Garrett Hardin Lifeboat Ethics Summary

Every young boy or girl always grows up with the dream of wanting to save the world; to grow and live equality, to remove the labels of “rich” and “poor” and allow everyone to feasibly live a happy life. In “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor” by Garrett Hardin, Hardin claims that nations must seek resources (which are not in the hands of the poor) to maintain their success and social high status and sometimes not everyone can ride on the same boat if they plan to maintain high expectations. Since the article was published in 1974, life then was not socially nor economically well in the United States. In 1974 the American people dealt with the Kootenai War (when the Native American Tribe declared war on the US), President Nixon

resigns, and the Soviet Union launches the Salyut-4 space station. It is evident that Americans were economically living a life of toil which steers Hardin’s audience in the direction of the Americans as they were the face of this.
Hardin begins the article by explaining the significance of the “spaceship”, the spaceship is essentially a metaphor which is extensively used to persuade people of the dangers behind the consequences of not effectively protecting our planet.

Hardin first appeals to pathos when he mentions, “…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..?” Hardin expects the reader to emotionally sympathize with the poor since they are at a disadvantage of not being able to live within the luxuries of being on the boat. This then leaves the reader to believe that all poor people should be given the opportunity to be on the boat, since we are all human, we are all deserving of the right to equally share all

resources.
However, Hardin then steers the readers away from that ideology by apaling them to logos in “Population Control the Crude Way.” In this short piece, Hardin mentions, “On the average poor countries undergo a 2.5 percent increase in pollution each year; rich countries about 0.8%” which shows the reader how large the population gap between the rich and the poor are.

This leads the reader to rationalize that since there a greater amount of poor people, it is more expected of them to abuse of anything that is given to them. Hardin does so by mentioning “A world food bank is thus a commons in disguise. Hardin goes on to suggest that because of the growth differential between both classes: “88 percent of today’s children are born poor, and only 12 percent rich.” Hardin effectively draws the conclusion that it is hard for one country to prosper when poor people are not only ignorant to fair share but are also the winning population size. Hardin then suggests that if we continue to fend third world countries, they will never effectively develop the way a first world class has. And if a first world class continues to support those countries, their budget will begin to increase in terms of helping which will then cause tensions between the people who support

them.
As this article was written in 1974, it is only fair to include Hardins audience which is the struggling American people who effortlessly worked on the mission of landing on the moon. This is being mentioned as in 1974, the Soviet Union successfully launched a space station which meant an astronomical step in terms of astrology, for them. Hardin writes about the rich living with the burden of nourishing, economically, and socially supporting the poor. Hardin effectively does this because if one steps back to 1974, how would one hard working American citizen feel when $2.04 of their check is going towards the Food for Peace program and not towards NASA (which meant advancements for the nation)?
In addition, Hardins language and straightforward tone exposes the reader to sacrificial lamb as fending the poor will distract the nation from their scientific, technological, medical, economic and social expectations. Hardin lastly appeals to ethics in “Pure Justice Vs. Reality” by mentioning, “that without a true world government that will control reproduction and use of available resources” which defends his overall claim because if the poor countries continue growing in terms of population, they don’t affect themselves, they affect the countries that fend them. For the countries that fend them, they are affected because their budget grows in the direction of the supporting them and giving them a piece of their hard work earned resources. His indignation towards the officials who are responsible for the position they are in is evident as the only ones that are in position to control the world are the rich as they are loaded with logic and nonetheless, education.
Hardins article remains inconsistent as he continually introduces the reader to a new idea which strays the reader from a concrete overall opinion of the article. From all, only a few short ideas share the same concrete foundation of sacrificial lamb which make the point of not completely ruling the poor people out of the picture. Hardin makes a substantial point in which the rich and the officials should teach the poor how to effectively use all of the materials that they are equipping them with. So that if and when the time comes, by the time they are granted the opportunity of being on the boat, they are not a “burden” if not another merit of their hard work. Hardins rhetoric, language and tone effectively lead the reader to believe that there’s only one way to build the case against helping the poor; creating a strong administration that will control population and resource use.