people about the importance of seeing Mother Eve as a mentor in the lives of women. She references Elder McConkie when she talks about Adam and Eve as equal partners; Adams name was used in the sense to designate the first couple as a unit. As Campbell uses many view point of men and other high standing figures in the Church she is able to more fully persuade her audience of the correctness of her argument and that other people in history have also said the same things she has, through this she shows women that she has authority to say these things and that her argument is as correct as other arguments that have been made.
Through the use of Logical, emotional and ethical appeals Campbell is able to argue that Eve should be seen as a role model to women and that in fact she is not a sinner who should not be followed, but indeed Eve is the mother of all and she should be revered as one of the great righteous people throughout history. Through her argument Campbell is able to effectively make this point in a very valid way that will make many people especially women of the church change their thinking because the thinking that they have now is only bringing society and this church as a whole down but it is as incorrect and misunderstood as it can get!
11-14-11
RFIW Critical Analysis
Mother Eve Mentor for Today’s Women
Written By: Beverly Campbell
In society today we see the way that women are treated, many times we see women displayed as objects, or as being “dumb”, other times we see that women are subject to men. How did we get this idea and identity of women stuck in our culture? Why are people’s views so wrong? The answer to this for many can lead all the way back to the time of Adam and Eve. In Mother Eve Mentor for Today’s Women, Beverly Campbell uses logical appeals, emotional appeals and ethical appeals to effectively argue in the favor that Eve is a role model for Women and should be revered as a Mentor instead of a sinner and a failure as the first mother.
The first instance of a logical appeal in this work is when Campbell defines Eve as a power equal to her counterpart Adam, Campbell uses a logical tool in defining the word “help meet” as “as a savior” the second word means “equal” so thus through defining these words we see that Eve is a majestic saving power equal to that of Adam. Campbell’s argument that they are all the same and that women should be treated with respect because the scriptures state that men and women were made equal, many people do not understand this relationship because they misinterpret the meaning of the meaning of many of the things in the first chapters in Genesis. Eve is not subordinate; she has the same capabilities as Adam to make decisions and to be treated as an equal. Campbell then asks the question if Adam and eve are equal then why are women in general not treated equal as well. With the use of logical appeals Campbell is able to bring this point into perspective with real ideas of what the passage really meant not some interpretation by people in general.
the second instance used in this article is an emotional appeal, Campbell talks about her sister in law and how she had an emotional realization that if Eve was created equal to all men then so are other women, she then goes on to state that many other women will have this same emotion when they find out that Eve is equal. The clarification of this is supposed to show women that they have more worth then society and the world tells them they do because of misunderstanding of their worth. In this section of the work we also see that the main audience of this writing is the female population of the church who often have the feeling of low worth because men have the priesthood and are said to be above women in authority and in intelligence. We see through this argument though that women do not need to feel less then their counterparts because they are just as capable and as strong if not stronger then men.
The third instance we see that Campbell uses many ethical appeals to persuade her audience of the validity of her argument. She uses many references from the scriptures, prophets and other people in history and High leadership positions to prove her point to people about the importance of seeing Mother Eve as a mentor in the lives of women. She references Elder McConkie when she talks about Adam and Eve as equal partners; Adams name was used in the sense to designate the first couple as a unit. As Campbell uses many view point of men and other high standing figures in the Church she is able to more fully persuade her audience of the correctness of her argument and that other people in history have also said the same things she has, through this she shows women that she has authority to say these things and that her argument is as correct as other arguments that have been made.
Through the use of Logical, emotional and ethical appeals Campbell is able to argue that Eve should be seen as a role model to women and that in fact she is not a sinner who should not be followed, but indeed Eve is the mother of all and she should be revered as one of the great righteous people throughout history. Through her argument Campbell is able to effectively make this point in a very valid way that will make many people especially women of the church change their thinking because the thinking that they have now is only bringing society and this church as a whole down but it is as incorrect and misunderstood as it can get!
Spencer's Analysis of "Mother Eve"
Spencer Diehl
November 9, 2011
Honors Writing 150
“Mother Eve”
If there is one event in the history of mankind that has influenced the role of women in society more than any other, it is the story of Eve. Beverly Campbell, the director of international affairs for the LDS church, attempts to effectively address this controversy which has plagued the social status of women for centuries. By using an efficient organization scheme and using an appeal to ethos by extensively referencing church leaders and scholars, Campbell effectively presents a logical argument that her LDS audience can trust due to its foundation in credible sources.
In the beginning of her paper, Campbell is quick to define the negative image that people have of Eve. Using several examples from her own life and quotations from notable publications, Campbell clearly established the feelings the world has for Eve. For example, Campbell recalls an encounter she had with a couple of BYU students who stated that,” [Eve] really blew it, and we’re all paying the price.” By identifying the perception that most have of Eve and her influence on mankind, Campbell effectively addresses her counterargument - a tactic which serves not only to strengthen her own argument, but to make it more meaningful to her audience.
