Argument Ethics: The Price of Persuasion

In "Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor" Garrett Hardin is not only trying to make a logical case against unmitigated charity, he Is struggling to placate the prevalent sense of conscience that fuels most altruistic efforts. To this end, he employs several convincing, albeit dubious arguments and analogies, simplifying reality to the point of the misguided idealism he accuses others of. Because he uses these examples and omissions as a foundation for his proposed solution to overpopulation and hunger, when Hardin begins to bring in "substantive additions from the real world" (477), a reader might be swayed if not given another perspective. Hardin's carefully woven spell is broken when you consider the viewpoints of two other texts that address similar global problems. Joseph Skinner's "Big Mac and the Tropical Rain Forests" as well as Alan Durning's "Asking How Much is Enough" effectively pull readers away from Hardin's rhetorical siren song by showing things from a less agenda infused manner. In addition to his skewed rhetoric, Hardin has some very transparent double standards.

By comparing earth to a giant lifeboat with little room, Hardin seeks to convince the rich occupants that existent need alone is not adequate cause for "unrealistic generosity" (476) to those poor swimming outside the lifeboat. This lifeboat metaphor is key in Hardin's argument for a couple of reasons. It sets an urgent tone to the situation, emergencies demand to be taken care of now. This self made emergency allows for the smoother introduction of the "harsh ethics" (477) that he suggests. In the interest of self-preservation, we as a rich nation should protect our limited supplies against the numerically superior needy that seek to swamp our boat. Hardin admits we may be "tempted" to succumb to the ways of sympathetic Christian charity or the more stolid Marxist need based sharing, but to survive we must fastidiously "guard against boarding parties" (477). To the expected outcry of the sadistically impaired, Harden replies, "Get out and yield your place to others" (477). But following his advice would be pointless, he maintains, because the subsequent replacement would feel no such qualms about his newly acquired seat. Having made his first attack on the "conscience-stricken" and assuming the more vocal of this group were silenced by the looming futility of their actions, Hardin moves on to use his lifeboat to divide the world up into two groups, "crudely" (476), as he himself admits. Although Hardin concentrates on the "comparatively rich" and the rapidly reproducing "desperately poor" (476), a look at Durning's text reveals that the Hardin's simple bilateral argument is neither simple nor bilateral. In addition to the small rich population and larger poor population, there is an even larger "middle class" in no danger of starving or overrunning the rich. This grain-eating, bike-riding populace has a very small ecological footprint as opposed to the car-driving resource guzzling upper class of the world. This third self-sustaining demographic changes the dynamic of the argument, and by ignoring them, Hardin is able to bring people to believe there are only us, and the poor trying to survive off of us.

But Hardin is not just guilty of leaving three billion people out of his argument, he ignores our overconsumption to point fingers at the rapidly multiplying poor who can't sustain their own population growth. But according to Durning the problem of overconsumption by the wealthier is a "problem unmatched in severity by anything but perhaps population growth" (Durning 471). Being as we ourselves are the source of a huge, stinking pile, it seems that Hardin would have mentioned it, but I guess it's easier to refuse aid to the poor with a clothespin securely on your nose. Hardin points out that proponents for the food bank idea use "emergency" or "crisis" (480) when talking about the food shortage relief program. "But what is an emergency?" Hardin asks dismissively? By exposing others use of this rhetoric trying to rush valid aid to the starving masses, and presenting it as a less than credible reason, Hardin shows off his true colors without the help of an outside text. Ignoring the fact that the lifeboat is one huge "crisis" ploy, he hypocritically criticizes other people's attempt to do the same. He also purposely characterizes the poor in an attempt to make them less of a candidate for aid. Lacking "either the wisdom or the competence" (480) to predict and prepare for emergency's, theses poor countries seem to have it coming to them. After all, if not from experience, you can learn from examples that are pretty universal, such as Joseph and Pharaoh. Still trying to connect to his American audience, Hardin points out that a "well-run family, company, organization or country" (480) sees the possibility of emergencies a mile away. If they can expect, budget, and save for them, why should the plight of others who have had the same opportunity be a source of valid concern? Hardin then characterizes his opposition's "kindhearted" response, "How can we blame the poor people who are caught in an emergency?" (480) To this seemingly devastating attack on his argument he replies," The concept of blame is simply not relevant here" (480). The concept seems to be very relevant when he is blaming the state of those who seek aid on preventable mismanagement. By not learning the famine and death induced lesson, the "poor will not learn to mend their ways" (480) and will continue to take without thought of return. Because Hardin presents this stream of aid as flowing from us to their grasping hands, we sit in our chairs and weigh and judge for ourselves whether or not their worthy to continue receiving our aid. Drunk on unadulterated Hardin, readers might not realize the arrogance of this viewpoint. Joseph Skinner bring the much needed reality check to the table with his text "Asking How Much is Enough" , in which he addresses our using other countries resources to support our "short term profitability" ( Skinner 501). A far cry from the picture Hardin paints, Skinner points out that we are sapping other countries resources at no benefit to their general population. Knowing this, Hardin's argument about the "commons principle" becomes ironically flawed. In speaking of the judicious self- control which these poorer countries are obviously bereft of, Hardin uses the example of a grazing field. Hardin warns, "If a pasture becomes a commons open to all, the right of each to use it may not be matched by a corresponding responsibility to protect it (478). This is certainly the case in South America where miles of rainforests are leveled every year to graze cattle for the high demands of beef industries supplying such countries such as the US. The method of raising these cattle is not at all efficient by American standards, and a few years of this leaves the land well nigh useless. The hostility in foreign nations fostered by these and other sorts of practices is also addressed by Hardin. Ignoring the fact we often use other nation like Kleenex, he points out that "international charity frequently inspires mistrust and antagonism rather than gratitude" (481). I can't imagine why. Because Hardin is committed to propagating his side of an argument regardless of actual facts or his implications, his article becomes a dangerous piece of propaganda if left unrefuted. Since he has to convince this relatively philanthropic populace to bide their time while people die, he first acknowledges their sense of conscience, then subtly turns us against those we have the ability and obligation to help. His tendency to prey on ignorance and irrational fear brings the American public further away from the true situation of a world they already see through rose-colored glass. By reminding us we are all "descendants of thieves" and we cannot "remake the past" (484) he ends on a fittingly disparaging and crude point. One of the reasons I love America is the fact we have ethics that will not allow people to starve. And to trade them for those a lifeboat to satisfy ignorant indifference is not acceptable.