LIFEBOAT ETHICS

[Name of the Writer]

[Name of Instructor]

[Subject]

[Date]

LIFEBOAT ETHICS

Summary

This essay is about the article Lifeboat Ethics which is written by Garrett Hardin. He is a leading neoconservative intellectual who has done a doctorate in biology from the University of Stanford. In this article, Garten Hardin uses the lifeboat metaphor for illustrating his immigration fear that brings about some common Tragedies. He was looking over very crowded lifeboats that were sinking. Lifeboats were kicking out the people who were than swimming towards his boat for shelter. He did not have much space to accommodate everyone. So, Hardin decided to swim somewhere else for figuring out his own problems. Some people get upset about his attitude, but later they understand the condition of Hardin. When someone asked Hardin about paying of tax that he replied that taxes are paid to make the government of the USA. Hardin, in the end, believes that different countries should not interfere with each other. The government of United States of America should stay away from the business of Mexico when it comes to providing and living for its people, but he believed that the government of US should control issues related to population control and environment. He also believed that those who are present in the lifeboat have access to food, safety, and healthcare.

Analysis

In his essay "Lifeboat Ethics" argues that sharing of the resource is not only unrealistic, but it is also detrimental. He does this with the use of rhetorical appeals, pathos, ethos, and logos for persuading the audience on his arguments. The author starts his essay with the establishment of the main claim which is considered to be the idea that what he believes is the most trustable. He explains this with the help of the metaphor of resources and earth as a lifeboat. He supports his claim with the grounds and reasons. He gives three grounds and reason in the type of example of the real world "The Tragedy of the Commons" for supporting his claim. He supports it with the ground that rich one grows slower than the poor nations. The second example he provides is of an overload of an environment in India with an argument for supporting his claim. He appeals to ethos by demonstrating the expertise and citing quantitative and statistical data for validating his arguments. Moreover, he also utilises personal anecdotes for appealing to the reader's ethos. At the end of the essay, he employs the pathos and focuses on the emotional sympathies, beliefs, and values of the readers (Appiah-Sekyere, 440).

Response

I believe that although the author gives several examples to support his point he fails to convince the audience for adopting the ideals of contrivance. He does not use the tool of euphemism effectively as he is unable to lead the audient to conclude that he is correct in his assumptions. His extra utilisation of archetype dissuades his audience from siding with him. I also realise that he is utilising stereotype in his content too liberally which convince me that I should not take part in the opinion of Hardin at all. Moreover, his attempt for appealing to pathos for influencing his audience is also failing. He uses his efforts for appealing to the pathos that he tries for reeling in the part of public of America that desires for what they have, which have the opposite effects. He again gives the opportunity to the readers to go to the defensive mode by reserving the desired result. Still, he uses very effective tools such as euphemism and, appeal, and archetype to pathos. Such tools not only make the audience unconvinced but also make them be convinced of the opinion of his opposition more readily.

Work Cited

Appiah-Sekyere, P. (2016). A Critical Comparative Study of the Lifeboat Ethics and Humanist Ethics. Philosophy Study, 6, 432-441.