Then, in order to present her argument in an orderly and logical way, Campbell focuses on addressing fifteen misconceptions she has identified that people have of Eve. She uses this approach in order to fully encompass the topic and provide both breadth and depth to her argument. Also, Campbell attempts to address all the fallacies associated with Eve in order to provide a complete understanding of the Mother of Mankind. In Campbell’s own words, “We all know that even the smallest error in the foundation of a building can eventually bring it down. The errors in the understanding of the garden story are not small, and until corrected, ignorance of their presence will continue to be manifest in grossly enlarged consequences to our social fabric.” And Campbell successfully addresses all errors of understanding by dividing her argument into fifteen points.
Within each of these fifteen points, Campbell uses several sources to appeal to the reader’s sense of ethos. The bulk of these sources come from the words of modern day prophets and apostles who have spoken on the matter. In particular, Campbell quotes Elder Bruce R. McConkie several times. McConkie, an apostle and church scholar, provides many valuable clarifications to the scriptures that Campbell makes effective use of. For example, when Campbell is arguing that Eve was an active participant in the Plan of Salvation, she makes use of a quote by McConkie which states that:
“Christ and Mary, Adam and Eve, Abraham and Sarah, and a host of mighty men and equally glorious women comprised that group of ‘the noble and great ones.’ To whom the Lord Jesus said: ‘We will go down, for there is space there, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell.’”
By quoting leaders of the church, Campbell presents an argument that forces her LDS readers to either accept her reasoning or to contradict the Lord’s servants – a brutal yet effective technique.
Another source that Campbell uses to appeal to the readers sense of ethos is modern day scripture that are available to her LDS audience. Campbell uses sources such as the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants to provide clarification and understanding. However, the Pearl of Great Price, which gives an account of the creation story, is by far used the most extensively by Campbell. For example, Campbell points out in The Book of Moses that “[God] created he them and blessed them, and called their name Adam.” She uses this clarifying doctrine to point out that both Adam and Eve are often referred together as “Adam” in scriptural accounts. It is cases like this that Campbell uses throughout her paper to more fully convince her audience.
In addition, Campbell appeals to ethos throughout her paper by citing credible historians, scholars, and non-traditional texts. Celebrated scholars such as Hugh Nibley are quoted to add that extra bit of understanding. The Secret Book of John is quoted to provide additional information that most LDS peoples haven’t heard of. And even a fourth century Catholic bishop’s writings are used to prove Campbell’s point. Campbell successfully blends these sources in a way that provides new and interesting insights from credible sources that support her argument.
In addition, Campbell relies heavily throughout her paper on the original Hebrew meaning of many words in our English scriptures. By showing what many words in the scriptures originally meant in Hebrew, the scripture’s original meaning is brought forth and great clarification is provided. For example, our English text states that Eve was beguiled by Satan to partake of the fruit of the tree of good and evil. However, if we use the meaning in Hebrew of the verb beguile (though there is no exact translation), we are brought to understand that “Eve was motivated by a complex set of inner drives, anchored not only in her physical but also in her intellectual and spiritual nature.”
Clarifications such as this dramatically change the text’s meaning, and Campbell uses this to her advantage within her paper.
It is these exceptional uses of credible sources and an effective organizational
pattern that makes Campbell’s argument in its appeal to ethos successful in convincing its LDS audience. This argument effectively counters the fallacies surrounding the story of mother Eve – a story that has influenced greatly the role and position of women in society throughout history.
November 9, 2011
Honors Writing 150
“Mother Eve”
If there is one event in the history of mankind that has influenced the role of women in society more than any other, it is the story of Eve. Beverly Campbell, the director of international affairs for the LDS church, attempts to effectively address this controversy which has plagued the social status of women for centuries. By using an efficient organization scheme and using an appeal to ethos by extensively referencing church leaders and scholars, Campbell effectively presents a logical argument that her LDS audience can trust due to its foundation in credible sources.
In the beginning of her paper, Campbell is quick to define the negative image that people have of Eve. Using several examples from her own life and quotations from notable publications, Campbell clearly established the feelings the world has for Eve. For example, Campbell recalls an encounter she had with a couple of BYU students who stated that,” [Eve] really blew it, and we’re all paying the price.” By identifying the perception that most have of Eve and her influence on mankind, Campbell effectively addresses her counterargument - a tactic which serves not only to strengthen her own argument, but to make it more meaningful to her audience.
Then, in order to present her argument in an orderly and logical way, Campbell focuses on addressing fifteen misconceptions she has identified that people have of Eve. She uses this approach in order to fully encompass the topic and provide both breadth and depth to her argument. Also, Campbell attempts to address all the fallacies associated with Eve in order to provide a complete understanding of the Mother of Mankind. In Campbell’s own words, “We all know that even the smallest error in the foundation of a building can eventually bring it down. The errors in the understanding of the garden story are not small, and until corrected, ignorance of their presence will continue to be manifest in grossly enlarged consequences to our social fabric.” And Campbell successfully addresses all errors of understanding by dividing her argument into fifteen points.
Within each of these fifteen points, Campbell uses several sources to appeal to the reader’s sense of ethos. The bulk of these sources come from the words of modern day prophets and apostles who have spoken on the matter. In particular, Campbell quotes Elder Bruce R. McConkie several times. McConkie, an apostle and church scholar, provides many valuable clarifications to the scriptures that Campbell makes effective use of. For example, when Campbell is arguing that Eve was an active participant in the Plan of Salvation, she makes use of a quote by McConkie which states that:
“Christ and Mary, Adam and Eve, Abraham and Sarah, and a host of mighty men and equally glorious women comprised that group of ‘the noble and great ones.’ To whom the Lord Jesus said: ‘We will go down, for there is space there, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell.’”
