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.

Prospective Theories of Education Reform

In Defense of Elitism by William A. Henry III, and The Banking Concept of Education by Paulo Freire, present two different and quite radical propositions for altering the course of educations as we know it. Freire, a Brazilian professor whose writing have stirred up debates in the academic community, brings to the table the idea that the method used to teach today is intrinsically flawed and passes on a distorted view of reality to pupils. His proposed solution starts with the resolution of the "teacher-student contradiction" (343), a problem with the very nature of all of current tutelage. In his ideal model, which would minimize the authority of teachers and set curricula, there would exist a "teacher-student" and a"student-teacher" (348) both involved in a mutual give-receive process of learning. Anything short of this would lead to "banking", students storing but not experiencing and digesting the facts learned. Henry, however, entertains no such weakening of the current student teacher relationship. If anything he is a strong proponent for strengthening it. The education system, according to Henry, is suffering from its recent trend toward catering to students learning wants, adapting new "hip" curricula, and generally lowering the bar for higher education admittance. Henry's solution, although not as ground-breaking as Freire's, would be almost as hard to implement without popular outcry. Henry suggests, in addition to raising the standard for college admittance, that we should restrict the number of people going to college by a fairly drastic amount. I believe Henrys argument for change to be superior because of the type of change he is promoting. Unlike Freire's self proclaimed "revolutionary futurity"(351) movement which will leave standards and authority chains in shambles,Henry's proposed solution will strengthen our weakening system and usher in a return to true higher education.

Freire has a problem with what he calls education's "fundamentally narrative character" (342). He argues reality is ever-changing, and that any attempt to quantify and present it as teachable material will sterilizeand detach it from things that would make it otherwise significant. The task of learning, in this case, becomes simply an action of storing and filing the information that is "deposited" by the instructor. Another fundamental part of his argument is his difficulty in having teachers take such an authoritarian function in the classroom. "The teacher confuses the authority of knowledge with his or her own professional authority, which she and he sets in opposition to the freedom of the students" (344). This misused authority, he then argues, is used to further expedite the student population's incorporation into a programmed, permissive society.

Henrys problem with the current education system is its fall from former greatness. By "truckling trendily" (210) in response to shifting student requests, colleges are phasing out classic requirements in favor ofchoices that would "reflect and affirm their own [student] identities"(210). Swayed by the sheer number of unprepared and incapable students,even prestigious universities are giving way to "pusillanimity" (210) and dropping work quality and quantity requirements. The underlying, uniquely American ideal of equal opportunity for all, he says, is mostly to blame."Ultimately, it is the yearning to believe that anyone can be brought up to college level that has brought colleges down to everyone's level" (211).

Freire's solution involves sweeping changes to current policy as well as established mentalities. Unlike the banking system, which treats students as "objects of assistance" (351), in Freire's system "no one teaches another, nor is anyone self-taught" (348). This would cause considerable friction, for to "exchange the role of depositor, prescriber, domesticator, for the role of student among students would be to undermine the power of oppression and serve the cause of liberation" (345). This "liberation education" (348) does not consist of transmitting information, but rather an "osmosis" of information from the world to student and teacher alike. Should any conflict occur over the content of absorption, the "solution is not to 'integrate' them into the structure of oppression, but to transform that structure so they can become 'beings for themselves'"(345). Obviously as the summarizer I'm taking certain liberties in interpreting his proposal. But if you think I'm biasing it too much, read the Commies book for yourself dick.

Henry recognizes the way to keep institutes of higher learning from being bullied by this rising solipsistic mindset is to decrease the level of dependence on student patronage. Not surprisingly, his plan calls for the reduction of people allowed to attend college out of high school from the current sixty percent to a more meager thirty-three. Schools that have lower academic achievement and already serve the "academically marginal"(211) would be made into vocational or community colleges. This would allow for the reinstatement of a more Platonic academic system into the remaining colleges, which would serve the more fit few, as well as "diverting academic also-rans out of the academic track and on to the vocational one"(209).

Although there are many intricacies in this issue, the views and propositions of these two men boil down to one thing- there view of human nature. While this at first may seem an inappropriate oversimplification, it is not, asshole. Freire believes, incorrectly, that if people were freed from the"submersion of consciousness" brought on by the banking system (349), people would, with contact of the "real world", "feel increasingly challenged and obliged to respond to that challenge" (349). The docility and lack of motivation in students is not inherent, but the result of an oppressive system that suffocated the natural ambition and curiosity of mankind.

Henry's position is less accommodating to the human ego. He recognizes accurately that the masses of academia don't exist because of a"love of learning and a prevalent yen for self-improvement" (210), as some would like to believe. As a home-schooled student, I was a close as you could get to being "out of the system", and had there not been someone there to dictate, order, cajole, punish and threaten, I would have accomplished nothing. The student-teacher conflict exists for the same reason the parent-child conflict does. Growth. If a twelve year old child is walking around in diapers and breast-feeding, is it not the fault of the parent? Perhaps a little prodding from someone more developed would have staved off this lack of growth. In the same manner teachers hold the responsibility for developing the minds of their students. Taking away there right to authority and giving the students major say in program content would be akin to informing parents that they have to abide by the same rules. Cake for breakfast anyone?In speaking about classroom learning, Freire writes, "In this process, arguments based 'authority' are no longer valid; in order to function, authority must be on the side of freedom, not against it" (348). Henry's proposal is superior to Freire's because Freire is fundamentally wrong. Freedom does not equate to lawlessness. For freedom to exist you must have order, and order necessitates authority. Without it, you could no more run a classroom than a household or a country.

Downside of non-scientific leaders

Any politician’s primary concern is re-election. It’s their career at stake. Obviously they’ll be interested in what people want from the government. Of late, people feel the government should be doing a lot of different things, such as providing jobs, protecting citizens, boosting the economy, and preserving the environment. Because a senator answers directly to the people, it’s his job to “get things done” in Washington. They try in many different ways to do this, one of these ways being new science. Senators pride themselves on being forward-thinking people who support technology for the aforementioned reasons. But how do senators support science?

Scientific research needs funding. Even breakthrough technology is often not immediately profitable to the research facility. Because of this, scientists look to the government to give them grants or subsidies their research. They usually bring these requests to a senate committee. Now, being relatively non-scientific individuals, senators must rely on the scientist to tell them how their technology will accomplish these certain goals. As a result, government money often goes to science that will make new industries to provide jobs. It can not only enrich lives, but save them too. In any war, the more technologically advanced side not only wins, but also suffers fewer casualties. The prodigious spending that accompanies the military budget is evidence that the senators don’t wish to be left behind in these areas. In the fine line between supporting industries and protecting the environment, senators again reach for science. For example, cars, plants, appliances all have benefited from technology, and leave a less significant impact on Mother Nature.

The drawback of senators, and non-scientific people in general, is that they often want technology to do things that are not feasible. The electric car is a good example. Physically speaking, it will never be efficient enough to work. However, it such a good idea! Let’s dump more money on research! Also, they have a hard time forking over the money to research that will not “perform”. That an atto-second pulse can be made and harnessed is fantastic news to a micro manufacturing facility. But I doubt if it would even raise a senator’s eyebrow…