By quoting leaders of the church, Campbell presents an argument that forces her LDS readers to either accept her reasoning or to contradict the Lord’s servants – a brutal yet effective technique.
Another source that Campbell uses to appeal to the readers sense of ethos is modern day scripture that are available to her LDS audience. Campbell uses sources such as the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants to provide clarification and understanding. However, the Pearl of Great Price, which gives an account of the creation story, is by far used the most extensively by Campbell. For example, Campbell points out in The Book of Moses that “[God] created he them and blessed them, and called their name Adam.” She uses this clarifying doctrine to point out that both Adam and Eve are often referred together as “Adam” in scriptural accounts. It is cases like this that Campbell uses throughout her paper to more fully convince her audience.
In addition, Campbell appeals to ethos throughout her paper by citing credible historians, scholars, and non-traditional texts. Celebrated scholars such as Hugh Nibley are quoted to add that extra bit of understanding. The Secret Book of John is quoted to provide additional information that most LDS peoples haven’t heard of. And even a fourth century Catholic bishop’s writings are used to prove Campbell’s point. Campbell successfully blends these sources in a way that provides new and interesting insights from credible sources that support her argument.
In addition, Campbell relies heavily throughout her paper on the original Hebrew meaning of many words in our English scriptures. By showing what many words in the scriptures originally meant in Hebrew, the scripture’s original meaning is brought forth and great clarification is provided. For example, our English text states that Eve was beguiled by Satan to partake of the fruit of the tree of good and evil. However, if we use the meaning in Hebrew of the verb beguile (though there is no exact translation), we are brought to understand that “Eve was motivated by a complex set of inner drives, anchored not only in her physical but also in her intellectual and spiritual nature.”
Clarifications such as this dramatically change the text’s meaning, and Campbell uses this to her advantage within her paper.
It is these exceptional uses of credible sources and an effective organizational
pattern that makes Campbell’s argument in its appeal to ethos successful in convincing its LDS audience. This argument effectively counters the fallacies surrounding the story of mother Eve – a story that has influenced greatly the role and position of women in society throughout history.
Renee's Analysis of "Mother Eve"
Eve: Mentor for Today's Women
Eve, the first mother, has been scourged, blamed, and belittled for centuries. She has been held up as the quintessential weak-willed woman because she opened a Pandora’s Box of sin and woe with a bite of an apple. Many of those within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are familiar with the images of Eve contemplating a large, devil-red apple as a serpent slithers slyly nearby and the connotations that are associated with them. It is important, however, to consider whether or not the common conception of Eve is accurate. In the article Mother Eve, Mentor for Today’s Woman, Beverly Campbell effectively uses an appeal to ethos through quotes from religious texts, leaders, and scholars to reclaim Eve’s place as a positive figure within the doctrine of the LDS church.
Campbell refers to Eve’s own words in the Book of Moses to scripturally back Eve’s role in God’s eternal plan. She quotes Moses 5:10, in which Eve says, “Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.” These are not the words of one who is suffering under a curse, or of one who is regretting the loss of the bounteous Garden of Eden. Instead, these are words of gratitude from a woman who has gained an eternal perspective and an intimate understanding of the Plan of Salvation. By using this quote, Campbell effectively appeals to ethos through the authority of the religious text. This aspect of ethos coupled with the logos of the quote make this an effective quote.
Secondly, a quote from the canon works of scripture bolsters Campbell’s arguments, although this time on the role of Satan in the Fall. The quote used is Moses 4:6, which reads, “And Satan put it into the heart of the serpent, (for he had drawn away many after him,) and he sought also to beguile Eve, for he knew not the mind of God, wherefore he sought to destroy the world.” It is important to note that Satan was unaware of God’s plan. He sought to destroy the world by convincing Eve to partake of the fruit, but instead he helped bring to pass one of the most important steps in God’s plan for man on Earth. This authoritative scriptural explanation of Satan’s role as an ignorant catalyst to an important part of God’s plan effectively helps refute the idea that Eve was a woman easily convinced to sin; it paints a picture of a woman who had an intelligent understanding of the Lord’s plan.
By discussing a scripture that Campbell knows that her audience would recognize, she brings the argument closer to home. LDS members who have completed seminary are familiar with 2 Nephi 2:25. Many can still rattle off the words, “Adam fell that man might be and men are that they might have joy.” The importance of this scripture is that it simply explains the positive and necessary consequences of the Fall. In order to convey an accurate picture of the eternal importance of the Fall through an effective appeal to authority, Campbell helps her audience see the wisdom in Eve’s decision to eat the fruit.
Campbell also quotes many modern-day leaders of the LDS church, such as John A. Widtsoe, a late member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. From him, Campbell takes the quote, “It is a thrilling thought that Adam and Eve were not coerced to begin God’s work on earth.” This quote emphasizes the tie between the Fall and the incredibly familiar doctrine of agency. This quote conveys the importance of God offering Adam and Eve a choice in the matter in order to preserve the agency of his children. Since this quote comes from an Apostle, whom members of the LDS church believe to be a prophet, it carries a similar authority to that of ancient scripture.
The essay also includes an authoritative quote about Eve from Elder Boyd K. Packer, which reads, “She should be praised for her decision.” This quote is important not only because it is a positive portrayal of the role of Eve by the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, but also that it is an authoritative assertion that her decision to eat of the fruit was praiseworthy. The inclusion of this quote adds an effective appeal to ethos to Campbell’s argument.
In this essay, Campbell also calls upon the authority of scholars to support her arguments, such as Hebrew Scholar Dr. Nehama Aschkenasy. Campbell was curious about the original Hebrew verb form of the word “command” used in the creation stories, and asked Dr. Aschkenasy to investigate for her. In doing so, Campbell appeals not only to the authority that Dr. Aschkenasy has as a Hebrew scholar, but also to the authority of the original Hebrew text of the scripture. The appeal to the original Hebrew text is particularly important in regards to the LDS belief that, through improper translation, many important biblical truths have been lost. Therefore, the Hebrew text holds more authority than the English text for it less polluted by translation, and hence a more effective appeal to ethos.
The article effectively elevates Eve to a level of respect and dignity through the use of ethos. The use of this rhetorical device is particularly important with LDS audiences. Campbell’s appeals to religious authorities such as scripture, modern day prophets and religious scholars help to bolster the idea that a positive portrayal of Eve is not a fringe belief, but authority figures throughout the ages support it. This assertion makes it very difficult for any LDS member with a testimony that Apostles are prophets, and in the LDS scriptural cannon to disagree with Campbell’s arguments.
Eve, the first mother, has been scourged, blamed, and belittled for centuries. She has been held up as the quintessential weak-willed woman because she opened a Pandora’s Box of sin and woe with a bite of an apple. Many of those within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are familiar with the images of Eve contemplating a large, devil-red apple as a serpent slithers slyly nearby and the connotations that are associated with them. It is important, however, to consider whether or not the common conception of Eve is accurate. In the article Mother Eve, Mentor for Today’s Woman, Beverly Campbell effectively uses an appeal to ethos through quotes from religious texts, leaders, and scholars to reclaim Eve’s place as a positive figure within the doctrine of the LDS church.
Campbell refers to Eve’s own words in the Book of Moses to scripturally back Eve’s role in God’s eternal plan. She quotes Moses 5:10, in which Eve says, “Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.” These are not the words of one who is suffering under a curse, or of one who is regretting the loss of the bounteous Garden of Eden. Instead, these are words of gratitude from a woman who has gained an eternal perspective and an intimate understanding of the Plan of Salvation. By using this quote, Campbell effectively appeals to ethos through the authority of the religious text. This aspect of ethos coupled with the logos of the quote make this an effective quote.
Secondly, a quote from the canon works of scripture bolsters Campbell’s arguments, although this time on the role of Satan in the Fall. The quote used is Moses 4:6, which reads, “And Satan put it into the heart of the serpent, (for he had drawn away many after him,) and he sought also to beguile Eve, for he knew not the mind of God, wherefore he sought to destroy the world.” It is important to note that Satan was unaware of God’s plan. He sought to destroy the world by convincing Eve to partake of the fruit, but instead he helped bring to pass one of the most important steps in God’s plan for man on Earth. This authoritative scriptural explanation of Satan’s role as an ignorant catalyst to an important part of God’s plan effectively helps refute the idea that Eve was a woman easily convinced to sin; it paints a picture of a woman who had an intelligent understanding of the Lord’s plan.
By discussing a scripture that Campbell knows that her audience would recognize, she brings the argument closer to home. LDS members who have completed seminary are familiar with 2 Nephi 2:25. Many can still rattle off the words, “Adam fell that man might be and men are that they might have joy.” The importance of this scripture is that it simply explains the positive and necessary consequences of the Fall. In order to convey an accurate picture of the eternal importance of the Fall through an effective appeal to authority, Campbell helps her audience see the wisdom in Eve’s decision to eat the fruit.
Campbell also quotes many modern-day leaders of the LDS church, such as John A. Widtsoe, a late member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. From him, Campbell takes the quote, “It is a thrilling thought that Adam and Eve were not coerced to begin God’s work on earth.” This quote emphasizes the tie between the Fall and the incredibly familiar doctrine of agency. This quote conveys the importance of God offering Adam and Eve a choice in the matter in order to preserve the agency of his children. Since this quote comes from an Apostle, whom members of the LDS church believe to be a prophet, it carries a similar authority to that of ancient scripture.
The essay also includes an authoritative quote about Eve from Elder Boyd K. Packer, which reads, “She should be praised for her decision.” This quote is important not only because it is a positive portrayal of the role of Eve by the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, but also that it is an authoritative assertion that her decision to eat of the fruit was praiseworthy. The inclusion of this quote adds an effective appeal to ethos to Campbell’s argument.
In this essay, Campbell also calls upon the authority of scholars to support her arguments, such as Hebrew Scholar Dr. Nehama Aschkenasy. Campbell was curious about the original Hebrew verb form of the word “command” used in the creation stories, and asked Dr. Aschkenasy to investigate for her. In doing so, Campbell appeals not only to the authority that Dr. Aschkenasy has as a Hebrew scholar, but also to the authority of the original Hebrew text of the scripture. The appeal to the original Hebrew text is particularly important in regards to the LDS belief that, through improper translation, many important biblical truths have been lost. Therefore, the Hebrew text holds more authority than the English text for it less polluted by translation, and hence a more effective appeal to ethos.
The article effectively elevates Eve to a level of respect and dignity through the use of ethos. The use of this rhetorical device is particularly important with LDS audiences. Campbell’s appeals to religious authorities such as scripture, modern day prophets and religious scholars help to bolster the idea that a positive portrayal of Eve is not a fringe belief, but authority figures throughout the ages support it. This assertion makes it very difficult for any LDS member with a testimony that Apostles are prophets, and in the LDS scriptural cannon to disagree with Campbell’s arguments.
Erica's Analysis of "Mother Eve"
Erica Allred
Kerry Spencer
Honors Writing 150
Nov 10, 2011
Eve: A Blessing to Mankind
Jane Austen, in her book Pride and Prejudice, posed the question “What are men compared to rocks and mountains?” I am not qualified to answer that question, however I can state that men are equal in glory and status to all the women who have, and will ever occupy this earth. Beverly Campbell in her essay Mother Eve, Mentor for Today’s Woman: A Heritage of Honor addresses the controversy and concerns that revolve around Eve, the mother of the human race. Through the use of appeals to pathos, and through the words of prophets and apostle, both ancient and modern, Campbell effectively argues the case in favor of Mother Eve to members of the LDS Faith.
One instance of Campbell’s appeal to pathos is her story of her encounter with two male artists from BYU. For a chalk art contest these two boys had decided to draw Eve in a negative light. When she questioned them about the story all they could say was “She really blew it, and we’re all paying the price.” (273) This quote leads up to her fifteen main points and arguments concerning the importance of Eve. Campbell uses this story to inflict guilt in her audience. The boys in the story represent how ignorance and misunderstanding have influenced the world’s view of our Mother Eve. How many of us have also judged Eve too harshly? This story helps to influence the audience to react more sympathetically towards Eve.
Another instance of appeals to pathos used by Campbell is the story she tells about her sister’s reaction to the true meaning of help meet. Campbell explains that the definition in The Oxford English Dictionary means “even or equal to.” (274) When she shared this with her sister-in-law, her sister-in-law responded to what she had said in a letter.
I am very excited about what you have found, especially the meaning of the word helpmeet and the implications it gives to eve’s position. I sat frozen, actually feeling the blood drain from my face, awed, with a joyous feeling I will never forget, but crying at the same time! I wondered why I should feel all this emotion. Suddenly, this thought came to my mind clearly: “It’s true I am who I always thought I was!” (274-275)
Her sister-in-law was overcome with emotion as Campbell revealed the true purpose of women to her. Such emotion resonates with many women when they come to understand their purpose in the Plan of Salvation. It is inspiring to know women were intended from the beginning to be equal partners with men in this life. By connecting with her audience on an emotional level, Campbell is effectively convincing her audience of the importance of Eve and of all women.
Adam’s and Eve’s missions in life were to jump start mortality. The fall is one of the most important and significant aspects of the plan of salvation, along with the Creation and the Atonement. Campbell uses the words and authority of the prophets and apostles of modern and ancient times to emphasize the importance of Eve’s role. One instance of this is Campbell’s use of Joseph Fielding Smith’s quote “Adam and Eve did the very thing the Lord intended them to do. If we had the original record we would see the purpose of the Fall clearly stated and it’s necessity explained.” (275) Campbell uses this quote as evidence and authority to support her claim that the Fall was preordained and necessary. As a Prophet of the LDS church, Smith’s words hold authority for members. By using quotes from prophets such as Joseph Fielding Smith, Campbell causes her audience to consider what she is saying with more care knowing that the words of the prophets support her claims.
Another instance of Campbell’s use of the words of the prophets and apostles is her quotation of Moses 5:10-11.
And in that day Adam blessed God… saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgressions me eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy….
And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.
Campbell uses this quote in her section entitled What Emotions Did Adam and Eve Feel as They Recognized Their Mortality? These verses portray Adam’s and Eve’s happiness and joy that stem from mortality. This quote is designed to help the audience realized the blessing and gift that is mortality. Through Adam’s and Eve’s transgression we have been granted the chance to live on this earth. Mortality is not a bad thing. In helping the audience to realize this, Campbell is promoting positive connotations with Eve’s transgression.
Lastly, Campbell uses revered apostle Bruce R. McConkie’s powerful statement about Eve.
There is not language that can do credit to our glorious mother, Eve. Eve- a daughter of God, one of the spirit off-spring of the Almighty Elohim- was among the noble and great in [premortal] existence. She ranked in spiritual stature, in faith and devotion, in conformity to eternal law with Michael [emphasis added]. (273)
Campbell uses this quote to “summarize Eve’s contributions as they relate to the past and present.” (273) This is a significant statement about the status of earthly Mother of our race. As stated, McConkie is a highly revered Apostle. Besides the prophets, he is one of the most quoted persons in the history of the church. His standing among church members requires the highest regard to his words. Campbell’s masterful use of McConkie’s words seals her arguments in stone for church members. If he saw Eve in such a wonderful light, then it should give pause to those in the church who do not.
Eve, the wife and partner of Adam, the earthly mother of our race, and a revered child of our Heavenly Father is an heir to the same glory and status as our brother Michael. Prophets have revered her. We should embrace her, and all other women for the miracles and blessings they are to this world. Campbell’s emotional connections and insights of the prophets, promote a love towards Eve and her posterity. We praise Eve for her wisdom and her choice to partake of the forbidden fruit, for if she had not, we would not exist on this earth today. The entire Plan of Salvation would have frustrated. Respect her. Love her. Praise her. Eve: our sister.
Works Cited
Austen, Jane. (1996). Pride and prejudice. Modern Library.
Campbell, B. (2007). Mother eve, mentor for toda'ys woman: A heritage of honor. In Susan Jorgenson (Ed.), Readins for Intensive Writers (pp. 271-289). Provo: BYU Academic Publishing.
Kerry Spencer
Honors Writing 150
Nov 10, 2011
Eve: A Blessing to Mankind
Jane Austen, in her book Pride and Prejudice, posed the question “What are men compared to rocks and mountains?” I am not qualified to answer that question, however I can state that men are equal in glory and status to all the women who have, and will ever occupy this earth. Beverly Campbell in her essay Mother Eve, Mentor for Today’s Woman: A Heritage of Honor addresses the controversy and concerns that revolve around Eve, the mother of the human race. Through the use of appeals to pathos, and through the words of prophets and apostle, both ancient and modern, Campbell effectively argues the case in favor of Mother Eve to members of the LDS Faith.
One instance of Campbell’s appeal to pathos is her story of her encounter with two male artists from BYU. For a chalk art contest these two boys had decided to draw Eve in a negative light. When she questioned them about the story all they could say was “She really blew it, and we’re all paying the price.” (273) This quote leads up to her fifteen main points and arguments concerning the importance of Eve. Campbell uses this story to inflict guilt in her audience. The boys in the story represent how ignorance and misunderstanding have influenced the world’s view of our Mother Eve. How many of us have also judged Eve too harshly? This story helps to influence the audience to react more sympathetically towards Eve.
Another instance of appeals to pathos used by Campbell is the story she tells about her sister’s reaction to the true meaning of help meet. Campbell explains that the definition in The Oxford English Dictionary means “even or equal to.” (274) When she shared this with her sister-in-law, her sister-in-law responded to what she had said in a letter.
I am very excited about what you have found, especially the meaning of the word helpmeet and the implications it gives to eve’s position. I sat frozen, actually feeling the blood drain from my face, awed, with a joyous feeling I will never forget, but crying at the same time! I wondered why I should feel all this emotion. Suddenly, this thought came to my mind clearly: “It’s true I am who I always thought I was!” (274-275)
Her sister-in-law was overcome with emotion as Campbell revealed the true purpose of women to her. Such emotion resonates with many women when they come to understand their purpose in the Plan of Salvation. It is inspiring to know women were intended from the beginning to be equal partners with men in this life. By connecting with her audience on an emotional level, Campbell is effectively convincing her audience of the importance of Eve and of all women.
Adam’s and Eve’s missions in life were to jump start mortality. The fall is one of the most important and significant aspects of the plan of salvation, along with the Creation and the Atonement. Campbell uses the words and authority of the prophets and apostles of modern and ancient times to emphasize the importance of Eve’s role. One instance of this is Campbell’s use of Joseph Fielding Smith’s quote “Adam and Eve did the very thing the Lord intended them to do. If we had the original record we would see the purpose of the Fall clearly stated and it’s necessity explained.” (275) Campbell uses this quote as evidence and authority to support her claim that the Fall was preordained and necessary. As a Prophet of the LDS church, Smith’s words hold authority for members. By using quotes from prophets such as Joseph Fielding Smith, Campbell causes her audience to consider what she is saying with more care knowing that the words of the prophets support her claims.
Another instance of Campbell’s use of the words of the prophets and apostles is her quotation of Moses 5:10-11.
And in that day Adam blessed God… saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgressions me eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy….
And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.
Campbell uses this quote in her section entitled What Emotions Did Adam and Eve Feel as They Recognized Their Mortality? These verses portray Adam’s and Eve’s happiness and joy that stem from mortality. This quote is designed to help the audience realized the blessing and gift that is mortality. Through Adam’s and Eve’s transgression we have been granted the chance to live on this earth. Mortality is not a bad thing. In helping the audience to realize this, Campbell is promoting positive connotations with Eve’s transgression.
Lastly, Campbell uses revered apostle Bruce R. McConkie’s powerful statement about Eve.
There is not language that can do credit to our glorious mother, Eve. Eve- a daughter of God, one of the spirit off-spring of the Almighty Elohim- was among the noble and great in [premortal] existence. She ranked in spiritual stature, in faith and devotion, in conformity to eternal law with Michael [emphasis added]. (273)
Campbell uses this quote to “summarize Eve’s contributions as they relate to the past and present.” (273) This is a significant statement about the status of earthly Mother of our race. As stated, McConkie is a highly revered Apostle. Besides the prophets, he is one of the most quoted persons in the history of the church. His standing among church members requires the highest regard to his words. Campbell’s masterful use of McConkie’s words seals her arguments in stone for church members. If he saw Eve in such a wonderful light, then it should give pause to those in the church who do not.
Eve, the wife and partner of Adam, the earthly mother of our race, and a revered child of our Heavenly Father is an heir to the same glory and status as our brother Michael. Prophets have revered her. We should embrace her, and all other women for the miracles and blessings they are to this world. Campbell’s emotional connections and insights of the prophets, promote a love towards Eve and her posterity. We praise Eve for her wisdom and her choice to partake of the forbidden fruit, for if she had not, we would not exist on this earth today. The entire Plan of Salvation would have frustrated. Respect her. Love her. Praise her. Eve: our sister.
Works Cited
Austen, Jane. (1996). Pride and prejudice. Modern Library.
Campbell, B. (2007). Mother eve, mentor for toda'ys woman: A heritage of honor. In Susan Jorgenson (Ed.), Readins for Intensive Writers (pp. 271-289). Provo: BYU Academic Publishing.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
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)
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)
Seth's Analysis of "Lifeboat Ethics"
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Forrest's Analysis of "Lifeboat Ethics"
Forrest Lamb
Professor Spencer
Writing 150/H
7 November 2011
It is difficult to live in the world’s wealthiest nation and not think, from time to time, about shunning the poor. This is probably true of all Americans, but most of all for those who are upper-class. In “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor,” Garrett Hardin ineffectively uses hyperbole, juxtaposition, and repetitive negative connotation, dissuading his upper-class American audience from his view that only by refusing to share their resources with the poor can wealthier people avoid bringing both rich and poor to a state of inevitable ruin.
Hardin uses hyperbole when describing the disastrous consequences that would come to a world in which the rich share freely with the poor. He presents a scenario in which the population of the U.S. pools its resources with an equal number of people from poorer countries around the world. Correctly figuring that, were both populations to maintain their current rate of growth for eighty-seven years, the poorer people would soon be eight times as many as the rich, he concludes that, “Each American would have to share the available resource with eight other people. ” However, this assumes that the Americans would pool in all of their resources while the poorer countries contribute nothing, an unlikely eventuality. It also implies that the poorer population, after gaining some portion of wealth over eighty-seven years, would never increase their productivity and therefore their contribution to the resource pool. The educated American recognizes these exaggerations, and is led to question the validity of Hardin’s predictions.
Once more Hardin describes with hyperbole the state of the world, were wealth to be distributed equitably among all people. To so divide wealth, he maintains, “would guarantee…a ruined world.” This condemning claim leaves the upper-class American thinking, “Is there really no middle ground?” That is, “Can my own charitable actions really guarantee the end of our world?” Certainly this is not the case. No matter one’s actions, one cannot expect they will ensure that the world be utterly destroyed. This readily-apparent overstatement forces the reader to begin to take Hardin’s words with a grain of salt.
Hardin’s use of juxtaposition diminishes his audience’s willingness to accept his argument against helping the poor. He provides a quote to compare “the spread of humanity over the surface of the earth to the spread of cancer in the human body.” He quotes, “cancerous growths demand food; but, as far as I know, they have never been cured by getting it,” likening in a very personal manner those in poverty to the mutated growths of a deadly disease, one that American society views as totally evil for the very reason that it brings people to harm. This harsh description of another human being not only goes against an American’s ingrained sense of human equality, but further makes them more defensive of the poor, and in turn more sympathetic to their situation and needs.
Furthermore, Hardin reinforces the pointlessness of sharing resources through the juxtaposition of humans and cattle. “A farmer,” he asserts, “will allow no more cattle in a pasture than its carrying capacity justifies.” Though this may well be true, are we to ignore the capacity of man to do much more than a cow raised for the slaughter, wasting away its days as it grows fat on the land another has provided? Americans, especially in the upper-class, are more aware of human potential than most and can easily see the limitations of such a comparison. What’s more, the wealthy American upper-class are not likely flattered to be compared to their food. This parasitic portrayal of human-kind leaves the audience uncomfortable and defensive.
Lastly, Hardin consistently employs strong negative connotations to portray the possible viewpoints of those in opposition to his argument as unhelpfully antagonistic. This consistent, unrelenting and one-sided attack on his opponent leaves room only for sympathy toward them. He suggests that those who oppose his view on U.S. immigration policy charge his side with “bigotry” and “chauvinism,” averting participants of the debate from its true topic. He states, “all charges of bigotry and chauvinism [are] irrelevant.” This off-topic discussion of the flaws of his opponents, without reference to any possible degree a validity in their arguments deepens the audience’s sympathy toward them.
Also, in response to a hypothetical liberal’s question of why in situations of emergency the poor must suffer through events that their governments could have prevented, he replies, “The concept of blame is simply not relevant.” This cool statement makes it seem as though liberals are straying from the issue at hand to blame others unnecessarily, when instead they are arguing the innocence of the poor. Even this subtle, though obviously false assertion that liberals are unnecessarily placing blame on others, in conjunction with his generally abundant use of negative connotations serves to further overwhelm a person’s ability to find fault with Hardin’s opposition.
Upon noticing this trend toward negative descriptions of Hardin’s opposition, the reader wonders if the opposing party might be somewhat better than Hardin makes them out to be and begins to regard them more favorably.
Hardin’s ineffective use of hyperbole, juxtaposition, and repetitive negative connotations, from the standpoint of his upper-class American audience, discredit his argument that the wealthy must not share their resources with the poor in order to save the world state of utter ruin. He advocates shunning the poor, but makes his audience feel highly uncomfortable about doing so. Perhaps those wealthy Americans who read, “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor,” will find themselves inclined to do just that.
Professor Spencer
Writing 150/H
7 November 2011
It is difficult to live in the world’s wealthiest nation and not think, from time to time, about shunning the poor. This is probably true of all Americans, but most of all for those who are upper-class. In “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor,” Garrett Hardin ineffectively uses hyperbole, juxtaposition, and repetitive negative connotation, dissuading his upper-class American audience from his view that only by refusing to share their resources with the poor can wealthier people avoid bringing both rich and poor to a state of inevitable ruin.
Hardin uses hyperbole when describing the disastrous consequences that would come to a world in which the rich share freely with the poor. He presents a scenario in which the population of the U.S. pools its resources with an equal number of people from poorer countries around the world. Correctly figuring that, were both populations to maintain their current rate of growth for eighty-seven years, the poorer people would soon be eight times as many as the rich, he concludes that, “Each American would have to share the available resource with eight other people. ” However, this assumes that the Americans would pool in all of their resources while the poorer countries contribute nothing, an unlikely eventuality. It also implies that the poorer population, after gaining some portion of wealth over eighty-seven years, would never increase their productivity and therefore their contribution to the resource pool. The educated American recognizes these exaggerations, and is led to question the validity of Hardin’s predictions.
Once more Hardin describes with hyperbole the state of the world, were wealth to be distributed equitably among all people. To so divide wealth, he maintains, “would guarantee…a ruined world.” This condemning claim leaves the upper-class American thinking, “Is there really no middle ground?” That is, “Can my own charitable actions really guarantee the end of our world?” Certainly this is not the case. No matter one’s actions, one cannot expect they will ensure that the world be utterly destroyed. This readily-apparent overstatement forces the reader to begin to take Hardin’s words with a grain of salt.
Hardin’s use of juxtaposition diminishes his audience’s willingness to accept his argument against helping the poor. He provides a quote to compare “the spread of humanity over the surface of the earth to the spread of cancer in the human body.” He quotes, “cancerous growths demand food; but, as far as I know, they have never been cured by getting it,” likening in a very personal manner those in poverty to the mutated growths of a deadly disease, one that American society views as totally evil for the very reason that it brings people to harm. This harsh description of another human being not only goes against an American’s ingrained sense of human equality, but further makes them more defensive of the poor, and in turn more sympathetic to their situation and needs.
Furthermore, Hardin reinforces the pointlessness of sharing resources through the juxtaposition of humans and cattle. “A farmer,” he asserts, “will allow no more cattle in a pasture than its carrying capacity justifies.” Though this may well be true, are we to ignore the capacity of man to do much more than a cow raised for the slaughter, wasting away its days as it grows fat on the land another has provided? Americans, especially in the upper-class, are more aware of human potential than most and can easily see the limitations of such a comparison. What’s more, the wealthy American upper-class are not likely flattered to be compared to their food. This parasitic portrayal of human-kind leaves the audience uncomfortable and defensive.
Lastly, Hardin consistently employs strong negative connotations to portray the possible viewpoints of those in opposition to his argument as unhelpfully antagonistic. This consistent, unrelenting and one-sided attack on his opponent leaves room only for sympathy toward them. He suggests that those who oppose his view on U.S. immigration policy charge his side with “bigotry” and “chauvinism,” averting participants of the debate from its true topic. He states, “all charges of bigotry and chauvinism [are] irrelevant.” This off-topic discussion of the flaws of his opponents, without reference to any possible degree a validity in their arguments deepens the audience’s sympathy toward them.
Also, in response to a hypothetical liberal’s question of why in situations of emergency the poor must suffer through events that their governments could have prevented, he replies, “The concept of blame is simply not relevant.” This cool statement makes it seem as though liberals are straying from the issue at hand to blame others unnecessarily, when instead they are arguing the innocence of the poor. Even this subtle, though obviously false assertion that liberals are unnecessarily placing blame on others, in conjunction with his generally abundant use of negative connotations serves to further overwhelm a person’s ability to find fault with Hardin’s opposition.
Upon noticing this trend toward negative descriptions of Hardin’s opposition, the reader wonders if the opposing party might be somewhat better than Hardin makes them out to be and begins to regard them more favorably.
Hardin’s ineffective use of hyperbole, juxtaposition, and repetitive negative connotations, from the standpoint of his upper-class American audience, discredit his argument that the wealthy must not share their resources with the poor in order to save the world state of utter ruin. He advocates shunning the poor, but makes his audience feel highly uncomfortable about doing so. Perhaps those wealthy Americans who read, “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor,” will find themselves inclined to do just that.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)